THEN CLINTON PARDONED ALL HIS CRIMINAL BILLIONAIRE DONORS AS
HE LEFT OFFICE.
OBAMA IS NOTHING BUT BUSH’S THIRD TERM. WARS FOR BUSH-SAUDI
INVADERS’ INTEREST OVER THERE, BUT OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS OVER HERE WITH
NARCOMEX!
WHILE AMERICANS ARE FORCED TO HAND THEIR JOBS TO “CHEAP”
LABOR ILLEGALS, WE ARE ALSO FORCED TO SUPPORT THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE IN OUR
BORDERS! NOT ONE LEGAL VOTED FOR THIS!
MEXIFORNIA, WHERE HALF OF ALL MURDERS ARE BY MEX GANGS, PUTS
OUT $20 BILLION PER YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS. ON TOP OF THIS EVERY
COUNTY PUTS OUT MORE, WITH THE LARGES PAYOUT BEING IN MEX-OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES,
WHICH PAYS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS.
NOT ONE LEGAL VOTED FOR THIS!
IT IS NOW ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS IN CA TO USE E-VERIFY!
NEW YORK TIMES
April 7, 2012
Welfare
Limits Left Poor Adrift as Recession Hit
By JASON DePARLE
PHOENIX — Perhaps
no law in the past generation has drawn more praise than the drive to “end
welfare as we know it,” which joined the late-’90s economic boom to send
caseloads plunging, employment rates rising and officials of both parties
hailing the virtues of tough love.
But the distress
of the last four years has added a cautionary postscript: much as overlooked
critics of the restrictions once warned, a program that built its reputation
when times were good offered little help when jobs disappeared. Despite the
worst economy in decades, the cash welfare rolls have barely budged.
Faced with flat
federal financing and rising need, Arizona is one of 16 states that have cut
their welfare caseloads further since the start of the recession — in its case, by
half. Even as it turned away the needy, Arizona spent most of its federal welfare
dollars on other programs, using permissive rules to plug state budget gaps.
The poor people
who were dropped from cash assistance here, mostly single mothers, talk with
surprising openness about the desperate, and sometimes illegal, ways they make
ends meet. They have sold food stamps, sold blood, skipped meals, shoplifted,
doubled up with friends, scavenged trash bins for bottles and cans and returned
to relationships with violent partners — all with children in tow.
Esmeralda
Murillo, a 21-year-old mother of two, lost her welfare check, landed in a
shelter and then returned to a boyfriend whose violent temper had driven her
away. “You don’t know who to turn to,” she said.
Maria Thomas, 29,
with four daughters, helps friends sell piles of brand-name clothes, taking
pains not to ask if they are stolen. “I don’t know where they come from,” she
said. “I’m just helping get rid of them.”
To keep her
lights on, Rosa Pena, 24, sold the groceries she bought with food stamps and
then kept her children fed with school lunches and help from neighbors. Her
post-welfare credo is widely shared: “I’ll do what I have to do.”
Critics of the
stringent system say stories like these vindicate warnings they made in 1996
when President Bill Clinton fulfilled his pledge
to “end welfare as we know it”: the revamped law encourages states to withhold
aid, especially when the economy turns bad.
The old program, Aid to
Families with Dependent Children, dates from the New Deal; it gave states
unlimited matching funds and offered poor families extensive rights, with few
requirements and no time limits. The new program, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, created time limits and work rules, capped federal spending and
allowed states to turn poor families away.
“My take on it
was the states would push people off and not let them back on, and that’s just
what they did,” said Peter B. Edelman, a law professor at Georgetown University
who resigned from the Clinton administration to protest
the law. “It’s been even worse than I thought it would be.”
But supporters of
the current system often say lower caseloads are evidence of decreased
dependency. Many leading Republicans are pushing for similar changes to much
larger programs, like Medicaid and food
stamps.
Representative
Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the top House Republican on budget issues, calls the
current welfare program “an unprecedented success.” Mitt Romney, who leads the
race for the Republican presidential nomination, has said he would place
similar restrictions on “all these federal programs.” One of his rivals, Rick
Santorum, calls the welfare law a source of spiritual rejuvenation.
“It didn’t just
cut the rolls, but it saved lives,” Mr. Santorum said, giving the poor
“something dependency doesn’t give: hope.”
President Obama
spoke favorably of the program in his 2008 campaign — promoting his role as a
state legislator in cutting the Illinois welfare rolls. But he has said little
about it as president.
