Mike Konczal: 'The War On Poverty Turns 50 Today'

Source:The New Republic- President Lyndon's B. Johnson's cabinet.

Source:The New Democrat

"The War on Poverty turns 50: Mike Konczal on three lessons for liberals today (and more and more). If you dismiss the War on Poverty simply because poverty is still high, then you’re not making a serious argument. Dylan Matthews on everything you need to know about the war on poverty. Jonathan Cohn on how to measure whether LBJ's War on Poverty worked. Igor Volsky on racism, sexism, and the 50-year campaign to undermine the War on Poverty. Paul Krugman on the War over Poverty (and more). Matthew Yglesias on the state of anti-poverty policy in America. Michael B. Katz on how America abandoned its “undeserving” poor: With poverty on the rise in the late 1970s, Reagan conservatives waged war on the needy — and won. GOP leaders want to “own” the issue of fighting poverty; the challenge: Republican voters don’t think poverty is much of a priority. Why does the GOP suddenly “care” about the poor? Alex Pareene on how it's an easy way to look compassionate without changing any policies. Conservatives don’t want to talk about income inequality — that’s why we should. Jonathan Chait on that awkward moment when Republicans have to hurt the poor before they can love them. Robert Reich on why the Republican’s old divide-and-conquer strategy — setting working class against the poor — is backfiring. Why do we care whether the poor work? Claude S. Fischer wants to know. Gordon Haber reviews The American Way of Poverty: How the Other Half Still Lives by Sasha Abramsky. Why aren’t the 90% more vocal for policies that would support them?" 

From Book Forum

"50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared a war to defeat poverty in America. Johnson reminded the American people that helping those in need benefits the entire society. Fighting poverty is an ongoing battle in the United States, as millions of citizens of the wealthiest country in the world struggle far too much. And with President Obama making growing income inequality a central issue of his second term in office, President Johnson's call to lift up the poor still rings true today." 

Source:TOC- talking about the so-called war on poverty.

From TOC

I hate to beak this, especially to people who already know this, as if I'm sharing breaking news to them, when I'm really just doing a great impression of Captain Obvious and telling people that water is wet, fire is hot, it snows in Wisconsin in January, and oh by the way, they love cheese and the Packers as well, but when you eligible for government public assistance pre-retirement, you are by government's definition, poor. 

Mike Konczal and all these other so-called Progressives (who are really just closeted leftists or Socialists) who in too many cases call themselves Liberals (even though they're not very liberal at all) have this idea that if government just meets all the economic needs of everyone, or at least meets all the economic needs for people who are in poverty, then those folks are no longer poor. And we can eliminate poverty all together, simply by government meeting all the economic needs for everyone. 

Look, real Liberals already know how to reduce poverty and if you stay on this course you dramatically reduce poverty to the point where our poverty numbers are somewhere where Canada and Europe’s are, which is around ten percent. You need a strong economy for everyone where not just jobs are being created with low unemployment. But a lot of good jobs and without that even for people on public assistance who’ve just finished their education or job training, they won’t be able to find a good job for the most part and may now need to get on Unemployment Insurance.

For people on Welfare Insurance so these people can pay their bills in the short-term as they are improving themselves and getting ready to join the workforce full-time with a good job. And the LBJ War on Poverty got the cash assistance part right. Actually the FDR New Deal did that in the 1930s. And President Bill Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich got the short-term cash assistance part right in the 1990s with Welfare to Work. So people on Welfare get the message and are motivated to finish their education and prepare themselves to go to work. 

If you are on Welfare Insurance and you do not even have a high school diploma, you are going to have a hard time holding down a fast-food job let alone finding yourself a good job that pays all of your bills. And high school dropouts are not uncommon for people on public assistance. So for those without a high diploma or GED, they need to get that. And then they are going to need to take college courses or be in job training programs to get themselves marketable vocational skills. So they have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and be able to hold on to it. If they already have their high school diploma, well that is good, but now it is time to be in community college. Or a vocational program to further their education.

Last, but definitely not least job placement, but being placed in a good full-time job. That pays them enough to cover their own cost of living expenses and make them able to leave public assistance all together. And one of the beauties of Welfare to Work is that it combined all four of these factors. And we actually did see in the late 1990s and early 2000s and since people who use to be on Welfare going to work with good full-time jobs and a lot of them managing a business. Or even owning their own business which are real rags to riches stories. That if you call yourself a Progressive, you should be celebrating and not trying to put down.

