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

Source:The New America Foundation- a mother and her new baby.

"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. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

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

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: 'The Shot: Reniqua Allen: Civil Rights in Present Day'

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

"This week marks the anniversary of the 1968 Civil Rights Act --intended as a follow-up to the 1964 Act -- and emphasized equal opportunity in housing. Above, 2012 New America Fellow Reniqua Allen explains why even today, owning a home is still elusive for many in the African American community.

CORRECTION: A previous version of The Shot misidentified the anniversary of the Fair Housing Act." 

From New America Foundation

I just want to correct the record on something that Reniqua Allen said in her video: it's not minorities in general that have issues with let's say the majority population in America, when it comes to decent, affordable housing. It's African-Americans, when you are talking about minorities. 

Asian and Middle Eastern Americans, aren't suffering from a lack of decent and affordable housing in America. American-Indians, yes but for obvious reasons having to do with the fact that they're still on reservations, in the middle of nowhere, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, living in extremely underdeveloped parts of the country. Similar to Anglo-Saxon and Dutch-Americans living in Appalachia. 

If you count Latino as a race in America, that would be very difficult, since Latinos are of either pure European background, mostly Spanish, or they are of mix race and ethnicity, which is very common with Latino-Americans, who in many cases tend to be of both European and West-Indian background, or European and African background, or a mixture of all these races into one. But Latino by itself is not a race. Similar to Scandinavian, or Slavic, or Australian, it's more of an ethnic division.

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. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

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

Source:New America Foundation

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.

"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. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

The New America Foundation: Michael Lind: 'The Next Social Contract'

Source:The New America Foundation- from Michael Lind's book.

"The American social contract—the implicit division of obligations among individuals, families, employers, communities, and government—has long needed an update. Policies, programs, and assumptions designed for the single-earner families and industrial workplaces of the postwar era are consistently failing to provide security and opportunities for families today. New America took up the mission of designing a new social contract in 2007 and was the first organization to frame its vision in these terms. The initiative that followed generated vital ideas that continue to shape debate and policymaking. 

The American social contract is in crisis. Even before the Great Recession exposed its inadequacy, it was clear that the existing American social contract — the system of policies and institutions designed to provide adequate incomes and economic security for all Americans — needed to be reformed to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. What is needed is not mere incremental tinkering, but rather rethinking and reconstruction. Policies that have worked should be expanded, while others that have failed should be replaced. The result should not be just a modification of today’s partly failed economic security system, but a substantially reformed system incorporating the soundest elements of the old — a new social contract for a new America."  

From The New America Foundation 

"Michael Lind, historian, Policy Director of the New America Foundation's Economic Growth Program, and author of Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States (2012), on infrastructure reform and our innovation system after the 2008 crisis.  

Watch more!  Subscribe to the Intelligent Channel!"

Source:The Intelligent Channel- talking to economic historian Michael Lind.

From The Intelligent Channel 

Source:The New Democrat- I believe this is a cartoon of Theodore Roosevelt, who is one of the founding fathers of the American public safety net.

What Michael Lind is talking about her is borrowing a helluva lot of money for a country that's already deep in national debt (meaning the United States of America) to pay for things like infrastructure, research and development, and I'm sure a European democratic welfare state, as well. Perhaps making the political calculation that American taxpayers would never agree to pay for the new taxes and tax increases to fund all of these new government services and expansion of current government services. So this needs to be soled in a way that government can tell the people that they're getting all of these new so-called free government services (because no one will pay the taxes to fund them) and it's not going to cost them anything. 

If government could just borrow the money for everything that it does, you wouldn't need taxes for anything. Why do we have taxes?  

One, to pay for the government services that we get and actually need like defense, national security, infrastructure, the regulatory state, etc. 

Two, so government doesn't have to borrow the money form other countries to pay for the government services that provides for its people. Every national government in the history of the world has run deficits to pay for its government. That's just the nature of economics everywhere in the world, especially capitalist free world. But one of the good reasons for taxes to limit how much a national government can borrow, knowing that your foreign credit could actually run out, if foreign creditors don't believe you can pay back what you actually owe. So of course every civilized country in the world has to have taxes or tariffs to pay for its government services. 

