A+ R A-

George Curry

Democrats and Republicans Should End Corporate Welfare

E-mail Print PDF

Reprinted from Sacramento Bee

Speaker of the House John Boehner wants to cut at least $100 billion from the federal budget. President Obama agrees that there should be some spending reductions, but the budget shouldn’t be balanced on the backs of poor and working-class Americans. There is a way that both camps can have their way – end corporate welfare.

According to the Cato Institute, a libertarian policy group in Washington, corporate welfare cost American taxpayers $92 billion in fiscal 2006, a figure that has grown to approximately $125 billion per year. And, the beneficiaries include such major companies as Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

The Cato Institute defined corporate welfare as “any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries.”

Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies of the think tank, conducted a detailed policy analysis of the issue in 2007 titled, “The corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses.

The report shows that despite all of the public pleas for the federal government to play a reduced role in private businesses, many Fortune 500 companies are using the federal government as their personal ATMs and have made no moves to get off of the dole.

In fiscal 2006, the study found, the federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities.

“Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying some sort of market failure,” the report stated.

“Often the market failures on which the programs are predicated are either overblown or don’t exist.”

That notwithstanding, the report is replete with examples of the type of wasteful government spending that both Democrats and Republicans pretend to abhor. The largest subsidies studied in the report were granted by the Department of Agriculture ($43.7 billion). Much smaller subsidies were provided by the Department of Defense ($11.8 billion), the Department of Transportation ($5.7 billion), the Department of Housing and Urban Development ($5.1 billion) and the State Department ($4.6 billion).

The Export-Import Bank is a perfect example of unjustified federal spending. The stated purpose of the bank is to finance the purchase of U.S. goods in foreign countries. Its 2008 budget request said it was needed “to sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports.”

The Ex-Im Bank, as it is known, does that “by using taxpayer money to subsidize loans to foreign purchasers of U.S. products and to provide loans and loan guarantees to U.S. companies seeking to enter the export market. It also provides insurance for companies investing overseas,” the Cato report stated.

Boeing, the aircraft giant, receives 54.5 percent of long-term guarantees, causing some to refer to the Export-Import Bank as “Boeing’s Bank.” Other major recipients include General Electric and Conoco Phillips.

“Supporters of the Ex-Im Bank suggest that government credit is needed to level the playing field for U.S. companies as they compete against foreign countries that receive support from their government. Yet, the Ex-Im Bank’s most recent annual Competitiveness Report points out that fewer than one-third of all its loans and guarantees go to counter subsidized competition.”

The Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency Market Access Program “provides the trade associations of private agricultural firms with taxpayer dollars to help offset their foreign advertising cost,” the study noted. “At least 20 percent of this spending goes to promote brand-name products overseas.”

Why should American taxpayers subsidize the foreign advertising budgets of McDonalds, General Mills, Campbell’s Soup, Pillsbury, Miller’s beer and Gallo wines, as has been the case in the past? The largest direct subsidy program in the federal budget is for crop and farm subsidies.

Even though Congress voted in the late 1980s to phase out agricultural subsidies, they have instead increased during the past years, rising from $9.3 billion in 1990 to $24.3 billion in 2005.

According to the study, the proportion of Americans living on farms has declined 16.3 percent in 1948 to approximately two percent in 40 years. Yet, because of technology, farm productivity is at its highest level.

Most farmers don’t receive direct subsidies from the federal government,” the report states. “The taxpayer-financed handouts go to only about one-third of the nation’s farmers and ranchers. So, where does all the taxpayer money spent on farmers actually go? Mainly to large corporate agribusinesses and the richest farmers. In 2005…the richest 10 percent of all subsidy recipients received 66 percent of all subsidies.”

Cash-strapped states will be forced to reexamine state corporate welfare. In Pennsylvania, for example, the state provided more than $40 million in subsidies to a Sony plant, only to see it leave the state just as Volkswagen, the previous owner of the site, had done earlier.

Recognizing the powerful intersection of lobbyists, elected officials and money, the Cato report recognized that reforming corporate welfare is not likely to come about through the works of federal lawmakers heavily influenced by lobbyists. It therefore recommended creating a corporate welfare reform commission. But given the success of Obama’s high-profile deficit commission, his eagerness to make peace with the business community and the Republicans’ traditional pro-business positions, Congress and the executive branch are unlikely consider ending corporate welfare as we know it.