We know what works in reducing poverty in America. We got that down to actually thirteen percent during the Bill Clinton Administration with polices like this. Then Governor Bill Clinton ran on welfare reform when he was running for president in 1991-92. Republicans especially governors had similar ideas in the early and mid 1990s as well. Actually then Governor Mike Dukakis ran on the same welfare reform ideas when he ran for president in 1988. So we know what to do and Liberal Democrats have supported these proposals for almost thirty years now. It is just a matter of getting back to this approach and having a Republican Party that gets back to their roots. Instead of just saying government has no role here.

The White House: President Obama Speaks on Extending Emergency Unemployment Insurance

Source:The New Democrat  

The Democratic path to victory in 2014. It’s the economy stupid and make 2014 the Democratic economic vision vs. the Republican economic vision.

Middle out bottom up economics that is about expanding economic freedom for everyone and reducing government dependence. Based on rebuilding the country’s infrastructure, a national energy policy based on using all the country’s natural resources. Comprehensive immigration reform so we bring our illegal immigrants out of the shadows paying their share of taxes. And so Americans do not have to pay as much in taxes. Education and job training for our low-skilled workforce and unemployed workers so they can live in economic freedom as well.

The Democrats should label the Republican economic vision as trickle down economics. That if the wealthy are just doing even better than they are now, that could somehow benefit everyone else even if the middle class and everyone else is paying for wealthy’s prosperity. And what the Republicans really want to do besides talk about nothing other than the Affordable Care Act, is to weaken consumer protections and making it harder for workers to unionize and collectively bargain.

That is how Democrats get off of ObamaCare and on to something where they have the upper hand. And be able to force Republicans to talk about things they do not want to and try to get them explain why cutting additional taxes for the wealthy and regulations for corporations and deficit reduction especially in areas that help create jobs like in infrastructure, somehow helps the economy. Which is hard to find many people outside of the Tea Party wing of the GOP who actually takes that seriously.

VOA News: 'Washington Week: Focus on US Unemployed'

Source:VOA News- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky)

Source:The New Democrat 

"The U.S. Congress gets back to work this week after a holiday break. As VOA's Michael Bowman reports, whether to restore jobless benefits for more than one million long-term unemployed Americans will be among the first items considered in the Democratic-led Senate." 

From VOA News 

"Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the state-owned international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest[3] and oldest U.S.-funded international broadcaster.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 48 languages[6] which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by a non-American audience.

VOA was established in 1942,[7] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103–415)[8] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[9] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.[10][11]

While Voice of America is seen by some foreign listeners as having a positive impact,[12][13] others consider it to be a form of propaganda and a mouthpiece for the US government.[" 

From Wikipedia

The New Republic: Russell Crandall: 'Uruguay's Pot Legalization is Bad For America's War on Drugs'

Source:The New Democrat

Then U.S. Senator John Kerry when he was up to be U.S. Secretary of State in I believe January or February 2013 during his Senate confirmation hearing was asked a question about the so-called War on Drugs as I call it. And Senator Kerry said something to the effect that it is not a real war. That words have meaning and if this was a real war we would surely be fighting it differently. I’m paraphrasing what he said he, but I’m pretty close. Keep in mind John Kerry is a Vietnam War veteran and from the Vietnam Generation, Baby Boom Generation even. So this is a man who knows what a real war is because he’s been in one and fought successfully in one for his country and the men and women he served with. 

What Senator Kerry said about the War on Drugs is exactly my point. This is not a real war, but a big fat label that anyone fluent with the American English language can understand. What the so-called War on Drugs is, is a campaign against illegal narcotics in America. What the United States Government views as illegal and dangerous narcotics. This is not a War on Drugs because alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and many other drugs that have similar if not worst effects than marijuana are legal and could easily be viewed as narcotics.   

Imagine if we had a real War on Drugs in America and I think this could probably be a satire or a comedy or a movie. All drugs in America would be illegal. We would have the military roaming all over the country and occupying every street in America. To make sure that no one is taking a drug that is at least could be viewed as dangerous. If not using the military to make sure that no one are using drugs period anywhere in the country. And would be arrested for what would be viewed as unhealthy behavior to themselves.  

