Leave poverty to the libertarians

So the socialist rag, the New York Times, had an op-ed today on how to solve poverty by a man who don’t understand it at all. So, next on my agenda I’m going to create the pill for men. I think it would be awesome to have so naturally that makes me qualified to do it, right? Oh, not the logic we’re using. My bad.

Alright, so one Gary MacDougal (adviser to former Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar), starts by talking about the VP debate coming up tonight. He points out poverty will more than likely continue being ignored through the campaign cycle.

Then he lays out some Cato Institute figures. For those of you unfamiliar with Cato, congratulations. Cato believes it is a libertarian research group, but libertarians don’t exist in nature. They are just conservatives who recognize how crazy the rest of their party is getting. So what is the figure?

“Each year, American taxpayers spend nearly $1 trillion trying to help the poor, according to a recent study by the Cato Institute. It’s easy to miss that headline number, though, because the money flows into and out of scores of federal, state and local government programs. In April, Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at Cato, a libertarian research group, compiled a list of 126 federal programs for low-income Americans, which together spend $668 billion of taxpayers money annually. State and local governments allocate an additional $284 billion, he estimated.”

So you see wasteful government spending on 126 different programs. So you’re asking yourself where is this guy going? Bad big government or the need for centralized non-state run programs.
Next MacDougal points out some of these programs help those who are “more than just ‘the poor.’” He never bothers to define the poor though, which is poor writing for the NYTs. He does define who doesn’t cut though, those who benefit from Medicaid for the elderly and disabled also Pell grants for young people in college. He acknowledges that some of us (you can’t see it by I’m pointing at myself) see the Pell grants as attempts to allow low-income young people to go to college.

Finally, he asks his question, “Are we spending this money in truly the best way to help the poor?”

And provides a thought experiment: “Consider a thought experiment: Divide $1 trillion by 46 million and you get around $21,700 for each American in poverty, or nearly $87,000 for a family of four. That’s almost four times the $23,050 per year (the federal poverty line for a family, he doesn’t note, but that is a family of three 1 adult and 2 children). It’s intriguing to think about converting all of this to a cash payment that would instantly lift everyone in poverty up to the middle class.”

Ok, so you follow that, cash payments directly to poor people to lift them out of poverty. Except, he’s not advocating that because it wouldn’t be logistically or politically ok. I actually like that plan. Here, MacDougal advocates Ryan’s Medicaid plan, which I’m pretty sure includes systematic execution of old people, jk, and Clinton welfare reforms. Because the Clinton reforms were good so positive?

Ok, Dems, cover your ears. These reforms lightened the welfare rolls, they didn’t lift people out of poverty. They also introduced a group of people who were dropped from the rolls and still lacked employment. So poverty got worse, TANF recipients were pushed into low wage employment, and the limit results in people receiving no cash assistance. And I’m back.

He cites a Institute for Education Leadership study that identifies 7 Senate committees and subcommittees, 11 House committees and subcommittees, 7 cabinet departments, and 8 other agencies that oversee some aspects of anti-poverty programs. The study claims a typical family is eligible for 20 separate programs, which each has their own rules. MacDougal argues that some fragmentation is necessary, we’re too fragmented. And because of this poor people don’t receive assistance…not backed up with evidence though which is problematic for a generalization like that. It is probably true that people aren’t helped, but a little evidence would be nice, like former welfare recipients who no longer qualify for cash. Though most people who do not receive benefits lack knowledge about the programs themselves not the edibility requirements. MacDougal is arguing for one centralized program to deal with all aspects of need.

Then he starts on advocates. You see we don’t want to do this because we are greedy and power hungry.

Finally he calls for outcome measurements vs. input measurements. I don’t think he actually wants these. We have these at my job, and they show we’re not helping people enough. There isn’t enough money even in Maryland that reluctantly enforces the federal time limit. Also, one of my colleagues is studying the wages of welfare to work, and it is bad. Real bad. Like not making enough to live on and still requires assistance they no longer qualify for bad.

