Warning!! New Jim Crow Era—Section 5 Still Needed

By Wiha Powell

For over a century, the constitutional right to vote, particularly for Blacks has been under attack. Blacks, ex-slaves and slaves alike, were not considered e citizens of the U.S. and not allowed to vote. However, ratification of the 14^th Amendment in 1868 redefined citizenship as “individuals born or naturalized in the United States are American citizens.” The 15^th Amendment guaranteed voting rights to every citizen stating that, “the U.S. government is prohibited from denying a citizen the right to vote

http://www.core-online.org

based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. As a result, Blacks were allowed to vote, but faced obstacles. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banished these obstacles by outlawing all discriminatory voting practices that would otherwise be responsible for widespread disenfranchisement of voters.

Recently, the Supreme Court heard arguments to dismantle the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in particular to remove Section 5, which requires states (mostly Southern States) to receive preclearance from the Justice Department for any changes to districting or voting procedures. The argument from the attorneys who seek to strike down Section 5 are that racial discrimination no longer exists. The argument itself is very compelling but reality suggest otherwise. Voter disenfranchisement still remains a prominent problem in states and communities that fall under Section 5.

The question remains, why are our political leaders creating a series of bureaucratic obstacles that make it difficult for citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote. The operative word is “citizen,” which is clearly defined by the 14^th Amendment.  It seems as though being a citizen in this country, especially a minority citizen, no longer guarantees you can exercise your right to vote since some of our leaders are using dirty tricks to take away this right or to make voting inconvenient. These are the same dirty tricks used in the Jim Crow era to deny people their basic voting rights because of skin color. Currently, a new Jim Crow era is upon us.

Voting rights are no longer taken away because of the color of one’s skin, but is taken away by new voter ID laws that limit early voting, restrict registration drives, impose onerous residency requirements and dismantle Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. These voter ID laws have become the main source of voter disfranchisement in the US, where some political leaders are introducing strict voter ID laws as strategies to influence the outcome of an election. These laws often most adversely affect the votes of poor, elderly, minorities and young people.

http://www.ncsl.org

According to the National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL) since 2001, nearly 1,000 Voter ID bills were introduced in a total of 46 states and 24 of these states passed major legislation between 2003-2012. Moreover, as of April 10, 2013, 30 states have introduced Voter ID legislation, which includes 12 states proposing new Voter ID legislation, seven states proposing to strengthen existing ID laws and 11 states making other changes to existing ID laws.

It is clear the very Act the Supreme Court is trying to dismantle is still needed in 2013 to protect minorities against voter disfranchisement. This was made clear in 2006 when Congress voted unanimously to extend Section 5 for the fourth time based on data from communities that are covered under Section 5. Now is not the time for the Court to dismantle or change one of the most effective law on the books. It is now time for the federal government to step up and protect minorities against these discriminatory voting practices. Section 5 is far from being outdated. Rather, since we are seeing the emergence of the new Jim Crow era, this section may be needed more than ever in the coming decades.

Voting Rights—The Fight

By Wiha Powell

http://www.usm.edu

In the 1860s, thanks to Congress, former slaves became citizens of the United States, which allowed them to have due process rights, equal protection, and a federally protected right to vote. Under the 15^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1870, the U.S. government is prohibited from denying a citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. However, blacks were not allowed to vote until efforts were made some 94 years later by the 1964 campaign called Mississippi Freedom Summer. In this campaign, Mississippi civil rights workers like James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner risked their lives registering black voters. They ultimately gave their lives for such a right.

One year later, on Sunday March 7, 1965, which became known as Bloody Sunday, 600 nonviolent protesters set out to march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama with a call for voting rights for Blacks. These peaceful protesters didn’t even leave Selma before they were met and brutally beaten by police officers.