Even in the 1996
program’s early days, when jobs were plentiful, a subset of families appeared
disconnected — left with neither welfare nor work. Their numbers were growing
before the recession and seem to have surged since then.
No Money, No Job
While data on the
very poor is limited and subject to challenge, recent studies have found that
as many as one in every four low-income single mothers are jobless and without
cash aid — roughly four million women and children. Many of the mothers have
problems like addiction or depression, which can make assisting them
politically unpopular, and they have received little attention in a downturn
that has produced an outpouring of concern for the middle class.
Poor families can
turn to other programs, like food stamps or Medicaid, or rely on family and
charity. But the absence of a steady source of cash, however modest, can bring
new instability to troubled lives.
One prominent
supporter of the tough welfare law is worried that it may have increased
destitution among the most disadvantaged families. “This is the biggest problem
with welfare reform, and we ought to be paying attention to it,” said Ron
Haskins of the Brookings Institution, who helped draft the 1996 law as an aide
to House Republicans and argues that it has worked well for most recipients.
“The issue here
is, can you create a strong work program, as we did, without creating a big
problem at the bottom?” Mr. Haskins said. “And we have what appears to be a big
problem at the bottom.”
He added, “This
is what really bothers me: the people who supported welfare reform, they’re
ignoring the problem.”
The welfare
program was born amid apocalyptic warnings and was instantly proclaimed a
success, at times with a measure of “I told you so” glee from its supporters.
Liberal critics had warned that its mix of time limits and work rules would
create mass destitution — “children sleeping on the grates,” in the words of
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat who died in 2003.
But the economy
boomed, employment soared, poverty fell and caseloads plunged. Thirty-two
states reduced their caseloads by two-thirds or more, as officials issued press
releases and jostled for bragging rights. The tough law played a large role,
but so did expansions of child care and tax credits that raised take-home pay.
In a twist on
poverty politics, poor single mothers, previously chided as “welfare queens,”
were celebrated as working-class heroes, with their stories of leaving the
welfare rolls cast as uplifting tales of pluck. Flush with federal money,
states experimented with programs that offered counseling, clothes and used
cars.
But if the rise
in employment was larger than predicted, it was also less transformative than
it may have seemed. Researchers found that most families that escaped poverty
remained “near poor.”
And despite
widespread hopes that working mothers might serve as role models, studies found
few social or educational benefits for their children. (They measured things
like children’s aspirations, self-esteem, grades, drug use and arrests.)
Nonmarital births continued to rise.
But the image of
success formed early and stayed frozen in time.
“The debate is
over,” President Clinton said a year after signing the law, which he often
cites in casting himself as a centrist. “Welfare reform works.”
The recession
that began in 2007 posed a new test to that claim. Even with $5 billion in new
federal funds, caseloads rose just 15 percent from the lowest level in two
generations. Compared with the 1990s peak, the national welfare rolls are still
down by 68 percent. Just one in five poor children now receives cash aid, the
lowest level in nearly 50 years.
As the downturn
wreaked havoc on budgets, some states took new steps to keep the needy away.
They shortened time limits, tightened eligibility rules and reduced benefits
(to an average of about $350 a month for a family of three).
Since 2007, 11
states have cut the rolls by 10 percent or more. They include centers of
unemployment like Georgia, Indiana and Rhode Island, as well as Michigan, where
the welfare director justified cuts by telling legislators, “We have a fair
number of people gaming the system.” Arizona cut benefits by 20 percent and
shortened time limits twice — to two years, from five.
Many people
already found the underlying system more hassle than help, a gantlet of
job-search classes where absences can be punished by a complete loss of aid.
Some states explicitly pursue a policy of deterrence to make sure people use
the program only as a last resort.
Since the states
get fixed federal grants, any caseload growth comes at their own expense. By
contrast, the federal government pays the entire food stamp bill no matter how
many people enroll; states encourage applications, and the rolls have reached
record highs.
Among the
Arizonans who lost their checks was Tamika Shelby, who first sought cash aid at
29 after fast-food jobs and a stint as a waitress in a Phoenix strip club. The
state gave her $176 a month and sent her to work part time at a food bank.
Though she was effectively working for $2 an hour, she scarcely missed a day in
more than a year.
“I loved it,” she
said.
Her supervisor,
Michael Cox, said Ms. Shelby “was just wonderful” and “would even come up here
on her days off.”
