Hip Hip Hurray!

Keroack is out.

I just did my feminist happy dance.

Truth

It is the working people
of this country
who pay
the price
of foreign wars -
in blood and in taxes.

An Economic Primer

Myth # 1 (of 4)

It's election season, and immigration "reform" and raising the minimum wage are two topics that continue to grace the headlines. Likewise, the same, tired arguments are also circulating. Welfare, poverty, and the foreign-born all get rolled-up into some sort of Republican talking-point orgy. In fact, I have recently heard a great deal of discussion regarding the economic drain the undocumented immigrant population is to the US economy: those vile, dirty, law breakers who come to this country and apply for all sorts of government handouts they don't deserve. Why, the masses question, should our hard-earned tax dollars go to support those people? Welfare entitlements are, after all, perverse incentives to have more babies, leave stable unemployment, and remain single. While the most recent rhetoric implicates undocumented immigrants as those responsible for the growing welfare rolls, the larger questions surrounding government means-tested programs have been around since the the inception of said programs.
The attitudes that fuel public opinion about welfare are well-grounded in statistical information and amplified by personal observations and experiences. How many, for example, have stood behind a woman in a grocery store who purchases her necessities (potato chips, root beer, cheese) with food stamps? How many welfare moms appear to have never gone hungry? Isn't it that most of them are really lazy, and in the process of successfully bestowing their many children with this and other less-desirable character flaws? Those who seek to disband welfare programs believe not only that welfare is wasteful, but that it has unsuccessfully addressed poverty in the United States. It has become, they would argue, too large, too lavish, and too attractive.

Frankly, I am tired of this recurrent theme. To that end, I present:

The Myth of the Out of Control Welfare State

The picture of an overgrown welfare state is usually based on statistical information highlighting the amount of money the government spends annually on social welfare programs. What the government calls social welfare expenditures grew from $24 billion in 1950 to nearly $1 trillion in the beginning of the 1990's (US Census Bureau). This amount of money is considered by most to be an accurate measure of the numbers of people who "live off the system." The more the government spends on social welfare programs, the more people are being dragged into the welfare safety net, or so some reason. These numbers are also considered to be indicative of the failure of America's self-proclaimed "war on poverty." After all, if we are spending so much money on the poor, why has poverty remained such a persistent problem in this country?

The answer to this question lies, in part, in what is meant by social welfare expenditures. The term social welfare expenditures is a huge, encompassing umbrella under which exist several levels. One of these, called social insurance programs, includes such things as Social Security, unemployment insurance, retirement systems for public employees and railroad workers, and workers' compensation for people injured on the job. Government spending for schools also falls into the social welfare expenditures category. Combined with the social insurance programs, these two categories alone accounted for nearly 75 percent of all "welfare" spending in 1992.

How much of the $1 trillion is left for the poor then? According to the 1990 Congressional Budget Office's Special Analysis of the Budget, less than 10 percent of the annual welfare budget is earmarked for low-income persons. This is what the government calls "public aid" and includes, among others, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the food stamp and Medicaid programs, and the Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) program for low-income people who are aged, disabled, or blind.

The question of why poverty persists despite apparently enormous welfare expenditures can be answered not only by understanding more clearly how much (or little) of welfare actually goes to the poor, but also by examining how poverty is defined. The government decides who is poor and who isn't based upon a 1950s US Department of Agriculture estimate of the costs of a minimally adequate food budget. The cost of this basic subsistence diet, a so-called thrifty food plan, was then multiplied by three, because surveys at the time indicated that the poor spent approximately one-third of their income on food. Later, the USDA "stressed that the cost of this plan is not a reasonable measure of basic money needs for a good diet." The plan also assumes that "families will bake bread daily and cook all their food from scratch, never buy fast food or eat out, use dried beans and no canned food, be experts in nutrition and have a working refrigerator, freezer, and stove, among other things." The poverty line was $3000 for a family of four in 1964. In 2005, a family of four is considered officially poor if their annual income is $19,874 or less. Anyone reading this knows that you can't raise a family on a gross income of $1650/month.