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine and the NNPA News Service, is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. He can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge.

Some Colleges Flunking Fair Admissions Test

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) It’s the beginning of a new year and that means it is time for high school seniors to begin completing college applications. Increasingly, whether they get admitted will have nothing to do with their grades, their SAT scores, or their overall aptitude for college. They may end up getting denied admission to the college of their choice because of a criminal record.

Whether a person’s past should continue to be held against them -- even after they have completed their sentence – has long been an issue of public debate. Some states hamper an ex-offenders’ rehabilitation by denying them the ability to vote or to hold certain trade licenses.

The trend among colleges to use a person’s criminal history against them in the admissions process is being perceived as a new civil rights issue because a college degree increases people’s ability to obtain a job commensurate with their skills and abilities.

A survey by the Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) in collaboration with the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) sent out a 59-page questionnaire in late 2009 to 3,248 institutions. Of those, 272 responded.

Á majority of the responding colleges (66%) collect criminal justice information, although not all of them consider it in their admissions. The survey found, “Private schools and four-year schools are more likely to collect and use such information than their public and two-year counterparts.”

In most cases, colleges depend on applicants to self-disclose their criminal history.

“If it is discovered that an applicant has failed to disclose a criminal record there is an increased likelihood that the applicant will be denied admission or have their admission offer rescinded,” according to report titled, The Use of Criminal History Records in College Admissions Reconsidered.

At the end of 2008, more than 100 million Americans had either been arrested or convicted of a crime, the study said. Another 2.3 million were in jails and prisons, giving the United States the highest incarceration rate in the world.

The report by CCA notes that African-Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately hurt by the admissions policy because they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

“Racial disparities have been documented in the processing of every type of crime, from juvenile delinquency to low-level misdemeanors to the imposition of the death penalty,” the report stated. “So pervasive is the criminal justice system in the lives of Black men that more Black men have done prison time than have earned college degrees. Because racial bias occurs at every stage of the criminal justice system, screening for criminal records cannot be a race-neutral practice.”

It explained that the use of criminal records “has become a surrogate for race-based discrimination, serving the same function, albeit unintentionally, as the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws in earlier times.” The report continued, “Hyper-aggressive law enforcement in low-income communities of color has led to the overrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos among those with criminal convictions. Excluding otherwise qualified applicants from attending college because of a criminal record has the effect of depriving large numbers of people of color from opportunities that form the core of the ‘American Dream.’”

The move to consider criminal records originated from a concern for campus safety, especially in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shooting.

“While college campuses are not immune from crime, the data show that they are remarkably safe places compared to the community-at-large,” the report observes. “This is particularly true for serious crimes that involve personal violence. Violent crime on campus is rare, and the few college students who are victims of such crimes are mostly victimized off-campus by strangers. The Virginia Tech incident, a tragic but aberrational event, was committed by a student who did not have a criminal record.”

The report found that there is no measurable difference in the campus safety of colleges that examine a person’s criminal past and those that don’t.

“Our argument for eliminating the collection and use of [criminal histories] in admission decisions is in large part based on the absence of any empirical evidence showing that students with criminal records pose a safety risk on campus,” the report said.

If colleges are determined to use the records, there are ways they can limit the adverse impact on applicants lives. For example, the colleges can limit disclosure to specific types of convictions, such as felonies, but not misdemeanors or infractions; convictions that occurred only within the last five years or only felonies committed after the applicant’s nineteenth birthday.

Additionally, colleges can provide applicants with an opportunity to document personal growth and rehabilitation. They can also remove barriers to admission for applicants still under some form of community supervision.

The push to get colleges not to consider criminal backgrounds in college admissions is an extension of “ban the box” movement to prevent employers from discriminating against ex-offenders. Even the American Bar Association (ABA) has passed a resolution calling for increased opportunities for people who got into trouble as juveniles.

Our communities – on-campus and off-campus -- will be safer if ex-offenders are effectively eased back into the society.

The report concluded, “Depriving people of access to higher education based on a criminal record does not make campuses safer; instead it undermines public safety by foreclosing an opportunity that has proven to be one of the most effective deterrents to recidivism.”