Then the reduced
time limit left Ms. Shelby with neither welfare nor work. She still gets about
$250 a month in food stamps for herself and her 3-year-old son, Dejon. She
counts herself fortunate, she said, because a male friend lets her stay in a
spare room, with no expectations of sex. Still, after feeding her roommate and
her child, she said, “there are plenty of days I don’t eat.”
“I know there are
some people who abuse the system,” Ms. Shelby said. “But I was willing to do
anything they asked me to. If I could, I’d still be working for those two
dollars an hour.”
Diverting Federal
Funds
Clarence H.
Carter, Arizona’s director of economic security, says finances forced officials
to cut the rolls. But the state gets the same base funding from the federal
government, $200 million, that it received in the mid-1990s when caseloads were
five times as high. (The law also requires it to spend $86 million in state
funds.)
Arizona spends
most of the federal money on other human services programs, especially foster care and adoption services,
while using just one-third for cash benefits and work programs — the core
purposes of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. If it did not use the
federal welfare money, the state would have to finance more of those programs
itself.
“Yes, we divert —
divert’s a bad word,” said State Representative John Kavanagh, a Republican and
chairman of the Arizona House Appropriations Committee. “It helps the state.”
While federal law
allows such flexibility, critics say states neglect poor families to patch
their own finances. Nationally, only 30 percent of the welfare money is spent
on cash benefits.
“It’s not that
the other stuff isn’t important, but it’s not what T.A.N.F.” — the Temporary
Assistance program — “was intended for,” said LaDonna Pavetti of the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, a Washington research and advocacy group. “The states use the
money to fill budget holes.”
Even in an
economy as bad as Arizona’s, some recipients find work. Estefana Armas, a
30-year-old mother of three, spent nine years on the rolls, fighting depression
so severe that it left her hospitalized. Once exempt from time limits because
of her mental health, Ms. Armas joined support groups, earned a high school
equivalency degree and enrolled in community college.
Just as her time
expired last summer, Ms. Armas found work as a teacher’s aide at a church
preschool.
“It kind of
pushed me to get a job,” she said.
Supporters of
Temporary Assistance cite stories like that to argue that it promotes a work
ethic. Despite high unemployment, low-skilled single mothers work as much now,
on average, as they did under the old welfare law — and by some measures, a bit
more. As a group, their poverty rates are still lower. And those without cash
aid, they say, can turn to other programs.
“We have reduced
our caseload, and we don’t have people dying in the street,” Mr. Kavanagh said.
“There were an awful lot of people who didn’t need it.”
But the number of
very poor families appears to be growing. Pamela Loprest and Austin Nichols,
researchers at the Urban
Institute, found that one in four low-income single mothers nationwide —
about 1.5 million — are jobless and without cash aid. That is twice the rate
the researchers found under the old welfare law. More than 40 percent remain
that way for more than a year, and many have mental or physical disabilities,
sick children or problems with domestic violence.
Using a different
definition of distress, Luke Shaefer of the University of Michigan and Kathryn
Edin of Harvard examined the share of households with children in a given month
living on less than $2 per person per day. It has nearly doubled since 1996, to
almost 4 percent. Even when counting food stamps as cash, they found one of
every 50 children live in such a household.
The Census Bureau
uses a third measure, “deep poverty,” which it defines as living on less than
half of the amount needed to escape poverty (for a family of three, that means
living on less than $9,000 a year). About 10 percent of households headed by women
report incomes that low, a bit less than the peak under the old law but still
the highest level in 18 years.
Some researchers
say the studies exaggerate poverty by inadequately accounting for undisclosed
income, like help from boyfriends or under-the-table jobs. They note that
asking poor people about their consumption, rather than their income, suggests
that even the poorest single mothers have improved their standard of living
since 1996.
Mr. Haskins, the
Temporary Assistance program’s architect, agrees that poverty at the bottom “is
not as bad as it seems,” but adds, “It’s still pretty darn bad.”
Trying to Make Do
Asked how they
survived without cash aid, virtually all of the women interviewed here said
they had sold food stamps, getting 50 cents for every dollar of groceries they
let others buy with their benefit cards. Many turned to food banks and
churches. Nationally, roughly a quarter have subsidized housing, with rents as
low as $50 a month.
Several women
said the loss of aid had left them more dependent on troubled boyfriends. One
woman said she sold her child’s Social Security number so a
relative could collect a tax credit worth $3,000.
