New America Weekly: Lara Burt: 'TANF &Teachers- How Current Policies Are Keeping Single Mothers Down & Out of School'

Source:New America Foundation- New mother & her baby.

Source: The New Democrat 

"Imagine a poor single mother today raising two children on her own and working at least 20 hours per week at a low-wage job without benefits. Then imagine that she must face the choice between remaining eligible for the restricted support she receives from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program or pursuing her aspirations for higher education.

The goal of the TANF program is ostensibly to help participants successfully transition to self-sufficiency. However, by placing barriers in the way of single mothers who wish to go to school through the program's strict “work first” policy, TANF undermines their ability to achieve this goal. As a result, poor parents in general and single mothers and their children in particular are suffering needlessly.

Roughly 40 percent of families headed by single-mothers are poor. In fact, these households are more likely than any other demographic group to fall below the poverty line. There are, of course, many factors that come together to make this unfortunate reality, but this disparity can be explained at least in part by a weak social-safety net, inadequate childcare, and lack of higher education opportunities." 

From The New America Foundation

It’s not that TANF (or the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) hasn’t succeeded, because it has. Take away the Great Recession and we’re not looking at a twenty-percent poverty rate today, because under TANF low-income parents are able to go back to school and get skills so they can get good jobs. We were at around ten-percent poverty in the late 1990s. Economic booms only apply to people with good skills who are prepared and qualified for good jobs. And are even leaving unemployment, or moving up for a better job.

And of course opponents of the bill from people on the Libertarian-Right who believe that government should do nothing to help people in poverty, to people on the Social Democratic-Left, who believe that self-reliance shouldn’t be the goal here and want bigger government cash payments instead, will say that the 1990s economic boom was the reason for the low poverty. But low-income adults especially need to have good skills in order to have good jobs.

TANF, was a great 1990s Welfare to Work and anti-poverty program. I believe the best government anti-poverty program ever created, because it encourages work and education over government dependence. And again without the two recessions of the 2000s TANF would have worked very well again, because President Bush supported it and even had Democratic support for it in Congress. 

What we need now is a Welfare to Work program that builds off of TANF. And says if you’re on Welfare, you’re going to work as soon as possible and that means taking at least one of the first jobs that you’re qualified for. But while these folks are going to work, they're able to keep all of their public assistance, including their Welfare checks up to the point that they can support themselves on their own and no longer need public assistance at all to support themselves and their families.Which is what's known as subsidized employment which encourages work over being homebody.

In exchange government will help you finish and further your education. As well as childcare assistance for your kids. So low-income low-skilled single-parents, have the time and the money to get a good education and to work. But not only will these new workers be going back to school as they’re entering the workforce, but they’ll continue to collect their public assistance benefits that they’re eligible for as low-income workers. Medicaid, Public Housing, Food Assistance, and even Welfare, etc.

So we should be investing more and going further with TANF, perhaps better known as Welfare to Work. Which would be a great investment in our low-income communities, but a great investment in our economy. Because we would be moving people off of public assistance all together with all the new educated workers we would be producing. And create a larger middle class and a smaller poverty class. Creating purchasing power for millions of new Americans. Money they would spend and invest in the economy. Money they could put back in their communities instead of abandoning them.

Welfare to Work, shouldn’t be about Welfare to fast food, or retail, or janitorial work, or other low-income, low-skilled jobs that don’t come with benefits after these new workers lose their childcare assistance and everything else they were getting from public assistance. But instead Welfare to the middle class and economic freedom. Which only comes through quality education and economic development.

New America Foundation: Double Take- Speaking On Freedom of Speech

Source:New America Foundation-

Source:The Daily Review

At risk of sounding like a nationalist, but people right and left have debated whether America is exceptional or not the last ten years or so and debating what is called American Exceptionalism. Is America an exceptional place or not and if we are, are we exceptional in a positive sense. Do we represent as Americans the right values or not. Our First Amendment which of course is our guaranteed constitutional right to Freedom of Speech, is one example of why we are exceptional. Along with our diversity which is across the board and our other guaranteed civil liberties and constitutional rights.

