JRE Buzz: Non-Endorsements Edition
Our former presidential hopeful was out to talk about a new anti-poverty initiative, Half In Ten. But what kinds of conversations do you think transpired on those shows? Poverty issues?
(Picture via NPR website, taken at the Mother of the Year awards which honored 4 women, Elizabeth Edwards among them, Thursday)
No BW readers, the media was not interested in the least about John Edwards' leadership on a new anti-poverty initiative, just as they frickin' weren't when he was campaigning for the nomination. They were busy with the usual crappola of ignoring issues, instead focusing on the campaigns of the two remaining Democratic candidates.
Watch this first video from the Today Show with Matt Lauer (courtesy of NCDem via YT)
It's good to see to see John, but look how long it took (on the 5:47 minute interview) to get to the real policy issue: poverty. It happened at the 4:36 mark. So, talking for poverty for less than one minute, as Lauer jumped back to trying to catch Edwards in who was more equipped to handle the issue of poverty for the last 20 seconds, well, to borrow part of a quote from the Chimpmaster, "You're doing a heck of a job, Matt."
Guess it was better than nothing, and it created buzz. Sounds like after that interview, John Edwards was a little better prepared for what was coming on Morning Joe, except they still played the gotcha game:
Granted, not all of the interview was on that YT, but again, it's more about the remaining candidates? Some folks at Brand X thought he said he voted for "him" on Tuesday, but in listening to that video, I heard "em", not him. And JRE validated this fact to USA Today's Susan Page (h/t to a personal friend in an e-mail)
What happened to the poverty initiative leadership? Almost nada.
Lastly, JRE was on NPR this afternoon. I took a few notes from it.
First, is that Michelle Norris did start off the interview about poverty and how it would be possible to cut the poverty rate in half in 10 years when JRE wanted to end it in 30. Fair question.
JRE responded that we have learned a lot from the original war on poverty, and that he stood by trying to cutting it down.
"What is required is sustained leadership and a sustained effort by the American people to address it again with the lessons that we've learned," Edwards said.
Steps such as raising the minimum wage, expanding the earned income tax credit and offering child care to low-income families would lift millions of people out of poverty, Edwards said.
Norris asked how we can alleviate poverty when we don't have a good economy, and JRE said that too much of this Administration's efforts have been making the wealthy more wealthy (so to speak) and taking away from the middle class. If we give a hand up to the working poor, using some of the ideas put forth, we can grow the middle class, which will make our economy stronger again.
But then, within a couple of minutes or less, it got back to the endorsement issue. Oh sister. JRE was astute about saying that his endorsement didn't matter, but more important, staying out of it gave him an opportunity to push all the politicians about issues that mattered to him, such as poverty.
Here's the link if you wish to listen (and comment in the comments section) to the NPR interview, plus it gives a summary.
What is not included is the story about Macklin Blair, 21 yo from Eastern KY and who met JRE. He is one of the working poor, and as much as he doesn't like to admit it, he's having trouble making ends meet, and has considered working in the mines since mining pays well for dangerous work. Yet, he knows strip mining of the mountains is bad for the environment in more ways than one, but that poor people often have to work those type of jobs, even if they make more problems.
That made me sad. Blair was talking about the issues. Why aren't the media listening to a regular citizen wanting to talk about real issues, not which candidate has more money or will be endorsed?
Lastly, you all may have heard that JRE and EE are in People magazine this week. Here's a link to the excerpt; full-blown article is on the Newstands. But again, it focuses on endorsements. I'm not clear if that's what Elizabeth and John really wanted to discuss.
Highlights from the Anti-Poverty Initiative, formed from coalitions, since the M$M (nor Brand X, MyDD, etc) won't report this great piece of potential for buzz:
The United States should set a national goal of cutting poverty in half over the next 10 years. A strategy to cut poverty in half should be guided by four principles:
* Promote Decent Work. People should work and work should pay enough to ensure that workers and their families can avoid poverty, meet basic needs, and save for the future.