“I tried to sell
blood, but they told me I was anemic,” she said.
Several women
acknowledged that they had resorted to shoplifting, including one who took
orders for brand-name clothes and sold them for half-price. Asked how she got
cash, one woman said flatly, “We rob wetbacks” — illegal immigrants, who tend
to carry cash and avoid the police. At least nine times, she said, she has
flirted with men and led them toward her home, where accomplices robbed them.
“I felt bad
afterwards,” she said. But she added, “There were times when we didn’t have
nothing to eat.”
One family ruled
out crime and rummaged through trash cans instead. The mother, an illegal
immigrant from Mexico, could not get aid for herself but received $164 a month
for her four American-born children until their time limit expired. Distraught
at losing her only steady source of cash, she asked the children if they would
be ashamed to help her collect discarded cans.
“I told her I
would be embarrassed to steal from someone — not to pick up cans,” her teenage
daughter said.
Weekly park
patrols ensued, and recycling money replaced about half of the welfare check.
Despite having a
father in prison and a mother who could be deported, the children exude earnest
cheer. A daughter in the fifth grade won a contest at school for reading the
most books. A son in the eighth grade is a student leader praised by his
principal for tutoring younger students, using supplies he pays for himself.
“That’s just the
kind of character he has,” the principal said.
After losing cash aid, the mother found a cleaning job but lost
it when her boss discovered that she was in the United States illegally. The
family still gets subsidized housing and $650 a month in food stamps.
The boy worries
about homelessness, but his younger sisters, 9 and 10, see an upside in
scavenging.
“It’s kind of fun
because you get to look through the trash,” one of the girls said.
“And you get to
play in the park a little while before you go home,” her sister agreed.
*
WHO PAYS FOR THE MEXICAN WELFARE
& JOBS STATE IN OUR BORDERS?
WHO ACTUALLY VOTED TO BE
LOOTED BY MEXICO?
DEMS ARE NOW THE PARTY FOR WALL ST
BANKSTERS AND ILLEGALS.
(THE BELOW FIGURES ARE DATED. ILLEAGLS NOW DEPRESS WAGES FROM $300 TO $400 BILLION PER YEAR! THE LA RAZA CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE IN MEXIFORNIA JUST PASSED A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY)
“The principal
beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire
immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George
Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed
wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor
AT A TIME WITH STAGGERING
UNEMPLOYMENT, OBAMA & HIS LA RAZA INFESTED ADMINISTRATION HAS PUSHED OUR
BORDERS OPEN WIDER, SABOTAGED E-VERIFY AND SUED AMERICAN STATES ATTEMPTING TO
PUSH BACK THE MEXICAN INVADERS…. AND THEN HANDED THEM COUNTLESS DREAM ACTS TO
INDUCE MORE TO HOP OUR BORDERS AND JOBS!
BUT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE… nada!
NADA THE DAY AFTER THEY KEPT THEIR PROMISE TO BIG OIL TO PROTECT THEIR MASSIVE
WELFARE!
Not a single resolution was
offered that called for increasing spending to meet social needs as the
American economy staggers through a fifth year of economic slump and mass
unemployment.
The major spending cuts in
the budget resolution are focused on programs for the poor and the lower-paid
sections of the working class. According to a study by the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, 62 percent of the $5.3 trillion in spending cuts come from
“programs that serve people of limited means.” If implemented, the cuts would
drastically increase income inequality and poverty.
*
US House of Representatives approves
plan to destroy Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps
By Patrick Martin
30 March 2012
30 March 2012
The
US House of Representatives has adopted a budget resolution that calls for
privatization of Medicare and the elimination of Medicaid, food stamps and many
other federal entitlement benefits. The resolution is part of a bipartisan
campaign to slash spending on social programs.
All
but ten of the Republican majority in the House backed the resolution—and those
ten wanted even bigger cuts. All Democrats voted against the resolution, while
offering their own proposals that called for somewhat less drastic cuts in
spending and token tax increases on the wealthy.
Not a single resolution was
offered that called for increasing spending to meet social needs as the
American economy staggers through a fifth year of economic slump and mass
unemployment.
The
budget was drafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin,
who last year offered the first-ever proposal for the complete abolition of
Medicare. It passed the House but not the Senate.
This
year’s resolution was even more sweeping and reactionary. It calls for $5.3
trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Part of the savings would be
used to reduce the federal deficit, but the bulk of them would go to reward the
wealthy with new tax breaks, including abolition of the estate tax and the
Alternative Minimum Tax, making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent,
and lowering the top income tax rate from the present 35 percent to 25 percent.