Since its establishment, the government has not adjusted the poverty level to reflect the changing dynamics of spending patterns. It simply takes the previous year's figure and adjusts for inflation. However, because of the rising costs of other necessities such as child care, transportation, and health care, it is unrealistic to assume that poor families still spend one-third of their budget on food. Several studies have shown that the official poverty level is less than two-thirds of what is necessary to buy those goods and services which the federal government defines as essential to the maintenance of adequate nutrition, housing, safety and health. The official poverty rate in 2004 was one in seven.

In essence, then, the amount of money that the United States government spends on entitlement programs is grossly over-estimated. In 1993, for example, AFDC spending consumed only 0.35 percent of the gross domestic product (Twentieth Century Fund, 1996). At the same time, the numbers of poor people in America are grossly under-estimated by the official standard. This said, it should be recognized that most poor people do not receive welfare. Only one-third of poor families receive public assistance payments and only about 40 percent receive any non -cash benefits such as food stamps, free or reduced school lunches, public housing or Medicaid. One-fourth of families that are poor by the official standard do not receive any public assistance of any kind, cash or non-cash.

To be continued.

It is Sunday, After All

When The President Talks To God by Bright Eyes

When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long
Does he ask to rape our women’s' rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto's broke
No, they're lazy, George, I say we don't
Just give 'em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That's what God recommends

When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God

When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bullshit
When the president talks to God?

I doubt it

I doubt it

We've Failed Them

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately." ~ Zogby, February 28, 2006

We can not spread the democracy that we do not have.

Action Required

This is Andrew Anthos, described by his local newspaper as "a private, gentle man whose twin passions to support military veterans and public transportation earned him a reputation for community service." Here is a beautiful newspaper article, from 2002, that describes his community activism. Here is an archived NPR piece where you can hear him talk about his passion.

He is dead.

He died Friday from a beating, inflicted upon him with a metal pipe, because he was gay.

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force has put out a press release:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

A 72-year-old Detroit man who was attacked Feb. 13 and left paralyzed from
the neck down died today in what his family is calling a hate crime.

Andrew Anthos, who was known in Michigan for his long time campaign to
illuminate the dome of the state capitol for one night each year in red, white
and blue lights, was on a city bus when a man reportedly approached him and
asked him if he was gay. The man continued to harass Anthos, followed him off
the bus at the stop in front of his building and then viciously beat Anthos with
a metal pipe, striking him from behind. Anthos, who family members said was gay,
was in a coma in the days immediately preceding his death.

Statement by Matt Foreman,
Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

"The hatred and loathing that led to the vicious murder of Andrew Anthos
only because he was gay is not innate. Instead it is being taught every day by
leaders of the so-called Christian right and their political allies who use
their vast resources, media networks and affiliated pulpits to blame lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender people for all the ills of society. They disguise
their bigotry as 'deeply-held religious beliefs. 'They cloak themselves in 'family values.'

"For years, Michigan has been subjected to the homophobic rants of Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, while so many otherwise good and decent people have been silent. Just two years ago, the state endured an ugly campaign, led by Cardinal Adam Maida, to 'protect marriage' by writing anti-gay discrimination into its constitution. Based on that amendment, a three-judge panel of Michigan's court of appeals voted last month to terminate medical insurance coverage for families of LGBT government workers throughout the state.

"It is appalling hypocrisy for these forces to pretend that their venomous words and organizing have no connection to the plague of hate violence against gay people, including the murder of Mr. Anthos.

"Our hearts and sympathies go out to the members of Mr. Anthos' family and to our colleagues at the Triangle Foundation who have been at his bedside and with his family for the last two weeks. As a small token of the condolences of our national community feels, we will be covering funeral costs."

Please go HERE to sign a petition, sponsored by Human Rights Campaign, in support of federal hate crimes legislation. Under the current federal hate crimes statute, federal authorities have no jurisdiction to assist in this investigation, even if local authorities were to request that assistance. It’s past time for a comprehensive federal hate crimes bill and we cannot stand by and let one more person go unprotected.

And if you live in Michigan, PLEASE contact your legislators and express your outrage that Michigan, unlike 20 other U.S. States, does not consider attacking people for being gay to be worthy of inclusion in its hate crimes statute.

We MUST do more to stop this senseless violence.

Read Blue's post here.

(Thanks to NG Blog for the press release.)

If I were a math major...