On March 15, President Lyndon Johnson convened a joint session of Congress to address the voting crisis and to demand a very specific response to the issue of every American citizen having an equal right to vote regardless race or color. This resulted in the proposal and the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Act authorized voting rights for black people and banned any test or hurdle that hindered black people from voting.  Under

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com

Section 5, it also places extra guards in certain states (mostly Southern states) that historically did not uphold integration-related, forcing them to do so. Special scrutiny was put in place for these problem states. These states were no longer allowed to change voting ID requirements, close polling places, change voting dates or change the registration procedures – all tactics that had been adopted in the past to prevent minority voting. Under the Act, the states would require prior Justice Department approval. The Section 5 provisions were set to expire in five years. However, in 1970 Congress extended these provisions for another five years. They were then extended in 1975 for seven years; in 1982 for another 25 years; and in 2006, under President Bush, Congress voted unanimously to extend these provisions for another 25 years.

Almost 50 years after Bloody Sunday and President Johnson’s speech to Congress, voting rights for minorities are once again under attack. On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over dismantling the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in particular getting rid of Section 5. The main argument from proponents of this move are whether states with long-standing history of racial discrimination must still gain permission from the Justice Department before changing their voting laws. Upon hearing the arguments, Justice Scalia gave his personal assertion on the 2006 congressional unanimous vote. He stated that the shift to near-unanimous support was “very likely attributable to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He further went on to say “I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity…unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution…It’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.”

http://a.abcnews.com

Clearly, Justice Scalia needs to reread the Constitution because Section 2 of the 15^th Amendment states that, “the Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”. Therefore, the decision to uphold Section 5 of the Voting rights Act does in fact rest with Congress because they have the authority to protect the voting rights of the American people.  However, regardless of the constitutionality of the Act, there are some states, 150 years later, that are still trying to pass laws that would deny voting rights to the very people the Act protects.

The right to vote is not a racial entitlement nor was it a gift from the government. The Act was enacted to enforce our constitutional rights, a right that was completely ignored by Confederate states for almost 100 years. It took Congress that long to make those promises a reality. The pillar of citizenship enacted in the 1860s applies to all, no matter your color, race or creed, which is the total opposite from a special entitlement.

Immigration Reform!! Part 1

By Wiha Powell

blogs.suntimes.com

The long awaited cries for immigration reform have finally been heard. For the first time in many years, it appears that comprehensive immigration reform has a real chance of passing through Congress. Over the past few weeks both the President and a bipartisan Senate group, consisting of eight senators has put forth their proposed framework for immigration reform. The two proposals are very similar, outlining a set of proposals that would reform the U.S. immigration law and aim to be just, compassionate and comprehensive.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Center, there are 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States as of March 2011. This number is unchanged from the previous two years. From July 1, 2010-June 30, 2011, the average size of the resident non-immigrant population is an estimated 1.9 million, which includes students, temporary workers as well as diplomats and their families, according the U.S Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that in 2011, there were 24.4 million foreign-born persons in the U.S. labor force.

If the reform proposal being put forward by the President and Senate group were to pass, it would provide a path to citizenship for

21border.com

11.1 million immigrants (both adults and children) who current live in the U.S. The reform would make it easier for foreign citizens earning an advanced degree in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, or mathematics) programs to get visas and green cards upon graduating or on securing employment, and allow them to stay in the country.

The President’s proposal, which mimics the DREAM Act, would give expedited citizenship to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US by their parents, who are in college or have served in the military for at least two years. Currently, many of these immigrants already have work permits to work in the U.S., as a result of President Obama’s deferred action program enacted June 2012. On the other hand, the Senate group’s framework, which is also similar to that of the President but differs in that it does not specify if immigrants in college or in the military would be provided a path to citizenship. Moreover, it is also unclear what a students’ path to citizen would entail under the Obama’s deferred action program. However, both proposals do require that undocumented immigrants pay fines and back taxes, pass a background check and wait a longer time for a green card and citizenship than a legal immigrant.