No constitutional right is absolute and that includes both the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. But what it means is that Americans essentially have unlimited free speech and free expression rights and basically and unlimited ability to express ourselves and how we feel about things, places, issues, culture and even people. Short of inciting violence, violently harassing people, or falsely libeling people. And then others have the same right to express how they feel about us. Which means Donald Trump can run his nonsensical reality show disguised as a presidential campaign and say all sorts of garbage about groups of Americans. And the rest of the country has the same right to express out they feel about The Donald. The Captain of Reality TV.

Free Speech, is not a threat to America. The opposite is the truth, which is fascism in the form of political correctness, whether it comes from the Far-Left or Far-Right. That says the political correctness warriors knows best what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. And they’ll decide what people should think and what we can say. You can’t have a liberal democracy without free speech and a liberal right to free speech. Put all the views out there and then let the people weigh in on what the speakers and thinkers are saying. Correct the falsehoods, reward the truth tellers and critique the liars. That is how liberal democracy and free speech works. Instead of having some Board of Experts deciding what is appropriate and improper speech in a developed society.

The New America Foundation: Reniqua Allen: Civil Rights in Present Day

Source:The New Democrat

The 1968 Fair Housing Law was one of the best acts of the civil rights era of the 1960s.  It said that if you serve the public selling and renting homes, the public is the public and it includes everyone.  People can't be denied housing in the United States simply because of their race.  This followed the 1964 Civil Rights Act that banned racial discrimination and the 1965 Voting Rights Act that banned racial discrimination in voting, as well.

The lack of adequate housing for African-Americans today is not about race but about education and good jobs. Too many African-Americans do not have them compared, with the rest of the country.   Poor, rural, Caucasian-Americans and American-Indians also lack them.  These things are due to the lack of quality education and economic development in these communities.  People in these communities are not denied quality housing because of their race.

If you want to close the housing gap between low-income Americans of any race or ethnicity and middle class and wealthy Americans, you have to close the education and achievement gap and provide better schools and educational opportunities for low-income Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. Kids who are in school now and their low-skilled, low-income parents need better education and opportunity.

The New America Foundation: Justin King: Senator Ron Wyden Wants Children's Savings Accounts

Source:The New Democrat

I somewhat covered this last week with a blog on retirement and unemployment accounts for people so they can save for retirement and not have to burn those accounts when they are unemployed, especially for long periods of time like as we have seen in the Great Recession. But Senator Ron Wyden, the incoming Chairman of the Finance Committee, taking over for Max Baucus as he leaves the Senate to become U.S. Ambassador to the People's Republic of China, would like to empower all Americans, especially lower end middle class workers and low-income workers to save for themselves but also to start what would essentially be trust accounts for their children. He has a good idea and I hope he will push it.

We could do this simply by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is the tax credit that goes to low-income workers to get them off of the Federal income tax rolls.  We could expand the eligibility to individuals earning up to $30,000 a year and couples earning up to $40,000 a year and stop taxing savings completely up to, let's say, 10 percent of one's income so people could afford to save but also encourage employers to match what their workers put away for savings and also perhaps have a Federal match of the worker's savings as well for workers who are earning up to $100,000 a year.

I suggest allowing Americans to open two types of savings accounts that would be separate from their retirement and unemployment accounts and allow for middle class and low-income workers to for both themselves and their children and put money away that would be matched by their employers and the Feds as well. That would be tax-free as long as it is not being spent for non-emergency reasons and this would allow all Americans to build up nest eggs and not wipe out their retirement savings or consume so much in public assistance during economic downturns. 

The New America Foundation: 'Solving the Retirement Puzzle: The Potential of MYRAS to Build a Personal Safety Net'

Source:New America Foundation- with a look at pensions in America.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The growing recognition that millions of Americans are ill-prepared for retirement has prompted a

number of state and federal policy proposals to promote retirement security. Yet even the most

promising proposals fail to acknowledge a prerequisite to sustaining long-term savings: access to

flexible resources that can be tapped in an emergency or can support productive investments that

can pay off over the long haul. One recently announced effort – the Obama Administration’s

myRA program – is designed to facilitate access to a savings vehicles for the mostly low- and

middle-income Americans who miss out on current savings opportunities. As currently designed,

the program is unlikely to have a significant impact at scale on the long-term prospects of this

group of workers. But with certain adjustments and policy reforms, myRAs could facilitate the

creation of personal safety nets that would both provide short-term financial stability and lay the

foundation for a secure retirement. Short-term, flexible savings are a crucial but overlooked piece

required to solve the retirement puzzle." 