The major spending cuts in
the budget resolution are focused on programs for the poor and the lower-paid
sections of the working class. According to a study by the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, 62 percent of the $5.3 trillion in spending cuts come from
“programs that serve people of limited means.” If implemented, the cuts would
drastically increase income inequality and poverty.
The
CBPP analysis found the budget provides for $800 billion in cuts for Medicaid,
$1.6 trillion from repealing the expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for low-
and moderate-income people, $134 billion in cuts from food stamps, and $463
billion from other programs for low-income individuals and families, including
an estimated $166 billion from Pell Grants for low-income college students.
According
to other accounts, the budget would cut 200,000 children from Head Start, deny
food stamps or WIC food commodities to 1.8 million infants, children and
pregnant or nursing women, cut transportation financing by up to $50 billion,
and cut unspecified billions from federal employee pensions.
The
resolution proposes to turn back the clock on federal programs by more than
half a century, capping federal spending at 19 percent of gross domestic
product, about the level that prevailed in the 1950s, before the establishment
of Medicare and other social welfare programs adopted under the Johnson
administration.
In
order to accomplish this goal, the age of eligibility for Medicare would be
raised from 65 to 67, and end Medicare as a federal entitlement for all those
now younger than 55. Anyone who turns 65 after 2023 would be relegated to
buying private health insurance with a government grant that would be capped,
shifting costs to the individual.
Unlike
last year, however, Ryan modified his Medicare plan slightly to obtain a
Democratic co-sponsor, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. The Ryan-Wyden plan would
give those under 55 the option to stay with traditional Medicare, but only
under financing options that would make the federal program unviable.
As Washington
Post columnist Ezra Klein noted, the Ryan plan establishes the identical
mechanism for the elderly to purchase private insurance—state-run insurance
exchanges—that the Obama administration has made the center of its healthcare
reform program. Obama proposed this method to cut the cost of healthcare for
the government and corporate employers. Ryan proposes the same means to cut the
cost of providing healthcare for the elderly.
The
other significant feature of the Ryan budget resolution is that it reneges on
the agreement reached last August between the Obama administration and
congressional Republicans, setting spending levels for the 2012 and 2013 fiscal
years. The White House embraced significant cuts in discretionary spending in
return for an increase in the federal debt ceiling. This raises the prospect of
a new legislative deadlock over the adoption of appropriations bills for fiscal
year 2013, and a partial shutdown of the federal government October 1, on the
eve of the presidential and congressional elections.
The
Obama White House mildly criticized the Ryan budget plan in language that all
but begged for an agreement. Senior Obama adviser David Plouffe, appearing on
multiple television talk shows last Sunday, reiterated the claim that the
Republican resolution “fails the test of balance and fairness and shared
responsibility.”
Adding
just a touch of populist demagogy, Plouffe continued, “It showers huge
additional tax cuts on the wealthy that are paid for by veterans and seniors
and the middle class.”
None
of the competing budget resolutions debated and voted on by the House Wednesday
and Thursday, however, provided any serious alternative.
A
proposal based on the Obama administration’s own budget numbers, offered by
Republican Congressman Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina in order to ridicule it,
was voted down by 414 to zero, without a single Democratic vote.
Three
measures offered by various factions of the Democratic Party were all voted
down—the Black Caucus budget was defeated 107-314, the Progressive Caucus
budget 78-346, and a Democratic leadership budget 163-262.
Significantly,
all of these budget resolutions adhered to the spending levels set last August
in the bipartisan White House deal. In other words, the Democrats, even in
their most liberal guise, accepted the budget cuts endorsed by Obama last year.
The
House also defeated, by a vote of 136-285, an alternative to the Ryan budget
resolution with even greater cuts, proposed by the Republican Study Group, a
caucus of ultra-right and Tea Party members.
One
other budget resolution was voted on, and despite its lopsided defeat, the
measure was politically significant. A bipartisan group of right-wing Democrats
and moderate Republicans proposed a budget plan based on the report of the
Simpson-Bowles commission, which Obama appointed to devise a deficit-reduction
program.
The
resolution was overwhelmingly defeated, by 38 to 382, because few Republicans
would vote for a resolution calling for tax increases on the wealthy, and few
Democrats wanted to publicly support sizeable cuts in Medicare and Social
Security in a bill that was certain to be defeated.