MacDougal says, “Our effectiveness should be assessed, in part, by the per-person cost of moving individuals from dependency to self-sufficiency.”

Maryland and Minnesota are the only states that monitor and assess their welfare programs. More states should do it, but I doubt he’s going to get the results that he’s angling for. It disturbs me MacDougal wrote a book on poverty, though on Amazon there is only one review so there is that. I feel like I’ve been having this argument over and over since Romney and Ryan decided to push the poor are lazy gimmick again. The poor are not dependent because they want to be. They are dependent because the system is broken. And I’m not just talking about the “welfare system” but all social and institutional structures that keep women and people of color in poverty. I wish there was a quick fix, but there isn’t unless we’re going to give the $87k to each family, which by the way is probably an inflated number, but I don’t have time to check the Cato Institute’s findings today. After all I <3 and="and" biden="biden" i="i" joe="joe" must="must" p="p" watch.="watch.">

Walmart, still sucking hardcore

Walmart employees have expanded their protests on Tuesday to include 28 stores in 12 states. This is an effort to put pressure on the retailer as consumer season approaches. 

An article by SteveGreenhouse includes statements by Dan Schlademan, director of Making Change at Walmart campaign, who noted that 200 employees traveled to Walmart’s headquarters in Bentonville Arkansas for a protest on Wednesday for the corporation’s annual meeting.

Schlademan said that Walmart employees, joined by labor unions and community groups may stage a combined protest and educational campaign the Friday after Thanksgiving (Black Friday).

Walmart is claiming that these work stoppages aren’t in fact strikes, but publicity stunts performed by a tiny portion of their employees. 

One protestor said, “We’re protesting because we want better working conditions and better wages and because we want them to stop retaliating against associates who exercise their right to talk about what’s going on in their stores.”

David Tovar, a Walmart spokesman, said the protests are not affecting the stores, “All 4,000 of our stores in the U.S. are open. We staffed adequately to serve our customers and, as always, we’re focused on meeting our customers’ needs.”

Schlademan said Walmart employees walked off the job in Dallas, Seattle, Miami, Sacramento, Orlando, Chicago, and the DC area. Tuesday’s actions were sponsored by OUR Walmart (Organization United for Respect at Walmart), which is composed of several thousand Walmart employees and is affiliated with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.  According to Schlademan, “These leaders of OUR Walmart have engaged in a strike to protest Walmart’s retaliation and send a message to Walmart and their co-workers that they have the right to speak out. The idea that this is just a publicity stunt is inaccurate.”

The purpose of these events are to increase wages, stop cutting workers’ hours, and better the treatment of workers. However, Tovar claims, “We have some of the best jobs in retail. Our full-time average wage is $12.54 an hour, which is $5 above the federal minimum wage.” He also noted that the company turnover was lower than the national average. Tovar also claims these workers on strike are not representative of Walmart’s 1.4 million employees. I’d like to know the median wage of the workers, but I’m sure it is much lower. Also, this figure more than likely includes management’s wages. 

Tovar also said, “It’s no secret that the unions want to organize our associates. These protests are union-led and union-funded by unions that are trying to further their own political and financial agenda.” Probably, about low wages and worker treatment, but ok all unions are solely PACs according to this dude. 

This is impressive already. My fingers are crossed that this will gain some momentum and some real change will come from it.

Why is affirmative action up for debate?

You know what we never discuss enough, how hard white people have it. I mean seriously, to quote Jack Donaghy, “I’ll tell you has it the hardest: White men. We make the unpopular, difficult decisions-the tough choices…” I hope that ends up on the MittorJack tumblr. I did send it to the rockstar who does that site. Of course, this narrows the focus to white men, and really this post is about to be able white privilege in general and affirmative action. The Huffington Post had an article about this a few days ago by Mark Sherman.

The Supreme Court ruled that colleges and universities can use race in their quest for diverse students, but now the justices want another go at this, presumably because Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired. The high court heard arguments on Wednesday to weigh whether to limit or rule out taking race into account in college admissions.