* Provide Opportunity for All. Children should grow up in conditions that maximize their opportunities for success; adults should have opportunities throughout their lives to connect to work, get more education, live in a good neighborhood, and move up in the workforce.
* Ensure Economic Security. Americans should not fall into poverty when they cannot work or work is unavailable, unstable, or pays so little that they cannot make ends meet.
* Help People Build Wealth. All Americans should have the opportunity to build assets that allow them to weather periods of flux and volatility, and to have the resources that may be essential to advancement and upward mobility.
We recommend 12 key steps to cut poverty in half:
1. Raise and index the minimum wage to half the average hourly wage. At $5.15, the federal minimum wage is at its lowest level in real terms since 1956. The federal minimum wage was once 50 percent of the average wage but is now 30 percent of that wage. Congress should restore the minimum wage to 50 percent of the average wage, about $8.40 an hour in 2006. Doing so would help nearly 5 million poor workers and nearly 10 million other low-income workers.
2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. As an earnings supplement for low-income working families, the EITC raises incomes and helps families build assets. The Child Tax Credit provides a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child, but provides no help to the poorest families. We recommend tripling the EITC for childless workers and expanding help to larger working families. We recommend making the Child Tax Credit available to all low- and moderate-income families. Doing so would move as many as 5 million people out of poverty.
3. Promote unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers signs cards authorizing union representation and establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights. The increased union representation made possible by the Act would lead to better jobs and less poverty for American workers.
4. Guarantee child care assistance to low-income families and promote early education for all. We propose that the federal and state governments guarantee child care help to families with incomes below about $40,000 a year, with expanded tax help to higher-earning families. At the same time, states should be encouraged to improve the quality of early education and broaden access for all children. Our child care expansion would raise employment among low-income parents and help nearly 3 million parents and children escape poverty.
5. Create 2 million new “opportunity” housing vouchers, and promote equitable development in and around central cities. Nearly 8 million Americans live in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty where at least 40 percent of residents are poor. Our nation should seek to end concentrated poverty and economic segregation, and promote regional equity and inner-city revitalization. We propose that over the next 10 years the federal government fund 2 million new “opportunity vouchers” designed to help people live in opportunity-rich areas. Any new affordable housing should be in communities with employment opportunities and high-quality public services, or in gentrifying communities. These housing policies should be part of a broader effort to pursue equitable development strategies in regional and local planning efforts, including efforts to improve schools, create affordable housing, assure physical security, and enhance neighborhood amenities.
6. Connect disadvantaged and disconnected youth with school and work. About 1.7 million poor youth ages 16 to 24 were out of school and out of work in 2005. We recommend that the federal government restore Youth Opportunity Grants to help the most disadvantaged communities and expand funding for effective and promising youth programs—with the goal of reaching 600,000 poor disadvantaged youth through these efforts. We propose a new Upward Pathway program to offer low-income youth opportunities to participate in service and training in fields that are in high-demand and provide needed public services.
7. Simplify and expand Pell Grants and make higher education accessible to residents of each state. Low-income youth are much less likely to attend college than their higher income peers, even among those of comparable abilities. Pell Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students. We propose to simplify the Pell grant application process, gradually raise Pell Grants to reach 70 percent of the average costs of attending a four-year public institution, and encourage institutions to do more to raise student completion rates. As the federal government does its part, states should develop strategies to make postsecondary education affordable for all residents, following promising models already underway in a number of states.
8. Help former prisoners find stable employment and reintegrate into their communities. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. We urge all states to develop comprehensive reentry services aimed at reintegrating former prisoners into their communities with full-time, consistent employment.
9. Ensure equity for low-wage workers in the Unemployment Insurance system. Only about 35 percent of the unemployed, and a smaller share of unemployed low-wage workers, receive unemployment insurance benefits. We recommend that states (with federal help) reform “monetary eligibility” rules that screen out low-wage workers, broaden eligibility for part-time workers and workers who have lost employment as a result of compelling family circumstances, and allow unemployed workers to use periods of unemployment as a time to upgrade their skills and qualifications.