There is need for immigration reform. Even though, for many Americans immigration either is an issue or a political hot button topic. However, it should be neither. Immigration is about individuals, families, faces you see everyday at work, school, grocery stores, the people you pass by in the street. Immigration is about the Dreamers, who want the chance to attend college to pursue their dreams; it is about the undocumented immigrants, who want to live the American dream. Immigration is about you and me. Currently, immigration reform is in our reach. The time is now for Congress to act and these proposals are much needed to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Think of Progression

By Wiha Powell

The New Year started rocky – trying to recover economically, almost falling off a fiscal cliff and tackling the nation’s debt ceiling. Yet, as a nation we shall overcome. In lightening the dampened mood, there was another historical moment, President Barack Obama, the first African American president, was once again inaugurated for a second term.

http://assets.nydailynews.com

In his second inaugural speech the President, a defender of the American people, gave us hope of equality, fairness and social justice. However, this does not speak to the shift in the political dynamics of Capitol Hill. Rather, it only proves that post-partisanship is a ghost of the past that will never be resurrected and that the division between parties may be deeper. This fuels our uncertainty of what will or can be accomplished in the next four years.

However, leaving behind a “do-nothing” Congress, there is this hopefulness of the American people that the 113^th Congress has a non-partisan agenda moving forward. Furthermore, thinking of progress and advancement and not waiting to see what the 113^th Congress has in store, the President made clear that now is the time to act, which is his agenda in order to get things done in his second term.

“For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act; we must act knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.”

Creating a vision of goals for the American people to embrace, the President is attempting to setup a clear path in order to move

http://mssprojectsanalytics.com

forward on a number of issues. Furthermore, as our leaders, it is their duty and responsibility to resolve these issues in an amicable way that is beneficial to both the welfare of the nation and people.

Therefore, moving forward, let us include the following on the agenda: adding a public option to Obamacare. A much needed avocation for major immigration reform, where our leaders agree on a national resolution and realize the full potential of the Dreamers and not deny the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who want to pledge allegiance to the flag. Such a reform will grow our technology and manufacturing sectors as well as bring new taxpayers into the system. Furthermore, the opportunity is there for the President and 113^th Congress, in order to strengthen our classroom by taking politics out of the education system and recommitting to the traditional public education, so we can once again compete in a global market.

Now is not the time for tax cuts for the wealthy few and the deregulation of programs that are in place for the welfare of the American people. America today is a progressive country; therefore, we as a nation need to think as such. The path for the nation’s progress is not invisible. We as a nation need to set sail together on the course to go after the jugular and grab it.

“Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates…but it does require us to act in our time.”- President Obama

Farewell to the Embarrassment – The 112th Congress

Farewell to the 112th Congress. Leaving Washington with their heads hung low, they are considered to be the worst Congress in US history since record keeping began; passing only 219 bills, 40 of which pertain to the renaming of post offices and other public buildings, 6 dealt with commemorative coins and more than 30 bills for the repealing of the Affordable Care Act. Compared to the 110th and 111th Congress, who passed 383 and 460 bills respectfully; the 112th Congress is the least productive and the most polarized Congress in US history, who spent the least amount of time passing meaningful bills and more time disappointing the American people.

In the nation’s current economic turmoil, Congress’ job is to pass as many meaningful bills as possible to aid in fixing the problem. However, the 112th Congress role was ‘do-nothing’, while turning a deaf ear to the cries of the American people, the 112th Congress worked to block bills such as the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and cut programs that are beneficial. Instead, the 112th Congress worked hard on preventing tax increases for the very wealthy and filibustered or blocked any bills introduced by the Obama Administration.

It is evident that the 112th Congress is active player in the sluggish recovery of the US economy because of its inability to comprise or work together with the Obama Administration. In spring 2011, the 112th Congress came closer to a near government shutdown, which for the first time in US history resulted in the Standard and Poor’s downgrade of the US credit rating and almost breeching the debt ceiling, which could have led to a possible global catastrophe and resulted in setbacks to the nation’s recovery. Due to the reckless governance of the 112th Congress, the American people gave them an approval rating of 10%, according to the latest Gallup poll.