Just to be clear, we do not have a real War on Drugs in America. Marijuana is illegal, but still consumed all over the country. We have millions of Americans who drink like, excuse the expression like Irish sailors just coming home from the war. We smoke a lot of tobacco, we eat too much junk food that all have things in them that aren’t healthy for us. And yet it is marijuana, heroin, cocaine meth that are illegal even though a lot of our legal drugs are all worst than marijuana and perhaps some of the others as well.

The New Republic: Noam Scheiber: 'Raising the Minimum Wage Isn't Just Good Politics: It's Good Economics'

Source:The New Republic- supporters for raising the minimum wage.

Source:The New Democrat

"The minimum-wage debate follows a predictable pattern any time it flares up in the media: Liberals say it’s a moral outrage that people can toil away at full-time jobs and still live in poverty. They nod at the overwhelming public support for raising the minimum wage as a way to shame reluctant politicians. Conservatives, for their part, insist that all the minimum-wage talk is just self-defeating do-gooder-ism: great for making Upper-West-Siders feel righteous, a lot less so for helping the people they claim to care about. In the real world, conservatives argue, raising the minimum wage costs jobs that the poor and young desperately need. At which point liberals mumble defensively and retreat to their original talking points, if they respond at all.

Monday’s New York Times piece on the renewed push for a minimum-wage increase is a handy case in point. The writers of the story—a nice, scoop-filled piece of reporting—talk about the issue’s potential to split Republican elites from the party’s voters, in classic wedge fashion. Intriguingly, they suggest it could goose turnout among young people and minorities, two Democratic-leaning groups that often vanish during midterm elections. And, of course, the story includes a de rigueur warning of doom and destruction from House Speaker John Boehner--“Why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?”—which goes largely unanswered by anyone on the left.

Well, that’s no good. Yes, the politics of the issue sufficiently favor Democrats that they can ignore the GOP's economic argument—Republicans may resist, but that will only help Democrats on Election Day. But as White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer correctly points out to the Times, the hope isn’t just to retain a few Senate seats. It’s to improve people’s lives.

If they’re serious about doing that, Democrats can’t cede the intellectual fight. They have to expose the House GOP position for what it is—water-carrying for business, particularly the fast-food restaurateurs who are leading employers of minimum-wage workers and donate overwhelmingly to the GOP. Until that happens, Republicans will be able to hold out with a patina of respectability among mainstream journalists and commentators, who largely accept the GOP's job-killing claims.

When they engage at all on the job-market consequences of boosting the minimum wage, Democrats frequently cite a study by economists David Card and Alan Krueger1 from 1994, which looked at a (then) recent increase in New Jersey. After surveying over 400 similar restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Card and Krueger found that the hike had no effect on jobs, contra the Cassandra-like freak-out from fast-food proprietors. 

The paper was regarded as ground-breaking and, for its troubles, immediately got labeled “controversial” by the mainstream media thanks in part to persistent grumbling on the right. But in fact what made the paper so innovative wasn’t the conclusion per se, which other studies had arrived at. (For that matter, even when you tallied together all the studies that found a negative impact on employment, the effect that was very small. Recent studies have affirmed this.) What made it innovative was the methodology, which so cleanly tested the proposition. By comparing restaurants in New Jersey with restaurants just across the Delaware River in Pennsylvania, Card and Krueger were basically able to compare like with like, with the exception of the minimum wage law whose effects they sought to isolate.2 It was about as close to a laboratory experiment as you get in economics (other than, uh, these guys).

Even more relevant to the current discussion, however, was the rationale for why moderately raising the minimum wage wouldn’t kill jobs, as most of us might expect. After all, it’s one thing to look at a bunch of businesses and notice that they’re not cutting back. But unless there’s a compelling explanation for why our intuition on this is wrong, it’s hard to consider the study definitive. Even a study as well-designed as Card and Krueger’s could be flukish, or corrupted by hidden forces that aren’t evident to the authors or readers. Who knows, maybe McDonald’s managers in New Jersey are just unusually altruistic (though having patronized several fine Garden State dining establishments, I consider this to be extremely unlikely).

The bottom line is that backing the numbers with sound logical arguments is an important insurance policy against flukish-ness, and Card and Krueger identify a few. The first is that employers simply pass along the higher wages to customers rather cutting back on workers. And because the cost-increase tends to be small, and because customers accept the fairness of raising the minimum wage, they don’t buy fewer hamburgers or pizzas than before. As it happens, Card and Krueger found solid evidence that this was going on, as have many others. 