10. Modernize means-tested benefits programs to develop a coordinated system that helps workers and families. A well-functioning safety net should help people get into or return to work and ensure a decent level of living for those who cannot work or are temporarily between jobs. Our current system fails to do so. We recommend that governments at all levels simplify and improve benefits access for working families and improve services to individuals with disabilities. The Food Stamp Program should be strengthened to improve benefits, eligibility, and access. And the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program should be reformed to shift its focus from cutting caseloads to helping needy families find sustainable employment.
11. Reduce the high costs of being poor and increase access to financial services. Despite having less income, lower-income families often pay more than middle and high-income families for the same consumer products. We recommend that the federal and state governments should address the foreclosure crisis through expanded mortgage assistance programs and by new federal legislation to curb unscrupulous practices. And we propose that the federal government establish a $50 million Financial Fairness Innovation Fund to support state efforts to broaden access to mainstream goods and financial services in predominantly low-income communities.
12. Expand and simplify the Saver’s Credit to encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement. For many families, saving for purposes such as education, a home, or a small business is key to making economic progress. We propose that the federal “Saver’s Credit” be reformed to make it fully refundable. This Credit should also be broadened to apply to other appropriate savings vehicles intended to foster asset accumulation, with consideration given to including individual development accounts, children’s saving accounts, and college savings plans.
Our recommendations would cut poverty in half. The Urban Institute, which modeled the implementation of one set of our recommendations, estimates that four of our steps would reduce poverty by 26 percent, bringing us more than halfway toward our goal. Among their findings:
* Taken together, our minimum wage, EITC, child credit, and child care recommendations would reduce poverty by 26 percent. This would mean 9.4 million fewer people in poverty and a national poverty rate of 9.1 percent—the lowest in recorded U.S. history.
* The racial poverty gap would be narrowed: White poverty would fall from 8.7 percent to 7 percent. Poverty among African Americans would fall from 21.4 percent to 15.6 percent. Hispanic poverty would fall from 21.4 percent to 12.9 percent and poverty for all others would fall from 12.7 percent to 10.3 percent.
* Child poverty and extreme poverty would both fall: Child poverty would drop by 41 percent. The number of people in extreme poverty would fall by 2.4 million.
* Millions of low- and moderate-income families would benefit. Almost half of the benefits of our proposal would help low- and moderate-income families.
That these recommendations would reduce poverty by more than one quarter is powerful evidence that a 50 percent reduction can be reached within a decade.
The combined cost of our principal recommendations is in the range of $90 billion a year—a significant cost but one that could be readily funded through a fairer tax system. An additional $90 billion in annual spending would represent about 0.8 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, which is a fraction of the money spent on tax changes that benefited primarily the wealthy in recent years. Consider that:
* The current annual costs of the tax cuts enacted by Congress in 2001 and 2003 are in the range of $400 billion a year.
* In 2008 alone the value of the tax cuts to households with incomes exceeding $200,000 a year is projected to be $100 billion.
Our recommendations could be fully paid for simply by bringing better balance to the federal tax system and recouping part of what has been lost by the excessive tax cuts of recent years. We recognize that serious action has serious costs, but the challenge before the nation is not that we cannot afford to act; rather, it is that we must decide to act.
The Next Steps
In 2009, we will have a new president and a new Congress. Across the nation, there is a yearning for a shared national commitment to build a better, fairer, more prosperous country, with opportunity for all. In communities across the nation, policymakers, business people, people of faith, and concerned citizens are coming together. Our commitment to the common good compels us to move forward.
But back to my rant...and why I blog here most of the time or at the EENR blog is...
I agree with John as I don't care about his and Elizabeth's endorsements. While Brand X'ers have been trashing both of them for not endorsing and with the interviews of late, Brand X'ers know they do matter. But I'm with John and Elizabeth: let the process play out.
And let's get to work on pushing more for better health care access and cutting poverty in half in the next decade. Go here to read more about Half in Ten.
More buzz l8tr..., especially about the issues...since the Media creates poverty for issues.
cross-posted from EENR blog.