Economic inequality

  • June 7, 2012
    BookTalk
    So Rich, So Poor
    Why It's So Hard to End Poverty in the United States
    By: 
    Peter Edelman

    By Peter Edelman a law professor at Georgetown University, co-director of the University’s Joint Degree in Law and Public Policy, and Faculty Director for the school’s Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy. Edelman is also the chair of the American Constitution Society’s Board of Directors, and will be signing copies of his book at the ACS National Convention next week.


    It’s never hard to find a policy hook to discuss poverty in the United States, but one we have just now is the recent budget for FY 2013 proposed by Paul Ryan and the House Republicans which proposes to slash virtually every program that helps low-income people in our country.  My new book is called So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in the United States. Paul Ryan and colleagues are definitely a policy hook for talking about my book.

    I could just say that people like Paul Ryan and the House Republicans are the reason why it’s so hard to end poverty in our nation. That’s not wrong, but the story is much more complicated than that. We have a long list of successful programs without which we’d have 40 million additional people in poverty over and above the 46 million we have now. Don’t let anybody tell you that nothing works. Paul Ryan’s line is that if we have 46 million people in poverty now, it’s because the programs are a failure – because social security, food stamps, the earned income tax credit, housing vouchers, and Medicare and Medicaid are failures. And some people – all too many -- take him seriously.    

    No, we have 46 million people in poverty and tens of millions more struggling every day to make ends meet for other reasons. There are two problems here, actually: the millions who work as hard as they can and can’t get out of poverty or near-poverty, and the smaller (but not small) group who are virtually destitute, with incomes below half the poverty line, or below $9,000 for a family of three. The first group – whose basic problem is the huge number of low-wage jobs now extant in our economy – now constitutes a third of the population, 103 million people who have incomes below twice the poverty line (below $36,000 for a family of three). The second – those in deep poverty – now number 20.5 million, up by almost 8 million since 2000. Both numbers are staggering, each in its own way.

  • June 7, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Cedric Ricks, Communications Associate, National Fair Housing Alliance


    No one profits when potential homebuyers or renters are turned away, not because of their ability to pay, but because of their race, national origin, skin color, sex, religion, familial status or because of a disability.

    Housing discrimination is a sad reality that runs counter to the American ideal of fairness but affects nearly four million people annually. Unfortunately, meager funding allows only a fraction of those complaints to be investigated and rectified.  The nation’s private non-profit fair housing organizations investigated 65 percent of the 27,092 housing discrimination complaints filed across the nation in 2011, according to a recent report from the National Fair Housing Alliance. On a shoestring budget, these organizations are the first line of defense against illegal housing discrimination. The report, Fair Housing in a Changing Nation, 2012 Fair Housing Trends Report, discusses emerging fair housing trends affecting our country, which grows increasingly diverse and is expected to include a population with people of color in the majority by 2042.  According to the U.S. Census, people with disabilities already account for about 19 percent or 54 million people in the United States. That number is expected to grow over time. 

    While the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, familial status, sex and disability, Fair Housing in a Changing Nation reports that 44 percent of all housing discrimination complaints investigated by private groups in 2011 involved discrimination against people with disabilities. The report indicates that discrimination involving race accounted for about 19 percent of those complaints while familial status accounted for 13 percent and national origin and sex each accounted for over 5 percent of those complaints. It is important to note that disability complaints are high because many apartment owners make direct comments refusing to make reasonable accommodations or modifications for people with disabilities so it is easier to detect the discrimination.  Discrimination based on race, national origin and other protected classes is harder to detect but continues to be a pervasive problem that affects our nation's communities. Private fair housing organizations also reported more than 10 percent of their complaints involved discrimination against people not currently protected under the federal Fair Housing Act. For example, LGBT protections are not part of the federal law, but there are at least 20 states, the District of Columbia and more than 200 localities with laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

  • May 24, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has been a loud, at times obnoxious, critic of serious efforts to strengthen regulations of the financial industry. Specifically he has fought the Volcker rule, which would bar federally insured banks from risky trading ventures, similar to the ones that Dimon’s bank engaged in that led to a multi-billion dollar loss.