The justices get another chance because they are looking at the University of Texas program used to filled the last quarter of the incoming freshman class. Race is one of many factors considered. A white Texan, Abigail Fisher, sued the university in 2008 after she was denied a spot. [Is this a thing? Can we sue places that reject us? I’m looking at you Literary Journals. It is so on.]

So as mentioned, Sandra Day O’Connor retired, and she wrote the opinion in the 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. Her successor, Justice Samuel Alito is skeptical of the use of racial preference. Also, Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of those who dissented in the 2003 decision, will probably hold the deciding vote because the justices all vote party line now. [What a joke.] Kennedy has never voted in favor of racial preference.

Smells like trouble for affirmative action.

The challenge to the Texas plan comes because the university has produced significant diversity by offering ¾ of its spots to graduates in the top 10% of their Texas high schools, which was part of a law put in place by then-Governor George W. Bush. Now that was changed to only the top 8% gain automatic admissions.

More than 8 in 10 African American and Latino students who enrolled at the flagship campus in Austin were automatically admitted, according to university stats. Even among the remainder, both side claim the use of race is modest.

African American and Hispanic students make up more than ¼ of the incoming freshman class. White students make up less than half with Asian and other minority groups making up the remainder.
According to Richard Kahlenburg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation who is in favor of class-based affirmative action said, “For decade, the defense of racial preferences was, ‘We’d love to find a way to get diversity without using race, but it’s just not possible. There’s just no other way.’ And Texas found another way.”

The university says the extra measure of diversity from the slots is important or they would just have “token” minority representation. Texas argues race is one of many factors, and it is impossible to say for sure whether race is what sent an applicant’s application over.

So many people, places, and things will be affected by this ruling.

Fisher’s lawyers of Sugar Land, Texas, claim the race-blind method under which the university automatically admits most students is successful. They say Fisher was excluded because of her race, and they point to a handful of students of color who were admitted with lower test scores than hers. [Of course, nothing bias, racist, classist, or sexist about these tests, but I digress.]

Fisher’s lawyers said, “If any state action should respect racial equality, it is university admission.” [Because you know, education has been so fair in the past? With the forced integration, the inequity between wealthy and poor schools, legacies, and tracking.]

The university points out that this is only a part of the picture, that white students with lower test scores than Fisher were also admitted as were students of color with higher test scores. [Could it be? More than test scores determine acceptance.]

The case also raises several side issues including whether affirmative-action programs hurt the students they aim to help. A new book by a law professor, Richard Sanders, and journalist, Stuart Taylor, argues that “large preference often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively, even though these same students could thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools.”

The book, Mismatch, claims students are set up to fail, getting lower grades, and dropping out more often than white students with similar backgrounds. They consulted a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles and used California stats to support their argument. After voters changed California’s constitution to outlaw racial preferences, UCLA saw a decline in enrollment by African American and Hispanic students. However, the number of African American and Latino graduates was unchanged for the 5 classes after the ban when compared to the 5 years before the change in law. I’m interested in getting my hands on this book as well because I’d love to hear how they controlled out race, for this people of similar backgrounds approach. I grew up in a neighborhood that has been affectionately called “the hood”  by kids I grew up with and “the ghetto/projects” by kids in my high school, and while I can empathize with the black and Hispanic men I grew up with, I do not know what it was like to be them. The police never kick my door in, dealers and gangs didn’t recruit white girls even in our neighborhood the way their presences must have been overwhelming for my peers of color. Now, race played a part in my life, sometimes my whiteness was a clear privilege like when I was in school or pulled over by the police as was my gender and the combination at times put me at a power disadvantage. But that is how privilege works sometimes you can leverage it and sometimes you can’t. Sometimes being a woman aids, and sometimes it makes you a target. The same can be said in most situations. However, even when looking at class you have to acknowledge the racial and gendered implications of poverty.