Closing out 2012 with high levels of unproductiveness, the 112th Congress welcomed 2013 with a looming fiscal cliff over their heads. Within the final minutes before almost going over the fiscal cliff, which could have lead to another global economic and financial crisis, the hopelessly divided Congress was able to come together to pass a partial fiscal-cliff fix; yet again speaking to Congress’ inability to work together, rise above partisanship and personal gain.

The 112th Congress is an embarrassment and has brought great dishonor to our nation’s Capitol. They were broken and unproductive causing the American people to lose confidence in the nation’s leaders. However, with the 113th Congress about to be sworn into office, there is yet again hope for the American people. The upcoming Congress should note that being polarized is not the solution, but putting aside party affiliations and personal gain in order to work together for the recovery and prosperity of the nation, which should be the ultimate goal. This is what the American people are hoping and praying for and not another embarrassment.

Images courtesy of http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/03/us-usa-congress-idUSBRE90203V20130103 and http://www.wilsoncenter.org/program/congress-project.

What is the Real Definition of “Middle-Class?”

For the past four years and especially during the last presidential election, both President Obama and his running mate, Governor Romney, spoke about rebuilding the middle-class. In speaking on their respective plans to rebuild the middle-class, they each gave their definition. However, the numbers used by both Obama and Romney to define the middle-class may be too far-fetched from reality.

According to the President and his running mate, the definition adopted to define the middle-class is households with an income of $200,000 to $250,000 as the cut-off limit. This was noted on at least two occasions. During the election campaign President Obama proposed to the keep the Bush tax cuts for middle-class household earning less than $250,000, while in an ABC interview Governor Romney defined the middle-class as households where the “middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.”

Clearly, neither campaign had bothered to completely read U.S Census Bureau’s annual report, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011.” It seems that the candidates only paid attention to the number of people without health insurance and the number of people living below the poverty threshold. However, there are many interesting parts to this report, such as the level and distribution of income in 2011, which basically gives the numbers that goes to the heart of the debate on the “middle-class” and the “rich.”

What is the real definition of the middle-class? Is there a definition that is without any fuzzy labels or loose political speeches that has ballooned to give the illusion that it pertains to just about everyone? Politically speaking, numbers define the middle-class; however, there is no real world definition outside the political realm. So, how do our political leaders come up with the concept of $250,000 being the appropriate cut-off for the middle-class and where does it originate?

According to the U.S. Census report, Selected Income Percentile (Table A-2), the 2011 household median income is $50,054. The household income of $101,582, according to the table, is the top 20 percent (or 80^th percentile limit), $143,611 is in the top 10 percent (or 90^th percentile), and $186,000 is in the top 5 percent (or 95^th percentile). The table does not include household income within the range of $200,000-$250,000, but it can be inferred from the table that such household income would fall somewhere between the top 3 or 2 percent of all household income, which can be considered to be within the 97^th or 98^th percentile. Furthermore, according to the report the two lowest quartile has a household income of $20,262 or less ($12,000 being 90 percent or 10^th percentile and $20,262 being 20^th percentile, which is 80 percent of all household income).

Based on the empirical evidence from the U.S. Census Bureau, it is problematic and tricky to understand how our political leaders or anyone can conjure up $250,000 as being middle-income. The only logical reasoning can be that our political leaders love to use words, phrases and definition that are skewed to paint an image for the American people to believe. Therefore, the misleading use and definition of the middle class can only seek to hide the current inequality of the American class structure and income.

Based on our political leaders’ definition of the middle-class, it is clear that their minds are clouded with mental pictures of only the rich. However, in the real world where the median income is $50,054 and less than 10 percent of the U.S. population makes more than $150,000, making between $200,000-$250,000 would automatically put you at the top of the pyramid. Thus, this definition of the middle-class has proven to be dishonest and absurd, which only goes to show the American people how isolated and disconnected our political leaders are from the people and reality.