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine and the NNPA News Service, is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. He can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge.

John Boehner's Voting Record: A Crying Shame

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) Incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner is shedding so many tears in public that some are calling him the Weeper of the House. The Ohio Republican cries at every turn. There’s video of him crying on the House floor in 2007 when discussing the plight of soldiers being deployed to Iraq.

There’s another video of him crying on June 4, 2009 at the unveiling of a Ronald Reagan statue in the capitol. Last May, he cried when he accepted the pro-life Hyde Award. And, after he was re-elected to Congress in November, Boehner, the secondoldest of 12 children, started tearing up while recalling his hardscrabble upbringing in Reading, Ohio, a factory town just outside Cincinnati.

“Listen, I hold these values dear because I’ve lived them,” he said at the time. “I spent my whole life chasing… the American dream.” Then, the tears began flowing.

An appearance December 12 on CBS News’ 60 Minutes also featured waterworks. Leslie Stahl asked, “On election night, what made you sad, what – what got to you that night?”

With tears in his eyes, Boehner replied, “I was talking, trying to talk about the fact that I’ve been chasing the American Dream my whole career. There’s some – some things that are real – very difficult to talk about – family, kids, I can’t go to a school anymore. I used to go to a lot of schools. And, you see all these little kids running around. Can’t talk about it.”

Later in the interview, Boehner cried again when his wife, Debbie, said she was proud of him. Nodding toward the congressman, Stahl asked his wife, “You know what’s happening over here?” She answered, “Oh, yeah.” Trying to deny the obvious, John Boehner said, “No, my nose is running.” But his wife interrupted, “That wasn’t a nose running” Stahl agreed: “No, it’s not. What set you off that time because she’s proud of you?” She then stated the obvious: “He cries all the time.”

Some are pointing to Boehner’s public crying as proof that it’s alright for men to show their emotions in public. But, imagine the public reaction if the one doing the crying was outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi instead of John Boehner. She would be accused of playing the female card and every other card in and out of the deck.

Ironically, the man who worked as a janitor at night to pay his way through college has a terrible record supporting legislation that would benefit people from a similar background. He earns a low-F on every NAACP Legislative Report Card, voting for legislation favored by the NAACP only 18 percent of the time in the 110th Congress (2008) and 16 percent of the time in the 111th Congress (2009).

His life is one of contradictions:

• Although he talks about his heart melting at the mere sight of school children, Boehner was in the defeated minority when Congress passed the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, which expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) so that every child living in the U.S. would be assured of high-quality health-care coverage.

• Boehner tearfully recalls that because of limited finances, it took him seven years to complete college. However, he voted against a bill that reauthorized the Higher Education Act for five years and increased the maximum Pell Grant to $8,000. The bill passed the House 380-49 and was signed into law.

• He talked about the tough time his father had as a bar owner. Yet, Boehner voted against the Small Business Lending Improvement Act of 2007, which was passed by the House 380-45. The bill authorized loans up to $250,000 to small businesses owned by women, veterans, and others considered socially or economically disadvantaged.

• The Ohio congressman talks about the difficulty of a family with 12 children growing up in a 2-bedroom house with only one bathroom. But that didn’t prevent him from opposing funding for the Hope VI housing program.

• Boehner even had the nerve to praise Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. yet vote against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which allows the federal government to assist local officials in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. The bill passed the House 249-175.

• He also voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which was signed into law by President Obama. The measure clarified provisions that allow employees to challenge pay discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, age or disability.

• Boehner speaks often about the need to create more jobs, but voted against H.R. 2847, a bill that appropriated $154.4 billion for infrastructure projects, jobs programs, and aid to local and state governments so that they can continue providing basic services. The bill passed the House 217-210.

If anyone should be crying, it should be the people Boehner has abandoned.

Even conservatives are fed up with Boehner’s lonely teardrops. RedState.com, a conservative blog, stated: “Someone needs to tell John Boehner to grow the heck up and stop crying in front of every camera thrust in front of him...” It continued, “Boehner is now coming across as a blubbering, tongue-tied basket case whenever he has to think about something difficult or emotionally challenging.