Legal briefs in the Texas case highlight the debate over whether racial preference programs limit the number of students from Asian backgrounds who are disproportionately represented in the student body because of their relative size in the population.

The university claims Asian American enrollment has increased under the policy that is being challenged. The numbers would be even higher if Texas stopped including race as a factor.
Now, I don’t have all the facts of the case, but it sounds to me like the white girl felt slighted, and it is all those people of color fault because they only get things because they don’t deserve them: affirmative action [dun dun dun]. The reality is affirmative action attempts to levels the playing field.

This sounds very similar to Michael Kimmel's Guyland, white men believed women and people of color were stealing their collage spots. However, these men couldn’t explain why they were a. entitled to these spots, and b. they couldn’t understand the women and people of color they were competing with are the best and brightest because you have to be to get that far. Specifically, the white guys were referring to math and science courses/programs, and everyone knows women and black guys are too stupid for those spots [feel the sarcasm], however, when you are told you can’t do something you don’t, so these spots were going to women and people of color who were the best in their fields.

I think we all need to take a step back and remember you are entitled to nothing. Seriously, Romney says people who believe they are entitled to things are a burden on society, with the unspoken exception being the wealthy. However, there is a point to this. You as an individual do not have the right to higher education. Don’t like it? Fight for it. But it seems like the privileged groups still end up ok while those without these privileges seem to be sliding further down the hole with income disparities being the largest in decades. 

Homelessness watch, day 3

I seriously need to get a hobby. Homelessness: Part 3 this week.

Apparently, this is a hot topic right now. The Women’s News Network had a piece on it this morning written by Jessica Buchleitner. She beings her article in San Francisco, California discussing the population size (812,826) and the region. It is pretty. Then we start getting into it. The median income in San Francisco is $71,975, and they have 15,050 homeless people as of the “State of Homelessness in America 2012” report published by the National Alliance to End Homelessness with the Homelessness Research Institute.

Buchleitner then profiles a homeless woman who moved to be with a man turned addicted, turned abuser. He also got her addicted to methamphetamine. The woman spent the next two years on and off the sober wagon and in and out of shelters. She is currently living in San Francisco’s mission district.

The homeless population count in 2011 inside the U.S. is 636,017. Many are trying to survive without homes on the streets and through shelters. The population is decreasing.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2009 said there were 643,067 sheltered and un-sheltered homeless people living in the U.S. 1.56 million people used emergency shelters or transitional housing between October 2008 and September 2009. That is about 1 in every 200 people in the U.S. using a shelter for the homeless at some point during that period.

The fastest growing group of homeless in the U.S. is single women with two or three children; they usually cite IPV as their reasons for being homeless. The second reason is that women are in poverty and the decline of government assistance and lack of affordable housing leaves them homeless.

The 2008 survey from the Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness found that half of homeless women and children have experienced violence. Additionally, 92% of homeless mothers have experienced physical or sexual assault. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, 41% of the entire U.S. homeless population is made up of families. A 2008 report published by the University of Georgia College of Family and Consumer Sciences says, “Homeless families can be found in virtually every American city, living in cars, abandoned buildings, and homeless shelters, among other places…there is substantial concern about rising housing prices and limited wage growth among less-skilled workers has worsened the problem.”

The numbers of homeless can vary because of those who live transitional lives; the article kind of asserts that this is a large percentage, but I’m not so sure, but I have no evidence for this.

The most recent 2011 city audit on the homeless in San Francisco show the following numbers:

•        1,595 homeless units in fiscal year 2003-2004
•        3,741 homeless units in fiscal year 2010-2011
•        5,383 average number of homeless counted 2000-2011
•        $8.1 million amount the city spent on supportive housing program and services in the fiscal year 2003-2004
•        $38.3 million is the amount the city spent on supportive housing program and services in the fiscal year 2010-2011

The number of homeless has dropped in San Francisco, but it is still the place to be for homeless women who are childless or advanced in age. In many cities the lack of affordable housing and long waiting lists for assisted housing contribute to the IPV victims being forced to choose between homelessness and violent situations.