Image courtesy of http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/which-candidate-has-the-best-middle-class-jobs-plan/263870/.

State Supreme Court Judges for Sale

The majority of Americans think that corporate contributions only apply to presidential, senate or congressional elections.  However, one of the biggest upsets concerning corporate contributions involves an election that rarely receives attention — the election for judgeships.

Since the 1990s, corporations have tightened their grip on the electoral process of judges for state supreme courts. According to an August 2012 report by the Center for American Progress, money fueled by corporate interests and lobbyists has exploded in the last two decades. The report further stated that in 1990 candidates for state supreme courts only raised around $3 million, but by the mid-1990s, campaigns were raking in more than five times that amount. The 2000 race saw state Supreme Court candidates raise more than $45 million. Furthermore, since corporate finances have such an influence on the electoral process, it even drew the attention of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has now become a powerful player in the process, where in the years 2001 to 2003, the judicial candidates that were preferred by the Chamber won 21 out of 24 elections.

Such numbers have grown even bigger over the years; however, the exact stats maybe incomplete because judicial campaigns are not heavily regulated, which makes it very difficult in identifying the source of contributions. Even though these contributions have heavily influenced the judiciary election, which came about before the 2010 decision of Citizens United, the decision of not limiting individual and corporate contributions made the matter even worse. As a result, a great sadness and shame has come over our judicial system.

The US judicial system is a place where the American people seek justice; however, it is currently interpreting the laws to satisfy the concerns of or to benefit that of its big corporate contributors, which now leaves individuals without money to receive an unfair or bias hearing in state courts. According to a recent poll by the Center for American Progress, 89% of respondents “believe the influence of campaign contributions on judges’ ruling is a problem.”

Upon taking office, a judge’s oath according to 28 USC § 453 is to “administer justice without respect to persons, and to equal rights to the poor and to the rich, and that they will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties as required under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.” Therefore, there should be a sense of equality for everyone under the eyes of the law; however, this principle and oath is becoming more futile by every passing judicial election. 

This explosion of money in the judicial election has led to many Americans’ distrust of the system. However, this is one problem that has a straightforward solution. A solution where each state should adopt the ‘Missouri Plan’, a nonpartisan selection of judges in which the appropriate commission reviews the applications of lawyers who wish to become judges. Then the top three finalists are submitted to the governor who will conduct interviews and make the final decision. A simple fix, yet far from the U.S. reality, which is now governed by big corporations.

It has always been the belief of the American people that corporations and special interest groups should not be allowed to shape laws for their personal gain; however, such belief has become a moot point. Being that approximately 95% of cases in America are heard in state courts, and the judicial philosophy of ‘everyone is equal under the eyes of the law’ is no longer because state courts have now come under siege by corporate money, and this has brought about a great amount of doubt in the minds of the American people regarding their chances of getting a fair trial.

In the words of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote upon her retirement, “When you enter one of these courtrooms, the last thing you want to worry about is whether the judge is more accountable to a campaign contributor or an ideological group than to the law.” Therefore it is clear, we should be worried.

Images courtesy of http://judiciallearningcenter.org/state-courts-vs-federal-courts/and http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/tempjudgeinfo.shtml.

The Role of Government

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.” –President Obama

The role of government in the United States has expanded dramatically over the years and has taken on vast new roles such as government funded pension plan, government-provided heath care and a host of other programs that include and promote a welfare state. The 18^th century Scottish moral philosopher, Adam Smith, agreed that the government has grown beyond the bounds of simple duties. In his 1776 book entitled An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, he outlined the three important roles of government, which are national defense, administration of justice (law and order), and the provision of certain public goods (e.g., transportation infrastructure).