    Dimon is also on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is instrumental in supervising and regulating financial institutions. A growing number of people, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, are suggesting that Dimon is unfit to serve on the board of an institution that is charged with checking the actions of JPMorgan, which as The New York Times has noted emerged from the Great Recession as “the nation’s biggest bank.”  

    Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is the latest influential voice to call for Dimon to go.

    Writing for The Baseline Scenario, Johnson noting that the NY Fed is a “key part of our regulatory and supervisory apparatus,” concludes that it makes no sense for Dimon to remain a part of the apparatus that “oversees his activities, decisions, and potential losses.” Johnson is asking others to join the effort urging Dimon to resign from the board.

    The JPMorgan debacle centers on a trader in London dubbed the “London Whale,” apparently for playing a central role in a risky hedging strategy that led to the announcement of a $2 billion, likely far higher, trading loss.

    In a post for his Rolling Stone blog, Matt Taibbi says, “If you’re wondering why you should care if some idiot trader (who apparently has been making $100 million a year at Chase, a company that has been the recipient of at least $390 billion in emergency Fed loans) loses $2 billion for Jamie Dimon, here’s why: because J.P. Morgan Chase is a federally-insured depository institution that has been and will continue to be the recipient of massive amounts of public assistance. If the bank fails, someone will reach into your pocket to pay for the cleanup. So when they gamble like drunken sailors, it’s everyone’s problem.”

  • May 14, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    As the campaign continues to encourage supporters of the right-wing advocacy group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, better known as ALEC, to rethink their support of the group, The Huffington Post’s Dan Froomkin reveals the group’s efforts to help its members fend off pesky questions about its corporate backers.

    Froomkin says a memo, obtained by Common Cause, was sent to ALEC members essentially telling them to try and change the subject. “The model answers,” Froomkin writes, “provided by ALEC have the consistent theme of attempting to obscure the influence of its corporate members and to shift emphasis onto the role of legislators, whose dues comprise only 2 percent of the group’s budget, according to an analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy.”

    For years ALEC has crafted model legislation for state lawmakers advancing interests of corporate America, as well as Religious Right outfits and the National Rifle Association, usually with little media notice. Bu that changed after Florida’s so-called “Stand Your Ground” law drew national coverage.

    Although ALEC has argued that laws, such as the Stand Your Ground Law, which garnered national attention after the killing of the Florida youngster Trayvon Martin, are wholly the product of state lawmakers, high-profile commentators have noted that the group and its work is funded largely by big corporations.

    In late March, Matt Gertz of Media Matters noted that the Florida law, which provides great legal protection to people who shoot others outside their homes, is “virtually identical to Section 1 of ALEC’s Castle Doctrine Act ….” 

    A coalition of groups, including ColorOfChange and CMD, has urged corporate sponsors to pay closer attention to the work of ALEC and to stop supporting it. More than a dozen corporations have severed ties with ALEC, including Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo., and Blue Cross Blue Shield. ColorOfChange recently announced that the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards has ceased support of ALEC.

  • May 7, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The severely conservative U.S. House of Representatives is peddling yet another effort to slash services for the poor.

    As TPM’s Sahil Kapur reports “House Republicans are set to advance legislation to replace automatic defense spending cuts they agreed to last year with cuts to programs for the poor and working class.”

    Yes, the House’s plan is likely only to be symbolic, as Kapur notes the legislation is expected to go nowhere in the Senate. Yet it provides, as if anyone needed it, another example of the conservative party’s extreme opposition to any policy that might raise taxes on the super wealthy.

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen, (pictured) the House Budget Committee’s Ranking Member, in a May 3 report blasted the proposal for advancing “costly additional tax breaks for millionaires while finding savings by ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors, slashing investments that strengthen our economy, and shredding the social safety net.”

    As noted here, a string of commentators have argued that the conservative party has been retooled to focus solely on protecting tax cuts for the wealthy, even as the middle class shrinks and poverty grows.

    A recent study from political scientists at the University of Georgia and New York University reflects a drastically changed political party, noting that the “Republican Party is the most conservative it has been in a century,” NPR’s Frank James reports.

    In a piece for The Huffington Post, Mike Lux said the political scientists “are underestimating.”