Before any conservative starts hyperventilating, it’s worth pointing out that this isn’t true of all industries, or even all employers in industries where it regularly happens. (In fact, Card and Krueger were skeptical of this story in their New Jersey study, before warming to a version of it in a subsequent book.) But this does happen a fair amount, and often in very pronounced ways.3 And the phenomenon goes a long way toward explaining why minimum wage laws frequently have so little net effect on jobs: If, in response to a minimum wage hike, some employers add a few workers while others cut back a bit, then it makes sense that the overall effect might hover around zero.

None of which is to say I expect the average Democratic pol to start lecturing minimum-wage denialists about monopsony employers any time soon. But if enough of us in the trenches band together and retake the intellectual high-ground, victory is likely to come a lot sooner.

I say this because even if the political resonance of the minimum wage issue helps Democrats wildly exceed expectations in 2014, they’re unlikely to retake the House. And, unfortunately, House Republicans have repeatedly showed they can hold out against public opinion for long stretches of time. What even they can’t do, however, is hold out against both public opinion and the received Beltway wisdom, as last fall’s shutdown fight demonstrated. The way to force Republicans to cave when public opinion won’t do the trick is to deprive them of any pretension to seriousness." 

From The New Republic

"Howard Dean, S.E. Cupp, Hilary Rosen & Kevin Madden debate raising the minimum wage." 

Source:CNN Crossfire.

From CNN

There are both good political as well as economic reasons for raising the minimum wage in America. If it is done right and I’m going to give you an example of why it make sense to raise the minimum wage in America.

Raising the minimum wage in America if it is done right, makes so much good sense that I can give you two good examples from both a political, but as well as an economic example and give you both of them from the Right even though I’m a Liberal Democrat.

The political example would be this: Imagine you are Joe or Mary taxpayer in America and you work very hard for a living just to pay your bills and raise your kids and you are a little angry about that and feel overtaxed, because here you are playing by the rules and doing everything you can to pay your own way. But you are also paying taxes to pay for people who don’t pay their own way because they are low-skilled. You probably feel like you have an extra burden to pay to go along with yourself and your family, even though you are not getting any extra money to pay for that burden.

As a result, low-skilled workers work low-skilled minimum wage jobs and have to collect public assistance in order to survive. Because these low-wage employers are able to pass their employee costs onto you. And have you make up the difference for these workers housing, groceries and health care. But you raise the minimum wage to ten, twelve dollars and hour with a break especially for small employers and you keep their public assistance benefits where they are now, now these low-skilled workers can pay more for their costs of living. And Joe and Mary Smith (or whoever) and many others won’t have to pay as much in taxes to make up the difference. 

The economic example is pretty simple: You want more people working and fewer people collecting Unemployment or Welfare Insurance, then working has to pay more than not working so people are incentivized to work for a living. And not collect public assistance checks for a living instead. You raise the minimum wage to ten or twelve dollars an hour with a thirty percent tax break for employers especially for small employers and you have employers pay their share of the public assistance costs with like a payroll tax.

And tell employers they can get all that money back if they instead just pay their low-wage employees those costs. Or train them so they can move up in their organization or a combination of both. Now employers won’t be able to pass their employees costs on to the backs of average Joe and Mary taxpayer (or whoever) and many others and you would be able to cut the middle class tax burden in this country. The politics for Democrats are very good here.

And this would be a very good way to get Democrats to the polls in 2014 and get organize labor to help them out. It is actually good politics for Republicans as well if they are truly interested in reaching out to the working class. And not just there to carry the water for the wealthy and corporate America. Because they could say they are in favor of this as well so we can cut the taxes for average workers. 

It’s not just the minimum wage, but every physically and mentally able adult in America should be incentivized not just to work, but to pay their own away. No physically or mentally able adult in America should be able to collect more from public assistance and not working, then working any full-time job. What you would make in a week working a full-time minimum wage job, should be more then what you would get from a Welfare check and not working at all. We should not just raise the minimum wage to a working wage, but subsidize the employment of low-income, low-skilled workers, to encourage as many Americans as possible to make it in America on their own. 