In this new era of modern government, the traditional argument between the liberal and conservatives over the role of government has continued: conservatives believe in limited government, free market and individual liberty; while liberals believe in governmental actions to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. However, both sides can agree that since the dawn of the republic (birth of the US) the government has played a vital role in the economic growth of the US such as promoting industrial development in the 18^th century, transportation in the 19^th century, communication in the 20^th century and biotechnology in the 21^st century.

While the nation is in disagreement over the role of government, some would agree that the expansion of government is based on the growth of necessity of the American people that has led to the redistribution of wealth, instilling stability and the regulation of the market. However, there are many individuals who also believe as Smith did, that government should have limited roles, which seems unrealistic in the 21^st century. These individuals are calling for the eradication of governmental services such as unemployment benefits, social security or job creation because they believe that the government needs to be small. In layman’s terms they do not want the government to help with the economy growth of the US.

Even though it is unlikely to limit the role of the government in the 21^st century, the government still stands by its traditional and essential role laid out by Smith, which has proven to be beneficial to society. Apart from the three traditional roles, modern government also performs additional roles such as aggregating funds to spend on public service and safety, and holding and distributing funds for social insurance services, unemployment, education, etc. Therefore, those who would argue for smaller government seem to ignore its true role, which is to protect and contribute to the welfare of the state.

Being that we live in an era that is constantly changing, our government will constantly change or even get bigger, but its fundament role to the citizens of this great country will never change. The government will constantly be developing because the needs of the Americans people are constantly changing and increasing and that calls for the implementation of programs, which works more than they fail. The America in 1776 during the signing of the Declaration of Independence is not the America we know today. Therefore, we need to devote our energy to optimizing America for the future and stop try to live in the past.

Photo courtesy of http://www.pbs.org/programs/american-flag/.

Ignoring the Poor

“The politicians will remain stuck on the middle class, because poor people for the most part don’t vote in their mind. And second, both are tied to Wall Street, and Wall Street has a classic indifference when it comes to most poor people. We Americans should be ashamed when we look at the level of poverty among our fellow citizens … But poverty has always been high in America …. That means not that we’ve lost our soul that means we want to able to do something about it but our political system is so broken that the will of the people cannot filter through. It’s dominated by big money, big banks and big corporations who have their way…”–Cornel West.

With the 2012 presidential election now days away, candidates have only briefly touched on the number of Americans on food stamps and those out of work. The subject of poverty has yet to rear its head during the presidential debates or on the campaign trails.

According to a 2012 report by the US Census Bureau, the nation’s official poverty rate for 2011 was 15.0%, estimating that 46.2

ivarfjeld.wordpress.com

million Americans live in poverty, which has no statistical difference from 2010 following a three consecutive year increase. Furthermore, the percentage of families in poverty is 11.8%, an estimated 9.5 million families; 6.2% of married-couple families, 31.2% families with female householders and 16.1% of families with a male householder are living in poverty.

According to an eye-opening study by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), with such an alarming poverty rate being reported by the US Census Bureau, the issue of poverty has been an invisible subject to the US media in their coverage of the 2012 election. Furthermore, the study found that poverty has barely registered as a campaign issue. Only 17 out of the 10,489 campaign stories considered the problem of poverty in any remotely substantial way.

This conscious decision by the US media and presidential candidates to ignore the problem of poverty has come at a critical moment when more and more Americans are moving towards the poverty threshold or already below it. It is unclear why politicians ignore or fail to discuss an issue that is affecting millions of Americans. However, if politicians were to discuss such an issue it would receive a great deal of attention and perhaps be bombarded with the accusation of class warfare.

Moreover, there is a great perception among politicians that the poor do not vote in large numbers. However, according to a recent Gallup poll 50% of people below the poverty threshold are registered as Independents, 32% Democrats and 15% Republicans. It is further perceived that the poor give little or no contribution to campaigns or the super PACs, leaving the voice of the poor as a mere murmur, while our politicians focus on more ‘important’ factors such as votes and media ratings or hits.

usdailyreview.com

The concern over poverty in this great nation seems to be a nonexistent political issue in this upcoming election. It is as if people with no resources or food security are overlooked by a country that seems to have other priorities.