A very specific group of women are not being helped. In San Francisco there are 8 transitional housing resources listed for homeless women by San Francisco’s Human Services Agency—Department of Aging and Adult Services, but only one is set up for women who are not mothers. Sometimes I really hate the way we prioritize ad glorify motherhood. It is great and all, but after reading Promises I Can Keep and a variety of other studies on women I can’t help, but wonder if we all weren’t told our entire lives that women are meant to be mothers, where would we be?

Naturally, I have no solutions here. I’m surprised that this article focused solely on women. It is rare for me to work with homeless women given the locations I’ve traditionally worked in.

Everyone else's homeless problem

Cities respond to deficits threw abuse acted out on the poor. An article on the Huffington Post featured the lengths to which cities would go to raise revenue and cut spending. Shockingly, the poor suffer the brunt. The article outlined on man’s story of facing a ticket for smoking in a public park which ballooned into a $600 fine after he couldn’t pay the $25 fine.

Orange County, like many other cities and counties, has passed ordinances that ban all kinds of things including sleeping in cars, smoking in parks, and leaning bikes against trees. Orange County has a homeless population of 30,000 people. Cities don’t know how to handle homeless populations especially with the shrinking budgets. These new regulations will have little impact on the general population, but the homeless can’t help but feel their effects. These appear to be an attempt to push the homeless from the city limits.

There has been a sharp increase in the number of cities passing ordinances against doing things on public property including sitting, lying, sleeping, standing in a public street, loitering, public urination, jaywalking, and panhandling according to the ED of the National Coalition for the Homeless Neil Donovan.

Donovan also said, “It definitely is more pervasive and it is more adversarial. I think in the past we found examples of it but it’s not simply just growing, but it’s growing in its severity and in its targeted approach to America’s un-housed.” Donovan drew some parallels to the civil rights movement, which kind of makes me uncomfortable.

Denver voted to make urban camping illegal despite protests from homeless activists. Philadelphia banned feedings in public parks (so do some cities in Florida), but the ordinance was put on hold because homeless groups sued the city. Vegas has put a curfew for pets in effect, the pets help their owners beg. The Newport Beach Public Library can now evict people for poor hygiene or a strong aroma. The policy also band lounging on library furniture and limits parking shopping carts, bikes, and other “wheeled conveyances” on the premises. The Library Services Director Cynthia Cowell assures the people that this isn’t aimed at the homeless. No, they’ll evict the college kids who don’t wash their hair.

“They become very clever about it and try to blanket it because they say ‘strong aroma’ could be perfume also, but in the end it’s an attempt to keep people out of where the neighborhood and community folks feel uncomfortable,” says Scott Mather, director of Haven, a program for Orange County’s homeless.

Thankfully, some cities are seeing a legal backlash from homeless advocacy groups who are suing. Sacramento’s homeless were awarded checks of $400 to $750 apiece to settle a class-action lawsuit after the police destroyed property that was seized during cleanup operations. A federal appeals court ruled last month that LA can’t seize property left temporarily unattended on sidewalks by homeless residents.

One thing particularly troubling about the article is the discussions of cities trying to walk the line between the voting public and the possibility of a lawsuit. To be clear, the homeless can’t vote. The cities aren’t concerned at all with the welfare of the homeless just getting them out of the way and avoiding a lawsuit. [Face slap].

Costa Mesa has about 1,200 homeless people of a population of 110,000. Naturally, the residents complain about the homeless in Lions Park, a green space that contains a library, recreation center, and community swimming pool. Some of the complaints are valid such as public masturbation and urinating. It is important to note that while, I’m a homeless sympathizer, some things are inappropriate, but perhaps investing is getting these people help would be a good idea.