Nonetheless,
the bipartisan measure indicated where a deal is to be had once the charade of
the November elections is completed. Whatever the configuration of the two
parties, in terms of control of the White House, Senate or House of
Representatives, there will be a bipartisan deal to slash spending on the poor
and working class, while preserving, with only token changes, the enormous tax
boondoggles for the wealthy.
This
will be presented to the American people, either by President Obama or his
Republican successor, as a measure providing “equal sacrifice” or “shared
responsibility” for the fiscal crisis of the federal government.
AMERICA… owned and operated by and
for billionaires… THE LAND WHERE JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS SO WAGES ARE DEPRESSED!
Then the bills for Wall St.’s
looting and the Mexican welfare state go to the American middle class who will
be paying for the banksters rape and pillage for generations to come!
Banksters’ profits, bonuses are up!
So are foreclosures and welfare for illegals!
*
latimes.com
Opinion
California must stem the flow of
illegal immigrants
The state should go after employers
who hire them, curb taxpayer-funded benefits, deploy the National Guard to help
the feds at the border and penalize 'sanctuary' cities.
Illegal immigration is another matter entirely. With the state budget in tatters, millions of residents out of work and a state prison system strained by massive overcrowding, California simply cannot continue to ignore the strain that illegal immigration puts on our budget and economy. Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in our state billions of dollars each year. As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars."
US tax data shows falling wages,
rising inequality
By Andre Damon and Tom Eley
6 November 2010
6 November 2010
Average
annual wages for US workers fell by $457 in 2009 and the median annual wage
fell by $247 to $26,261, according to recently updated data from the Social
Security Administration (SSA).
Meanwhile,
the incomes of the top-earning corporate executives barely budged in 2009. The
pay of the handful of individuals making over $50 million fell by about 7
percent 2009, despite the fact that stocks fell in value by 40 percent,
demolishing the claim that executive bonuses are tied to corporate
“performance.”
Last
year, in the midst of 10 percent unemployment, a relative handful of Americans
lived as royalty. In 2009 there were 3,689 individuals who made between $5
million and $10 million, and 1,618 who made $10 million or more, including 425
who made $20 million, and 72 who brought in $50 million or more
These
5,307 tax filers, equivalent to the population of a small town, together took
home about $57.62 billion in 2009, about $8 billion more than the bottom 24 million
households filing taxes, and a staggering 10 percent of all income earned in
the US.
Behind
this financial aristocracy are another 72,000 or so individuals and households
that reported income of more than $1 million in 2009, and then another
1,611,000 who took home more than $200,000. These top three categories, only
1.7 million tax filers—the top 0.8 percent of those reporting income—cornered
about 27 percent of all income, more than combined income of the bottom 100
million or so households, those making less than $40,000.
If
anything, this portrait underestimates social inequality in the US, as the data
addresses only earnings, and not accumulated wealth.
The
sharp decline in wages in 2009 marks an intensification of a longer-term trend
of growing social inequality. Adjusted for inflation, the median income in 2009
was $167 less than it was in 2001. The same nine years has been a bonanza for
the extremely wealthy. In 1990, there were 739 people making over $5 million
per year. By 2009 that figure had increased more than sevenfold, to 5,307.
The
SSA data corroborates a recent study by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel
Saez, which found that two thirds of the total national increase in personal
income between 2002 and 2007 went to the wealthiest 1 percent of society.
Significantly,
the SSA data suggests that the official unemployment rate, currently at 9.6
percent, grossly underestimates joblessness. Between 2008 and 2009 the total
number of wage earners fell by 4.5 million, from 155,434,562 to 150,917,733.
But for the same period the Labor Department counted 2.6 million job losses.
The
figures were first reported by David Cay Johnston, the Pulitzer Prize-winning
former New York Times writer, on tax.com, the website of the
nonprofit group Tax Analysts. Commenting on the data, Johnston pointed out the
connection between the vast growth of social inequality over the past several
years and policies that directly favor the wealthy. In previous writings,
Johnston has pointed to the clear connection between the precipitous drop in
the effective tax rate for the wealthiest 400 US families, and the concurrent
tripling of their wealth between 1994 and 2007.
Last
year’s sharp fall in wages is the outcome of an ongoing campaign of
restructuring and wage-cutting by US corporations, which dumped millions of
workers from their payrolls while forcing those remaining to work harder for
less. The Obama administration spearheaded this drive with the forced
bankruptcy and restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler, which included a
50 percent wage cut for newly hired auto workers.