Furthermore, neither candidate has attempted to make poverty even a minor issue on their campaign trail. Such stands by our leaders demote millions of struggling Americans to mere invisibility.

In this election where the economy and foreign policy are among the most important issues, despite concerning facts by the Brooking Institute who predicted approximately 10 million people and 6 million children being forced into poverty by 2014. Our leaders must show concern that the US has more people in poverty than any other developed nation.

What can be done you ask?

Nothing, unless our leaders decide to at least address an issue that concerns us all.

——————-

Other reports: Brookings Institute – Simulating the Effect of the ‘Great Recession’ on Poverty

The Looming Pension Crisis

By Wiha Powell

In this current economic downturn, the US has been slowly squeezing states’ budgets dry causing almost every state to make some sort of cut to their pension fund for public employees. This issue, coupled with the growing number of Baby Boomers retiring in the upcoming years, the puts the topic of pension benefits at the forefront. According to the Pew Research Center, in fiscal year 2010 the gap between states’ assets and their obligations for public sector retirement benefits (pension and healthcare) was $1.38 trillion, up nearly 9 percent from fiscal year 2009. The total public pension liability in 2010 was about $3.07 trillion, assets of $2.31 trillion, leaving a $757 billion gap in the public pension promises. The Center further went on by stating that far too many states have not responsibly managed the cost of retirement benefits, effectively running up the prices for taxpayers. 

Since the 2008 recession, states’ revenues have been slowly recovering, which has resulted in disappointing funding levels and the depletion of pension assets. Currently, states are using the excuse of the existing economic conditions to reform traditional pension plans, by convincing our leaders that past pension plans are unmaintainable, whereby rolling back pension benefits for teachers, police, firefighters and other public employees. According to the Wall Street Journal and the Boston College Center for Retirement Research, new laws have trimmed $100 billion off the $900 billion gap between what states and workers put in to their retirement plan and what states currently owe.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), states do have enough cash to cover short-term pension benefits. However, this coverage will not last for a long period of time without some contribution from taxpayers and employees, which has lead to deep cuts in some cases. Moreover, the NCSL stated that since 2009, 44 states have enacted major pension reform, which was meant to address the long-term funding issues of states public pension plan. One such state is New York, who implemented SB 6735 on March 2012, which is a new pension plan that mostly affects new employees. SB 6735 implemented a new contribution schedule that is based on employees compensation, a new retirement age of 63, mandated a 5-year final average salary (FAS) calculation using regular compensation for determining retirement benefits and excludes from the FAS calculation wages exceeding the average of the previous four years by more than 10% for teachers and other state employees.

The pension crisis did not only occur from states refusal to make the necessary annual contribution to their pension fund, it also stems from state officials willingness to promise lucrative pension benefits to workers upon employment. However, it appears that states are unaware that they are largely responsible for the current pension crisis. As states revenue plummeted, they felt the need to avoid their annual pension contributions, resulting in a billion-dollar black hole. This underfunding has triggered the reduction of many retirement benefits for more than 19 million public employees and has also resulted in some local governments filing for bankruptcy.

Currently, states are trying to fix this crisis by cutting benefits, but it is clear that cutting the benefits of public workers is not the solution because the problem is not the benefits, but the different repayment schedules states have implemented. Therefore, the best way to fix the deteriorating public pension system is to “turn back the hands of time” that would allow lawmakers to roll back years of mistakes and mismanagement that have lead to a public pension system that is billions of dollars in the hole. However, since going back in time is not an option, millions of public workers’ retirement benefits along with the future wealth of the public pension system will remain in great uncertainty.

Images courtesy of http://boston.com/community/blogs/rock_the_schoolhouse/2011/11/ andhttp://www.sundialtime.com/kids.asp.