When it comes to what's called the social contract and I don't like that term because it's not as if taxpayers have a choice in whether to pay for the government services that it gets, short of  leaving the country.  

What I believe government's role in America is to see that everyone has a real shot at making it in America on their own and not needing public assistance at all or some universal welfare state to pay for their cost of living.  

Things like infrastructure investment, research and development, that government finances, can help in insuring that every American has the opportunity that they need to make it in America.  

But an overwhelming majority of Americans don't expect government to take care of them from cradle to grave. Otherwise the Socialists would've been running America a long time ago, instead of being stuck in third-party status or trying to overtake the Democratic Party. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.   

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

New America Foundation: Mark Schmitt: Liberal Brain Freeze & Security Narcissists

SourceThe New Democrat 

I disagree with this article from the New America Foundation the author of it Mark Schmitt. Liberal Democrats have a clear agenda and clear proposals coming from President Obama who is a Liberal Democrat, at least on economic policy, even though he comes up short when it comes to civil liberties and the War on Drugs. But President Obama has clear liberal leanings when it comes to economic policy. And has had a liberal economic agenda since becoming President of the United States.

And Senate Democrats have had a clear liberal economic agenda since taking control of the Senate when Democrats won took back Congress back in 2007. And House Democrats have had a clear liberal economic agenda since they took back the House in 2007 as well. And so have liberal or progressive governors at the state levels as well. And it’s just that these policies and agenda have been blocked in many ways by a partisan Senate Republican minority that has only had one goal since losing the Senate in 2006. Win back the Senate.

Senate Republicans believe the only way to win back the Senate is through obstructionism and make Senate Democrats and President Obama look like they can’t govern. And House Republicans winning back the House in 2010 have only made these problems even worst for Democrats. Liberal Democrats aren’t out of ideas when it comes to economic policy. And neither are Republicans, it just that Republicans have a lot of bad ideas right now that aren’t gaining in popularity.

But the liberal democratic economic agenda is built around building an economy. Where everyone has the opportunity and good opportunities to succeed in life and doing a lot of this through the private sector. With the Federal Government laying out priorities and goals for building this economy. By empowering people who need it to be able to move ahead on their own. President Obama’s and other Liberal Democrats economic agenda is pretty clear.

Investing in around a trillion dollars in new infrastructure investment to rebuild this country. Which would create millions of private sector jobs in the construction and manufacturing industries.

A national energy policy designed to move America to energy independence by investing in American energy resources and investing in all of them so we can get off of foreign oil in the future. 

Comprehensive immigration reform to bring in new workers with the skills to do the jobs we need done. And to bring millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows and have them pay the taxes they owe. So American citizens do not have to pay as much in taxes.

Education and job training especially for our low-skilled adults so they can get themselves good jobs. And become members of the middle class and not need public assistance in the future.

Tax reform to encourage more economic investment inside the United States and that even includes lower corporate taxes on investments in the United States. And closing wasteful corporate welfare. Today’s so-called Progressives though seem to hate the notion of lowering corporate taxes inside the United States, even if that means cutting corporate welfare.

It’s not that Liberal Democrats are out of economic ideas and ways to expand the American economy. But we do not have the power that we need to put our agenda through right now. And are dealing with a Republican opposition that has taken the, “our way or no way approach to economic policy.” And only having one goal of retaining control of the U.S. House, winning back the U.S. Senate. To set up a Republican winning back the White House in 2016.

The New America Foundation: Peter Beinart: The Rise of The New Left

Source:FRS FreeState 

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. But what happened to that movement, they essentially formed what we know as the Green Party today. A Far-Left 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. This movement also represents part of the Far-Left in the Democratic Party. Who are only Democrats in a lot of cases so they can be members of a major leftist party. And 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. Whereas the New-Left would see our military as part of the problem when it comes to world peace and even as the bad guys. That would be just one example of how the New-Left in America stands out compared with the rest of the country.