If he keeps crying every time someone asks him a tough question, it might be wise for the Republican caucus to relieve him of his duties and get him some help…”

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine and the NNPA News Service, is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. He can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge.

President Obama is an Apprentice Negotiator

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) President Barack Obama’s negotiations with Republicans over extending both the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits reminded me of an episode of The Apprentice. In week 11, the Octane team of Clint and Steuart was matched against the Fortitude team of Brandy and Liza. The task was to meet with QVC officials and pick a product to sell on television. The team with the highest sales would be declared the winner and the losers would have to face Donald Trump in the board room.

On the helicopter ride from New York City to QVC headquarters in Westchester, Pa., Clint concocted a strategy to trick the women. Although Clint and Steuart wanted to sell purses on TV, they pretended to want the watches as their first choice. In the negotiations with team Fortitude, they allowed the women to select the watches as their product; in a concession to the men, Octane was allowed to have a more favorable second time slot. In the end, the men got exactly what they had wanted all along.

In the negotiations between President Obama and Republican leaders, President Obama was similarly duped. Republicans played him by saying federal unemployment benefits would be extended only if Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for all people, including families earning more than $250,000 a year.

Instead of standing up to Republicans who have already declared their top priority is to deny him re-election in 2012, Obama wimped out. And, he wimped out when he had the overwhelming majority of the public on his side.

On the campaign trail, Obama promised to extend the Bush tax cuts only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples making less than $250,000. That would cover 98 percent of all taxpayers. Even John Boehner, the incoming Speaker of the House, said he would support a measure that did not include the tax breaks for the top 2 percent, if that were his only choice. Under pressure from his Republican colleagues, Boehner retracted his comment.

Extending the tax cuts for the rich makes no sense. At a time when both Democrats and Republicans claim to be concerned about the $1.4 trillion deficit, it will cost at least $80 billion over the next two years to extend cuts for the wealthy. If they stay in place for 10 years, the figure would rise to almost $700 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

More than half of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2006 will go solely to the richest five percent of Americans. According to the Census Bureau, the gap between the richest and poorest Americans is at its largest level since the government began tracking household income in 1967.

Obama said he did not want to risk damaging an already frail economy by standing up to the GOP on the tax extension for the rich. He said in order to get an extension of unemployment benefits, he had to compromise with Republicans and extend the cuts to everyone.

That was an enormous mistake. Obama should have borrowed a page from Ronald Reagan and dared Republicans to make his day. Let Senator Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner explain to 98 of percent of Americans why they opposed legislation that would extend the tax breaks to them but not the top two percent of earners. the GOP leaders justify why those making $1 million or more should continue to get a tax break averaging $100,000 a year.

See how far “the Party of No” would get by denying additional unemployment benefits to the jobless in their home districts. Republicans don’t mind playing a game of chicken with Obama because they know they can count on him running off the road, usually before they even start the engine.

Extending tax breaks to the wealthy, which the Congressional Budget Office said is the least effective way to stimulate the economy, was bad enough. But, to cave in to “hostage-takers” -- Obama’s words, not mine – on the estate tax is even more indefensible.

Under current law, the first $3.5 million of an estate ($7 million for couples) is exempt from taxes, with the maximum rate of 45 percent on the remainder. The deal with Republicans increases the estate exemption to $5 million ($10 million for couples) and sets a maximum tax rate of 35 percent for the remainder. According to the Tax Policy Center, this will provide $25 billion in tax reductions during the next two years to the top one percent of estates.

The compromise with Republicans wasn’t totally one-sided. In addition to a 13-week extension of federal unemployment benefits, the package continues for two years the American Opportunity Act that helps low- and middle-income families pay for college and improvements in the Earned Income Tax Credit. It also contains a one-year reduction of the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent on the first $106,800 in wages.

Many believe Obama could have gotten those concessions without giving away the store.

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., one of Obama’s presidential co-chairs in 2008, said of his fellow Democrats: “…We capitulated too much in the majority, and now we’re capitulating as if we’re already in the minority. We’re acting like inexperienced poker players who fold with a winning hand.”

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine and the NNPA News Service, is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. He can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge.