Small Ivey: “Erik, this is a fantastic idea – cut the taxes for employers if they pay their employees more. How about this – how about making salaries paid to employees a direct tax credit, such that employers could reduce their taxes to zero if they pay their employees the money that would have been going to taxes. This would get the money right into employees’ pockets instead of needing to send it up to Washington and then back to the employees through welfare checks. Would teenagers get the higher wages too, or just adults with kids at home to feed?”

NFL Films: Vince Lombardi Teaches The Power Sweep

Source:NFL Films- Green Bay Packers head coach/general manager Vince Lombardi (1959-68)

Source:The New Democrat

"Power Sweeps" - Winning Football with Vince Lombardi (Volume 7)" 

From Coach D

This photo is from another YouTube showing Coach Vince Lombardi teaching his power sweep. But the video that this photo is from, is currently not available online right now. 

Source:NFL Films- Green Bay Packers/General Manager Vince Lombardi.

I think the best way to describe Vince Lombardi's brand of football, at least offensive football, is to do it with a hypothetical.  

Imagine the night before your football game and you just found your opponent's game plan and playbook. You now not only know what plays your opponent is going to run and how they're going to beat you. Just one problem: even though you know exactly what the Packers (in this case) are going to run against you, you are not good enough to beat them. 

While the Dallas Cowboys in the 1970s and 80s ran so many different formations and plays to win their games on offense and the Redskins with different type of offense, but used a lot of different formations on offense in the 1980s, the Packers were beating their opponents simply by out executing their opponents and having better players. Losing to the Packers in the 1960s was literally the death by execution. They had the ball on 1st in 10 from their 20, you knew it was coming but you couldn't stop it. 

The Onion: 'Peter K. Rosenthal Looks Back at It's a Wonderful Life'

Source:The Onion- left to right: Donna Reed, Jimmy Stewart and a cute little girl.

Source:The New Democrat

"The Onion's movie critic Peter K. Rosenthal looks back at the holiday classic 'It's A Wonderful Life' in this week's Film Standard."

From The Onion

How can one Uncle Billy can completely change the complexion of a movie review? You know if I had an uncle who was that big of an asshole and screw up, I doubt my life would be so golly gee swell. (To use a term from that era) Especially if I was relying on a dip-shit like this to help me run my business.  

First of all, if I’m dumb enough to rely on a dip-shit to help me run my business, I’m probably not that much of a businessman to begin with. Maybe Uncle Billy has something that he can use as blackmail that keeps him in business with his partners. Maybe he saw Joe kissing Sally instead of his wife Mary and threatening to use that against Joe or something. But the people who go into business with someone like Uncle Billy are people who go out of business, because they are not smart enough to hire people who are not dip-shits to work for them. 

It's a Wonderful Life, is a classic 1930s, 1940s, 1950s Jimmy Stewart movie. Where he represents a a very simple man from a very simple time. (At least according to Hollywood) Where he's a very well-liked town and knows everybody there and they seem to like him, because he's just like everybody else in that town.  

In Jimmy Stewart's day you don't cuss, even words like damn and hell are considered sins. And if there wasn't for this little annoying thing like the First Amendment, you might get arrested for saying damn or hell in public. 

In Jimmy Stewart's day, Joe Smith is married to Mary and they have 2-3 kids. Of course Joe works and of course Mary stays home and raises their kids. Because it's considered a sin for women to work in Pleasantville. Because in Pleasantville women are not only not expected to work, but be subservient to their man. Perhaps Pleasantville is the capital of Saudi Arabia or at least part of Saudi Arabia. Except in Pleasantville the people aren't Muslin or Arab, but Protestant and tend to be Anglo-Saxon. Except for the servants, who of course are African-American and in some cases even use to be slaves. 

And George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart) is curious what life looks like outside of Pleasantville USA. And is curious what life looks like outside of his collectivist town where everyone seems to almost be a clone of someone else. Where everyone talks and thinks the same way, lives their life the same way. Again absolutely no cussing, no dancing in public, no drinking on Sunday. Everyone says Grace before they eat, etc. 

And George wants to know if everyone else in America lives this way and perhaps what big city life would be like. The problem is that Joe is dumb enough to get in bed, I mean go into business with his Uncle Billy and of course Billy's nickname is screwup, or dip-shit and runs the business into the ground like a drunk autopilot crashes a plane. And now Joe is stuck in Pleasantville or Bedford Falls (to be precise) and left there pick up the pieces and put his life back together.