From the New America Foundation 

"During The State of the Union Address 2014, President Barack Obama announced they will be launching a new MyRA program - a government run IRA, or retirement account." 

Source:Associated Press- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) delivering his 2014 State of the Union, to a join session of Congress. Vice President Joe Biden (Democrat, Delaware) and Speaker of the House John Boehner (Republican, Ohio) in the background.

From the Associated Press

When President Obama announced his MyRa program and expanding retirement savings in the State of the Union last week, he was talking about encouraging people to save for retirement. Which is something that we should be doing as a country with so few Americans having independent retirement savings from Social Security. Aleta Sprague of The New America Foundation points out correctly that this lack of retirement savings is a problem in America, but a another big problem and perhaps bigger is the lack of savings period. And when money get’s tight for Americans, they dip into the IRA that they have to pay today’s bills. Instead of keeping money they need in their retirement account.

What President Obama is proposing is that Americans have the option of setting up their own retirement account. That could be matched by their employer and that money be put away in their retirement account. Which is a good idea and I support that. But the problem now is that so many Americans the overwhelming majority of today’s workforce simply can’t afford to put money away right now. So what we need to be doing is expanding capital and assets for low-income workers and the lower-end of the middle class. So they can afford to put money away and be able to save for a MyRa system to be able to work.

Now what I support doing is a few things. To talk about retirement savings is create what is called Social Security Plus and make it a universal option for all income levels to be able to participate in this program. And not make it mandatory or have Social Security takeover the entire retirement system in the United States. Which some on the Left have suggested, but what I would do is give workers the option to increase their own payroll tax that would be matched by their employer. From 6.2% up to 9.3% again that would be matched by their employer and the money would be tax-free. And go into a individual retirement account and allow for workers to put money they make outside of their full-time job into their Social Security Plus IRA. Again that would be tax-free as well.

My SSP-IRA would again be a universal option to all Americans. Including low-income workers and lower-end working class workers. Because they would not only be able to participate in SSP-IRA, but get all the money they put into SSP-IRA back in a tax credit or a tax deduction. So they could afford to be part of this program as well. But again we also need to increase individual savings and I would even create private individual Unemployment Savings Accounts.

People could put money into their USA while they are working again matched by their employers. And when they are out of work or they see their income falling, but their bills are the same or are growing, they could go into their USA instead of the IRA to cover their bills until they go back to work. Or see their income go back up. And again a USA would be a universal option as well because low-end middle class workers and low-income workers could participate in this program as well. Because they could get their money back in a tax credit or a tax deduction.

If we want to expand savings and retirement in America, which I believe we need to do, we first have to expand income so more Americans can afford to save and retire. And that just doesn’t mean having more workers, but having more workers with good jobs that allows for them to put money away in the first place. And have less Americans struggling in the middle class and less Americans in poverty. Whether they are working or not so the resources are there to allow Americans to be able to put money away.

New America Foundation: Peter Beinart- 'On The Rise of The New Left'

Source:New America Foundation- political commentator Peter Beinart about about the New-Left in America, the Millennial version.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"In a recent piece for The Daily Beast, New America Senior Fellow Peter Beinart wrote that the Democratic Party is making its next left turn—and driving away from the center." 

From the New America Foundation

The New-Left came alive in the late 1960s as part of the Baby Boom Generation to oppose the Vietnam War and who weren’t fans of capitalism and perhaps private enterprise all together. And wanted to see the rich be forced to give up a lot of their money to take care of the poor. As well as the environmental movement and what is called the gay rights movement. 

What happened to the Boomer version of the New-Left, they essentially formed what we know as the Green Party today: a left-wing, social democratic party, that is anti-war if not anti-military all together, want tough laws when it comes to protecting the environment.Greens, are anti-American capitalism and would like to see a new American economic system that is based around a welfare state. 