Limbaugh and Huckabee Propose Airport Groping of Obama Girls

E-mail Print PDF

All our lives we’ve heard stories about The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. Now we can add to that two grinches – Rush Limbaugh and Mike Huckabee – who stole the Obama family’s Thanksgiving. Or, at least tried. While the rest of us were preparing last week to express gratitude for our blessings, those two spent the days leading up to Thanksgiving urging President Barack Obama to expose his wife, two daughters, and mother-in-law to airport security groping.

Huckabee, told his television friends on Fox and Friends: “If he thinks this is an appropriate way for us to deal with security as he has defended, then I’ve said, ‘OK, Mr. Obama, take your wife, your two daughters, and your mother-in-law to Washington Reagan National Airport and have them publicly go through both the body scanner and the full enhanced pat-down in front of others. And, if it’s OK for your wife, your daughters, and your mother-in-law, then maybe the rest of us won’t feel so bad when our wives, our daughters, and our mothers are being put through this humiliating and degrading, totally unconstitutional, intrusion of their privacy.’”

Limbaugh said just like Obama went swimming with his daughter Sasha off the coast of Florida after the BP oil spill to show that the beaches were safe, he should “take his daughter to the airport and have a TSA grope her” to prove it is safe.

These are yet more examples of critics who have an issue with the president attacking his family instead of criticizing whatever public policy issue they find objectionable. It’s fine to attack the idiotic way the Transportation Security Administration has rolled out tougher screening measures. But it’s not okay to use the Obama daughters in particular for target practice. They’ve done nothing to deserve such crass treatment by men who should know better.

This is not the first and nor will it be the last time those two beautiful girls have been used to make a political point.

In June, Glenn Beck was enraged by an author moving next door to Sarah Palin in Alaska in preparation for writing a book. He said at the time, “You don’t go after Chelsea Clinton. You don’t talk about the Bush kids…You leave families alone.”

Two days later, however, he mocked 11-year-old Malia Obama, whose father had told the public that she had asked him when the BP oil spill would be plugged. Beck did a poor imitation of Malia on his radio program and questioned her intelligence.

Of course he later apologized, but attack dogs such as Beck usually issue perfunctory apologies after they’ve done the damage.

The attacks on the Obama women were crude and sexist. Why did the Limbaugh and Huckabee axis of evil only suggest that Obama take women relatives to the airport for intrusive screenings and pat-downs? Do they think President Obama own his wife, daughters, and mother-in-law and is therefore able to order them to go to the airport? Has it ever crossed their warped minds that Michelle Obama is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law, an equal partner in her marriage and does not have to walk two steps behind her man?

There were other ways Huckabee and Limbaugh could have made their point. For example, they could have suggested that the president and the vice president make the trek to the airport. They also could have suggested that members of his cabinet, both males and females, take off their shoes and subject themselves to a full body scan.

No, the suggestion was that the president take only women – the women closest to him – on a field trip for public humiliation. Perhaps it’s no accident that two White men were bold enough to tell this Black man what to do with “his” women.

In the bygone era that both Limbaugh and Huckabee often long for, White men told Black men what to do and when to do it. Though many in that era were avowed segregationists, they believed in integration during the time they forced themselves on defenseless African-American women. Former Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina is Exhibit A.

White women were also exploited. They were relegated to the home, weren’t allowed to own property, forbidden from filing suit in court, banned from entering into contracts, and weren’t allowed to have custody of their own children. They weren’t allowed to vote until 1920.

For women, the bygone era is not totally bygone.

Discrimination based on sex was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was not until 1968 that the EEOC ruled that sex-segregated newspaper ads were illegal. In 1974, women were allowed to obtain credit in their own name. Sexual harassment was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986. And, just last year, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act was signed into law by President Obama, giving women a better opportunity to earn the same pay as their male counterparts. Recent advancements notwithstanding, women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.

This is the world the Obama women and every other female live in.

I often think about what the late historian John Hope Franklin said on the eve of President Obama’s election. He said that it may be more important to see a Black family in the White House than simply an African-American man. Now that we have a smart, loving intact family residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it’s disturbing that Limbaugh’s and Huckabee’s primary desire today is to have the president order the females in his family to go to the airport for body scans and pat-downs.

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine and the NNPA News Service, is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. He can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. He can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge.

Page 34 of 40

BVN National News Wire