It's that time in the quarter again.

Postings here may be lighter than usual as I frantically try to finish up all the papers and projects that are coming due.

I'll post and visit as I'm able.

xoxoxo

For Friday: A Song

Jaime Green is one of my new favorites.


These are the lyrics to "What's Happening Here?"


Teacher Teacher
did you not behave
Did you teach the children war is not ok?
Why you packing up your stuff?
Did they ship you out to shut you up?
Whats Happening Here?

Soldier, Soldier did you lose a limb?
To fight a war based on a rich man's whim?
Where are all your benefits?
Did they fund the tax cuts for the rich?
Whats happening here?

Chorus

Dont you know you gotta
Rise Up
Seek the truth
Shout out loud
Whats happenin here?

Whats happening here

Dont you know you gotta
Shine a light on what you know is right
Right here
Right now
And say it clear
Whats happening here?
Whats happening here?

Halliburton why you always there?
Reaping profits where there's nothing but despair
From the Middle East to New Orleans
Tell me, is there no end to your greed?
Whats happing here?

So tell me why aren't we out in the streets?
Demanding our commander be impeached?
For the sinisternes in his plans
The blood of thousands on his hands
Whats happening here?

Devastation
Desperation
Allegations
DIS-information
Manipulation
Intimidation
Interegations
Incarcerations

Indignation will be our saving grace...

You can hear Jaime's music here.

We will be greeted as...

...the arrogant, imperialist, creators of terrorists that we are.

A few days ago, Hill had an absolutely amazing post about journalists.

She asked, "Where have the reporters gone?"

I found some. They're right here.

Bang

That's the sound of the doors of justice slamming shut.

On Valentine's Day...

Click this link to see HRC's slide show.

Books are Good for You!

This is a picture of my all-time favorite bookstore, taken by me this past December, when I spent four, yes four, whole hours, browsing through the aisles.

I felt rushed.

Apparently everyone is raving about this place, but it's been my favorite spot to spend a Portland afternoon since I was in grade school. And I'm not that old, but we're talking at least a couple of decades. I first started picking musty tomes of classic literature off the shelves long before puberty, before I knew how to drive, before I had money to buy my own books.

And this was way before internet sales launched Powells.com into worldwide acclaim.

My dad used to take my brother and me there, and give strict instructions that I was not to leave the "room" I'd chosen, because, unlike corporate warehouse booksellers, Powell's has actual rooms for you to visit. It's very much like having one large bookstore divided into several smaller ones.

At the bookstore, you can thumb through new and used books sitting side by side on the shelves. On my last trip, I picked up a previously loved copy of John Dicker's The United States of Wal*Mart for $4.98.

I didn't think that anything could have made me love this independent bookstore anymore.

And then its workers started to organize a union. That was in 1998.

Things got messy during the campaign, and the workers fought for months to be recognized as a collective bargaining unit. They fought for even longer to negotiate a contract.

During those months, I boycotted my beloved bookstore and encouraged everyone I knew to do the same. I wrote letters, signed petitions, and made fliers. I even led picketing workers in solidarity chants, encouraging them not to give up.

The campaign slogan became:

"No decision about us without us," Which I consider a rallying cry applicable to lots of other situations, including the crisis in our country.

The Powell's workers won their contract and are now represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 5.

Now, this is the best part:

If you buy through this link, 10% of your purchase goes right to the workers .

Independent bookstore? Union shop? Kickback to the workers?

Sounds like the perfect opportunity to update your "favorites" link list.

Marriage = Love

Today is National Freedom To Marry Day, set aside in 1999 as a day of advocacy in support of the right of same-sex couples to be legally wed. This blog strongly supports the expansion of ALL civil rights to America's citizens, regardless of sexual identity or orientation.

Without the legal sanction of marriage, same sex couples:

• lose any potential income tax benefits that apply to married partners.
• experience increased difficulty adopting children. In fact, some states still forbid the practice.
• are frequently denied employment benefits such as heath or life insurance for their partners.
• do not receive Social Security benefits upon the death of the partner, benefits to which the surviving partner in a heterosexual couple is eligible.
• do not enjoy the legal right of survivorship. For people without wills, state law provides that property moves directly to the spouse. In same-sex partnerships, when one person dies, his or her relatives can demand all of the deceased partner's assets. Even wills can be challenged under a legal loophole called "undue influence."
• do not automatically have decision-making rights when partners are seriously ill and unable to make decisions for themselves.