The
trend continues. The Bureau of Labor Statistics this week reported that worker
productivity surged in the second quarter, even as labor costs continued to
decline.
*
The danger, as Washington
Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson argues, is that of “importing
poverty” in the form of a new underclass—a permanent group of working poor.
*
“THE AMNESTY ALONE WILL BE THE
LARGEST EXPANSION OF THE WELFARE SYSTEM IN THE LAST 25 YEARS”…. Heritage Foundation
"The amnesty alone will be the largest expansion of
the welfare system in the last 25 years," says Robert Rector, a senior
analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and a witness at a House Judiciary
Committee field hearing in San Diego Aug. 2. "Welfare costs will begin to
hit their peak around 2021, because there are delays in citizenship. The very
narrow time horizon [the CBO is] using is misleading," he adds. "If
even a small fraction of those who come into the country stay and get on
Medicaid, you're looking at costs of $20 billion or $30 billion per year."
(SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS IN
CALIFORNIA ALONE ARE NOT UP TO $20 BILLION PER YEAR. WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN
NEVADA, NOW 25% ILLEGAL, IS SOARING!)
*
The danger, as Washington
Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson argues, is that of “importing
poverty” in the form of a new underclass—a permanent group of working poor.
*
FAIRUS.org
U.S. Taxpayers Spend $113 Billion Annually on Illegal Aliens
|
|
America has
never been able to afford the costs of illegal immigration. With rising
unemployment and skyrocketing deficits, federal and state lawmakers are now
facing the results of failed policies. A new, groundbreaking report from
FAIR, The Fiscal
Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers, takes a comprehensive
look at the estimated fiscal costs resulting from federal, state and local
expenditures on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children.
Expanding
upon the series of state studies done in the past, FAIR has estimated the
annual cost of illegal immigration to be $113 billion, with much of the cost
— $84.2 billon — coming at the state and local level.
|
THE
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR CHARACTERIZES MEXICO AS THE “MEXICAN GANG CAPITAL OF
AMERICA”. THERE ARE MORE MURDERS COMMITTED BY
The danger, as Washington Post economics columnist Robert
Samuelson argues, is that of “importing poverty” in the form of a new
underclass—a permanent group of working poor.
*
LA RAZA OCCUPATION OF LOS ANGELES: MEXICO’S LOOTING GROUNDS!
Subject:
From the L.A. Times Newspaper
1. 40% of
all workers in L. A. County (L. A. County has 10 million people) are working
for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal
immigrants, working without a green card.
*
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles
are for illegal aliens.
*
3. 75% of
people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
*
4. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles
County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by
taxpayers.
*
5. Nearly
25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here
illegally.
*
6. Over
300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
*
7. The
FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal
aliens from south of the border.
*
8. Nearly
60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
*
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish
speaking.
*
10. In L.
A. County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2
million people in L. A. County).
(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times) Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. Add to this TWO BILLION dollars of Los Angeles County is sent to Mexico untaxed.
*
The danger, as Washington
Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson argues, is that of “importing
poverty” in the form of a new underclass—a permanent group of working poor.
*
THE DILEMMA WITH THE MEXICAN INVASION IS THAT MEXICANS
LOATHE LITERACY, AND LOATHE ENGLISH! THEY GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL WITH A
SECOND GRADE READING ABILITY!
The
most insightful study remains one done by the National Research
Council in 1997.
It gauged federal, state and local fiscal costs and contributions over the
lifetime of an immigrant in 1996 dollars. Citizen children were included.
The
study found that an immigrant high school dropout -- which characterizes nearly
half of today's unauthorized people -- received $89,000 more in services than
he paid in taxes in his life. But an immigrant with at least some college -- a
quarter of today's unauthorized -- gave $105,000 more than he got. For the high
school graduates left, those who arrived during their teens or earlier were
slightly profitable for the government, while the children of those who arrived
later paid off the small deficit of their parents.
*
STAGGERING COST OF ILLEGALS ALIENS IN AMERICA
Aliens In America
Taxpayers Taken To The Cleaners
By Frosty Wooldridge
4-10-8
Illegal alien migration into the United States costs American taxpayers $346 billion annually reported by the National Research Council. While employers of illegal aliens rake-in billions of dollars, the US citizens subsidize what may be called organized "Slavery in 21st Century America."