The Green Socialists (as I call them) also represents part of the Far-Left in the Democratic Party, who are only Democrats in a lot of cases so they can be part of a major political party, that at least shares their values and in some cases their ideas as well, who do not want to go the third-party route. 

My point being that this movement on the Left that the Democratic Leadership needs to listen to a certain extent, that they are not big enough or posses the resources to seriously cause a revolution in the Democratic Party and force them to change. They are only big enough to cost Democrats elections when they do not show up and vote.

The Republican Party has their fringe, obviously that gets talked a lot on this blog. But the Democratic Party has there’s that looks and is outside of the American mainstream on a lot of issues as well. Not saying they’re bad people, but most Americans like the American military and support our veterans and soldiers and everything else. 

The New-Left (on the other hand) sees our military as part of the problem when it comes to world peace and even as the bad guys. 

The New-Left in America is made up for three relevant political factions: 

Closeted Socialists in and outside of the Democrat Party, who are Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats (in name only) 

As well as self-described Socialists or Democratic Socialists, people like Senator Bernie Sanders (the only self-described Socialist in Congress, but not the only one) 

People who I at least would call Neo-Communists, people who aren't self-described as Communists and perhaps aren't looking to completely overthrow our democratic form of government, but want a real political revolution in America. 

And thanks to the American economy not being as strong as dominant as it was 15 years ago, radical movements like this can emerge, because you have a lot of people who are looking for real changes to our system.

New America Foundation: Daniel Deudney- Liberal Democracy vs. Autocracy

Source:New America Foundation- hosting a discussion about liberal democracy.

Source:FRS FreeState

"G. John Ikenberry and Daniel Deudney discusses their article, "The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail". Dimitri Simes concludes the discussion." 

From the New America Foundation

I love the word liberalization as a Liberal, because it means opening things up and freeing people to live their lives. Which is what happened to Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 90s, as well as some of the former Slavic Russian republics that were part of the Soviet Union of Russia. And to the Southeastern Slavic states in the Balkans as well in the 1990s. And that is exactly what liberalism is.

Liberalization, freeing people up and allowing them to live in freedom, which seriously goes against the liberal stereotypes that liberalism is about big government and not: 

"the state that the state knows best and that freedom is essentially dangerous because it just gives people freedom to make mistakes. So you need a superstate to take care of people and limit freedom to only things that do not harm society.”

New America Foundation: Expanded Social Security

"The conventional wisdom about Social Security is profoundly misguided. According to today’s mistaken consensus, the U.S. as 

a society cannot afford to allocate the money to pay for the present level of Social Security benefits for retirees in future 

generations. The solution, it is widely argued, is to cut benefits – either directly by means-testing or indirectly by raising the 

retirement age or allowing inflation to erode their real value over time. In this narrative, tax-favored private savings vehicles like 

401(k)s and IRAs should be expanded in order to compensate for the allegedly necessary cuts in Social Security... 

From the New America Foundation

New America Foundation: 'U.S. Representative Paul Ryan: Budget Villain or Visionary?'

Source:New America Foundation- I believe this is Noam Scheiber from New America.

"Last summer's discussions on the typically routine and mundane task of raising the nation's debt ceiling became so heated Washington nearly ground to a halt. This election cycle, taxes, the deficit, and budget cuts are still looming issues. As the United States teeters on the edge of a fiscal cliff, Congress remains at an impasse and voters are increasingly wary of the politics of the federal budget. Why can't policymakers reach a compromise? And how did this legislative tradition devolve into a vitriolic partisan sideshow?

Join New America for a conversation with policy analysts and politicos for an inside look at the federal budget impasse. Marc Goldwein, senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Noam Scheiber, a New America Schwartz Fellow and senior editor of The New Republic, and David Wessel, the economics editor of The Wall Street Journal, will explore what Americans should know about budget politics, how we veered so far off the path of fiscal responsibility, and what the real-world impact of this highly politicized battle could look like.