Rick Francis, the city’s assistant executive officer says, “We get a lot of complaints from residents who feel like, ‘Hey, here’s a municipal resource that we’re fearful to even use because we don’t want our kids playing in a park where they have to step over homeless people and all their possessions.’ Look, we’re not asking all you guys to eave but we want to be able to come to the park and enjoy it without the blight of stacks and stacks and stacks of property laying around, without the issues of human waste being scattered about, those types of things.” A little clarity on the situation, once again the homeless are considered eye sores to be removed.

Costa Mensa is trying to build more affordable housing with federal grant money and hire a mental health worker to work with the chronically homeless. They are also finding alternatives to store the homeless’ belongings instead of confiscating them. But Costa Mesa also passed the new ordinances including a ban on parking a bike, smoking in parks, and sleeping in parks after dark. The city destroyed a gazebo, costing $60,000 to destroy, and asked the local churches to stop distributing food there; they hired two park rangers to patrol the park. The mayor recently called the soup kitchens nuisances and asked the city to investigate the charities. Stay classy. They city claims they are trying to help those in need, but it looks like they just don’t want homeless people in their city. The high cost of living in Orange County has prevented some homeless people from getting back on their feet. This results in the population traveling from place to place to avoid trouble. I can’t stress how potentially dangerous that is. It is challenging enough trying to help the homeless, let alone try to help them when they have to constantly move to avoid conflicts with the city. Costa Mesa has a shortage of more than 1,000 transitional shelter beds.

Given my previous post about the rise in homeless families and homelessness following the Great Recession, the concept that cities would be purposely sabotaging these populations is disgusting. These cities are pretty much saying, “we don’t want homeless people, they look and smell bad. They make voters uncomfortable.” Well maybe voters and everyone else should be uncomfortable. As a nation, we allow people to live in abject poverty and blame them.

There is new information showing that an effective way to combat poverty is to give money directly to the poor i.e. conditional cash transfer (CCT). Programs such as Mexico’s Oportunidades has reported a 30% reduction in the poverty gap. This is crazy, bananas crazy. Of course in the West we’d have to come to terms with the ingrained belief in the deserving and underserving poor. I think I’m going to write up a post on CCTs after this one.

DC's homeless families problem

The greater DC area still has a homeless problem, shocking I know. However, the types of homeless people has shifted in the last few years, really since the Great Recession (which we’re capitalizing now) from individuals to families. I may have written about this earlier, maybe last year when the numbers were first coming out.

The Washington Post did a write up about the plight of one woman and her children as they interacted with Janice Coe, a homeless advocate in Loudoun County. This might sound a little tongue and cheek or even snarky, but that isn’t how I mean it. Well not entirely. I do find it frustrating that media rarely cares about the homeless, even the homeless families, unless they are involved in some way with conventionally functioning people, but that is not to diminish Coe’s work. Just my overall frustration we let anyone live homeless.

Anyway, Annie Gowen’s article detailed the living situation of the young mother, her 2-year old son, and 2-month old. Coe came across them sleeping in the New Carrollton Metro station (you know where that is); Coe arranged for the family to stay at a Comfort Suites hotel in Virginia. Coe called shelters.

Coe came up blank. No one could take the family. The DC area is one of the most affluent areas in the nation, yet homeless families are on the rise leaving no only adults without a place to sleep, but also young children (before mentioned 2-month old). The fallout from the Great Recession continues and the lack of affordable housing there has been an increase of 18% in family homelessness this year and 23% since the recession began. With the onsite of winter, the situation becomes more dangerous. People will freeze to death if this winter is like last years. 

DC has recently come under fire for turning away families seeking help as 118 overflow beds which were added last winter to DC main family homeless shelter sit empty. A few places have opened up, but more than 500 families are waiting for housing. The director of DC’s Department of Human Services David A Burns said, “We’re hoping we can keep pace with those in the more dire situations.”

Berns is trying to keep the beds open for hypothermia season, which begins November 1^st. DC is mandated by law to shelter its residents if the temperature falls below freezing. Berns also asserts the agency doesn’t have the money to operate he extra beds.  DC Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) is not buying it. He wonders why the beds are vacant when DC has a $140 million budget surplus; saying, “Never did I imagine that beds would be kept vacant. It’s very upsetting.”