Granting the legal right to marry, and thus affording specific privileges so some groups and not others has been used as a form of social control in this country for long enough.

Want to do something? Sign the petition here.

Happy Birthday, Baby!

My baby sister turned 22 today.

She may be married and all grown up,

but there's a part of her that will

always be this age in my heart.

Shrub to America: "F You."

What a way to start the morning:

"A report released yesterday by the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office (CB) shows that the real troop increase associated
with President Bush’s escalation policy could be as high as 48,000, more than double the 21,500 soldiers that Bush has claimed. Moreover, despite administration assertions that the escalation would cost $5.6 billion, the CBO report estimates that "costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment." The new facts about escalation come just as Congress is set to receive a long-delayed National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, the first such document from the U.S. intelligence community since 2002. According to the Washington Post, the NIE "outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there
is a strong possibility of further deterioration."

Combat units being sent to Iraq need to be backed up by "substantial support forces, including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services.” According to the CBO, while the Pentagon has specified the number of combat troops being deployed as part of the escalation, it has "not yet indicated which support units will be deployed along with the added combat forces, or how many additional troops will be involved." The CBO’s low estimate envisions at least 15,000 additionalsupport personnel. The alternative scenario “would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops.”

New estimates of the cost of escalation come on top of the $379 billion that Congress has already appropriated for the Iraq war. Yesterday, the Bush administration announced it will request an additional $100 billion "to cover war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year," about $80 billion of which will be spent on Iraq. "That would come on top of $70 billion Congress already approved for the wars this year." For 2008, the administration will ask for an amount "larger than the $100 billion in the fiscal 2007 request," Reuters reports."

Read the rest at ThinkProgress.

48,000 more of our young people who could very well survive the horrors of war, return home, and end up like this.

Remembering Molly

1944 - 2007

"The United States of America is still run by its citizens.

The government works for us.

Rank imperialism and warmongering are not American traditions or values.

We do not need to dominate the world.

We want and need to work with other nations.

We want to find solutions other than killing people.

Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood."

Words of hope from one hell of an American.

Join the Virtual March

Couldn't make it to DC last Saturday? As the fine folks over at MyDD say, "There is more than one way to march on Washington. MoveOn.org is sponsoring a virtual march on Washington on February 1st...This march will be made in the form of phone calls, emails and faxes, to send one million direct contacts to member of Congress to stop the escalation...everyone can take part in this march. If, for one day, no one in Congress received any other messages from constituents except a call to stop Bush's escalation in Iraq, we can be louder and clearer than any mass rally."

There is absolutely no reason not to call. Click the picture. Sign up. Make your voice heard.

Dear Congress,

Stop playing politics with working families. A two dollar raise might not mean anything to you, but since poor people spend every last penny of their paychecks on survival, that extra $16/day is a big deal. Don't believe me? I dare you to live on $206/week. For one week. Just one. And that's not a salary wage. So if you decide to call in sick, or late, or busy, or bored, you only get credit for the time that you're actually working. Which means that many of you are stuck with $123.60. Before deductions. Enjoy.

Guest Blogging Alert: On Symantics

I just had to swipe this off my honey's myspace page!

"What Webster says:

Insurgent: a person who rises in forcible opposition to authority.

Terrorist: a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence.

Rebel: a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country.

All three look pretty similar, almost interchangeable. So why are the Iraqis who are "resisting" the American occupation of their country called insurgents or terrorists and not rebels? Has anybody heard anything about the Iraqi Rebellion?

Now let's go one step further:

Webster says:

Revolutionist: a radical supporter of political or social change.

Sounds like a dead-on description of an Islamic Terrorist/Insurgent, but why are they not referred to as Revolutionist? Why is this not the Iraqi Revolution?"

Urgent: Hugs Needed

My dear friend, Kara, author of the brilliant,

honest blog My Thinking Spot,

is going though a very difficult time right now.

Please, go over to her place immediately

and wish her, Will, and Bebe well.

Let's show her all the love and support

our electronic community can muster.