Featuring:

David Wessel

Author, Red Ink: Inside the High-Stakes Politics of the Federal Budget

Economics Editor, The Wall Street Journal

Marc Goldwein

Senior Policy Director, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Formerly served on the Fiscal Commission and the Super Committee

Noam Scheiber

Bernard L. Schwartz Fellow, New America Foundation

Senior Editor, The New Republic; Author, The Escape Artist" 

From the New America Foundation

They're talking about U.S. Representative Paul Ryan's (Republican, Wisconsin) deficit reduction and balanced budget plan and talking the Medicare reform package in his plan. 

If you are familiar with Representative Ryan, you know he's the Chairman of the House Budget Committee. If you are not familiar with Paul Ryan, that's probably because you have a life and you are not a policy and political wonk that's common in Washington. Or, because you spend too much time to staring at your phone and laptop, as well as watching reality TV and follow the celebrity and tabloid news, to care about little things like the state of the American economy and our long-term economic and budget outlooks. Only you can know the answer to this question.

I'm all in favor of free choice when it comes to Medicare, as well as health care and health insurance in general. At risk of shocking no one: I'm not some big government Socialist who thinks the national government has all the answers to every problem known to man and can solve everyone's problems for them. And that people are too stupid anyway to run their own lives themselves. But the key word in Medicare reform and health care reform in general when you are talking about choice, is choice. Shocking, I know. 

The problem with Chairman Ryan's plan is that it eliminates choice for about 70 millions seniors in this country. And depending on how you define the Baby Boom Generation, another 70 million seniors over the next 20 years or so. 

What the Ryan plan does, is it forces 10s of millions of senior citizens to dump their current Medicare coverage and get a private plan instead. Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans, are supposed to be in favor of choice, at least when it comes to the economy. But I guess not when it comes to Medicare, where they would take the option of choosing Medicare away from people who already have it.

New America Foundation: Emily Bazelon & Garrett Epps- 'Health Care & The Supreme Court: What Will The Decision Say About Constitutional Resilience?'

Source:New America Foundation- Emily Bazelon moderating this event.

"Health Care and the Supreme Court: 

What will the decision say about constitutional resilience?

This is an excerpt from the Future Tense "Resilience" event.  In it, Emily Bazelon asks Professor Garrett Epps to discuss the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on Health Care.

The ability to bounce back, to absorb shocks, to persevere, to retain functionality over time, to endure, to adapt, to succeed, to survive, to sustain... so many verbs are conjured up by the term "resilience." Whether we're talking about our bodies, our minds, our communities, our institutions or our natural environment, the R-word provides a conceptual framework for designing a better tomorrow. Please join us for a wide-ranging inquiry on what it means to be resilient and what a resilient future could look like.

Garrett Epps -- @profepps

Professor of Law, University of Baltimore

Legal Affairs Editor, The American Prospect

Moderator

Emily Bazelon-- @emilybazelon

Senior Editor, Slate" 

From the New America Foundation

I don't mean to sound like a washed up rock singer who only has one line left, but I'm not a lawyer. But looking at this from a non-lawyer, I think the only constitutional questions about the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare, before it was RomneyCare) is whether the Federal Government has the constitutional right to require Americans to buy a product over the private market, which is what health insurance is, or sign up for Medicaid, if they're eligible for Medicaid. T

The other constitutional question in the ACA being about the Medicaid expansion: can the Feds force the states to expand their Medicaid program to cover low-income, working adults and penalize them if they refuse to do so. 

There really are no other constitutional questions for the Affordable Care Act. Under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government has the right to regulate commerce in America. Health care and health insurance are both products in America. And under the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government has to right to raise or cut taxes. And under the ACA, Americans who make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but not enough money to afford private health insurance, are eligible for a tax subsidy to pay for private health insurance. 

I'm not a Conservative, not a Constitutional Conservative. I'm a constitutionalist though in the liberal (or classical liberal, if you prefer) sense and if you are looking at the Affordable Care Act in a constitutional conservative sense, I think it's easy to rule that the ACA is constitutional, except for perhaps the health care mandate and the Medicaid portion of the bill. Even if you don't like the law and Congress and the President to repeal the law. 

It's not the job of the Supreme Court to decide on the merits of a law, just the constitutionality of it. So throwing out the whole ACA by the Supreme Court simply because you don't like it, or because you are throwing out the mandate and the Medicaid prevision, wouldn't be constitutionally conservative.