The estimate of homeless people has stayed steady around 11,800 according to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, which included some 3,388 children.

Nassim Moshiree, a lawyer for the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless said, “These families are the most desperate because they have young children and have nowhere to go.”

Antonia Fasanelli, executive director for the Homeless Persons Representation Project, a Maryland legal services and advocacy group based in Baltimore said, “It’s a complete abomination. There is just not enough space.” She is referring to the closure of three shelters in Baltimore, which resulted in the loss of 100 beds. Fasaneli noted that 38% of homeless families are living on the streets and that’s the 7^th highest rate of unsheltered families in the county according to the Department of Urban Development study. 

I have no solutions here, which is unfortunate. Well, except service. We could serve the homeless, but attempting to find a group to work with has left me unimpressed in DC. 

And Kristof is back to being just plain wrong. What a relief I was nervous for a second I had crossed over to the dark side.

First Nicholas Kristof begins with an analogy of greedy little kids who don’t like to share because that is wealth redistribution. Ok, I get it, but the image of a little Mittens or Koch brother gives me the creeps. What he eventually gets around to saying is that 1 percent of Americans hoarders the collective worth of the bottom 90 percent. This comes from the Economic Policy Institute.

He then provides some examples:

“The six heirs of Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, own as much wealth as the bottom 100 million Americans.”“In 2010, 93 percent of the gain in national income went to the top 1 percent.”“American’s Gini coefficient, the classic measure of inequality, set a modern record last month—the highest since the Great Depression.”

Kristof then discusses briefly a new book, The Price of Inequality by Joseph Stiglitz, which outlines the problems of inequality.

 Kristof advocates not a redistribution of wealth, which I guess is where we’re supposed to stop thinking about the kids from his analogy earlier. He argues:

“As I see it, the best way to create a more equitable society wouldn’t be Robin Hood-style redistribution, but focus on inner-city and rural education—including early childhood programs—and job training. That approach would expand opportunity, even up the starting line, and chip away at cycles of poverty. If the cost means forcing tycoons to pay modestly higher taxes, so be it. The economy wouldn’t suffer.”

Let’s unpack this using his analogy, greedy children should have to give up marginally more than before, let’s say what I pay in taxes 28% of the hoard, which is then given to the other children in form of “training” which we can assume is a reward system for good behavior instead of just providing it directly to all the kids. The only kids who deserve toys and the like are children who participate and excel in the programs we develop for them…of course this would be provided through non-union teachers because we all know how Kristof loves them.

Ok, so yeah, I hate bad and false analogies, but if you’re going to use one make sure it holds up. My argument would be not only to tax the wealthy and fund more training programs including early education, but to also increase TANF specifically Cash Assistance, Food Stamps, and subsidies to childcare costs while relaxing work requirements. Note, I didn’t say do away with work requirements, but relaxing them and allowing each jurisdiction to decide what works within that jurisdiction.

Kristof discusses the changes in tax rates between the 1950s and the 1980s through the present. To be honest tax rates aren’t my area of expertise, but we’re in the same place on taxing the wealthy.

Finally, he gets around to corporate welfare, which I can hear his tone in my head when he says the word “welfare” and kind of want to punch him in the face. Essentially, Kristof argues that corporate welfare needs to end or at least be modified so they pay into the system they exploit and benefit from.

The real differences here will be if we ever tax the wealthy how we use that money. Personally, I think society would benefit if people had direct access to it or in the very least could obtain it without having to fulfill some program that may or may not be useful for them. I think of job training programs paid for by the TANF block grant and how ineffective some of those are or the way much like public education recipients are tracked into specific careers, which usually provides a source of cheap labor for corporations…those same ones on corporate welfare.

Chipotle settles with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contacts: Chris Arnold Chipotle Mexican Grill 303.222.5912 carnold@chipotle.com Gerardo Reyes Coalition of Immokalee Workers 239-657-8311 gerardo@ciw-online.org CHIPOTLE SIGNS AGREEMENT WITH CIW TO JOIN FAIR FOOD PROGRAM DENVER, October 4, 2012 – Chipotle Mexican Grill and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a farmworker-based human rights organization, have reached an agreement that brings Chipotle’s commitment to sustainable food to the CIW’s Fair Food Program.  The agreement, which will improve wages and working conditions for farmworkers in Florida who pick tomatoes for Chipotle, comes in advance of the winter tomato-growing season, when most of the nation’s tomatoes come from growers in Florida. The Fair Food Program provides a bonus for tomato pickers to improve wages and binds growers to protocols and a code of conduct that explicitly include a voice for workers in health and safety issues, worker-to-worker education on the new protections under the code, and a complaint resolution procedure which workers can use without fear of retaliation.  The Program also provides for independent third party audits to ensure compliance. “With this agreement, we are laying down a foundation upon which we all – workers, growers, and Chipotle – can build a stronger Florida tomato industry for the future,” said Gerardo Reyes of the CIW.  “But more than this, today’s news marks a turning point in the sustainable food movement as a whole, whereby, thanks to Chipotle’s leadership, farmworkers are finally recognized as true partners -- every bit as vital as farmers, chefs, and restaurants -- in bringing ‘good food’ to our tables.” “Chipotle has an unmatched track record driving positive change in the nation's food supply and is continuously working to find better, more sustainable sources for all of the ingredients we use — sources that produce food in ways that demonstrate respect for the land, farm animals, and the people involved,” said Chris Arnold, communications director at Chipotle. “We believe that this agreement underscores our long-standing commitment to the people who produce the food we serve in our restaurants.” Chipotle becomes the 11th company to join the CIW’s Fair Food Program, which is designed to create a sustainable tomato industry through respect for the rights and concerns of all involved.  The Fair Food Premium paid by participating buyers like Chipotle is used to help participating growers improve wages and working conditions for Florida farmworkers. ****************** About Chipotle Steve Ells, founder, chairman and co-CEO, started Chipotle with the idea that food served fast did not have to be a typical fast food experience. Today, Chipotle continues to offer a focused menu of burritos, tacos, burrito bowls (a burrito without the tortilla) and salads made from fresh, high-quality raw ingredients, prepared using classic cooking methods and served in a distinctive atmosphere. Through our vision of Food With Integrity, Chipotle is seeking better food from using ingredients that are not only fresh, but that—where possible—are sustainably grown and naturally raised with respect for the animals, the land, and the farmers who produce the food. A similarly focused people culture, with an emphasis on identifying and empowering top performing employees, enables us to develop future leaders from within. Chipotle opened with a single restaurant in 1993 and currently operates more than 1,300 restaurants. For more information, visit Chipotle.com. About CIW The CIW (www.ciw-online.org) is a community-based farmworker organization headquartered in Immokalee, Florida, with over 4,000 members. The CIW seeks modern working conditions for farmworkers and promotes their fair treatment in accordance with national and international human rights standards. The CIW’s Campaign for Fair Food has won unprecedented support for fundamental farm labor reforms, through the Fair Food Program, from retail food industry leaders. The Fair Food Program taps the unique powers of all the elements of our country's food industry: of consumers, to demand the highest ethical standards for food production; of food retailers, to use their tremendous buying power both to demand higher labor standards of their suppliers and help raise farmworkers out of poverty through a price that supports sustainable production; of growers, to continuously improve their operations and meet consumer demand, keeping pace with an evolving marketplace, and, of farmworkers, to help expose and fix the worst abuses and apply their unique knowledge toward modernizing, and humanizing, our farm labor system.

Again, with this agreement, all plans for this weekend's action in Denver are CANCELLED.

There will be much more on this developing story in the days ahead, so check back again soon!

Phenomenal!