While Congress facilitates outsourcing, insourcing and offshoring of American jobs by the thousands weekly, that same Congress imports 182,000 legal immigrant monthly who need jobs. Another estimated 100,000 illegal aliens arrive each month without jobs. All those immigrants seize jobs from American citizens at slave wages.
What happens to the American taxpayer?
"Immigrants are poorer, pay less tax, and are more likely to receive public benefits than American citizens," said Edwin Rubenstein, reporting on the National Research Council's new book: "The New Americans: Economic, Demographics and Fiscal Effects of Immigration." The Social Contract Winter 2007-08. www.thesoicalcontract.com
*
“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs
taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus.
“President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration.
The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants
find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration
laws.” By Frosty Wooldridge
4-10-8
Illegal alien migration into the United States costs American taxpayers $346 billion annually reported by the National Research Council. While employers of illegal aliens rake-in billions of dollars, the US citizens subsidize what may be called organized "Slavery in 21st Century America."
While Congress facilitates outsourcing, insourcing and offshoring of American jobs by the thousands weekly, that same Congress imports 182,000 legal immigrant monthly who need jobs. Another estimated 100,000 illegal aliens arrive each month without jobs. All those immigrants seize jobs from American citizens at slave wages.
What happens to the American taxpayer?
"Immigrants are poorer, pay less tax, and are more likely to receive public benefits than American citizens," said Edwin Rubenstein, reporting on the National Research Council's new book: "The New Americans: Economic, Demographics and Fiscal Effects of Immigration." The Social Contract Winter 2007-08. www.thesoicalcontract.com
*
*
“Obama’s
rejection of any serious jobs program is part of a conscious class war policy.
Two years after the financial crisis and the multi-trillion dollar bailout of
the banks, the administration is spearheading a campaign by corporations to
sharply increase the exploitation of the working class, using the “new normal”
of mass unemployment to force workers to accept lower wages, longer hours, and
more brutal working conditions.” WSWS.ORG
*
“The principal
beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire
immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George
Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed
wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.”
Christian Science Monitor
MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA – THE MEXICAN
FASCIST POLITICAL PARTY. THESE FIGURES ARE DATED. CNN CALCULATES THAT WAGES ARE
DEPRESSED $300 - $400 BILLION PER YEAR!
*
BELOW, CLICK EMAIL AND SEND
THIS POST TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. THEY’RE PAYING TO BE MEXICO’S WELFARE,
JAILS AND JOBS PROGRAM!
MEXICO INVADES, LOOTS OUR JOBS, “FREE” EMERGENCY ROOM MEDICAL, “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING = 18 YEARS OF WELFARE, AND ENDLESS DREAM ACTS HANDED TO THEM BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY ALONG WITH PROMISES OF AMNESTY, LA RAZA SUPREMACY= SANCTUARY CITY/STATES, LIKE MEXIFORNIA, OR CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT.
THE ILLEGALS HAVE ELECTED A SIGNIFICANT FACTION OF
LA RAZA SUPREMACIST TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE WHICH HAS PASSED A LAW MAKING IT
ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY!!!
THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) STATES WITH A POPULATION
GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHERE HALF OF ALL JOBS ARE HELD BY ILLEGALS
USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS! THIS SAME COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION
PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS! Not one legal voted to be mexico’s welfare
state!
THE
MEXICAN INVASION AND OCCUPATION DEPRESSED WAGES FOR LEGALS FROM $300 TO $400
BILLION PER YEAR! THAT’S WHY OBAMA AND HIS LA RAZA DEMS ARE DETERMINED TO
SABOTAGE E-VERIFY! KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED KEEPS THEIR CORPORATE PAYMASTERS
HAPPY AND GENEROUS!
*
Map: The 12
States of America
Since 1980,
income inequality has fractured the
nation.
Click each icon to see each of the dozen states, which counties belong to them
and how median income has changed over the last 30 years.
The 12
States Of America
Since
1980, income inequality has fractured the nation.
Most stories about inequality in America
miss an important point: rising disparities are not just about investment
bankers versus auto workers. They’re about entire communities of “winners” and
“losers.” And as these communities continue to diverge, the idea of “an
American economy” looks more and more like an anachronism.
See how your county compares to the rest of the country.
We
analyzed reams of demographic, economic, cultural, and political data to break
the nation’s 3,141 counties into 12 statistically distinct “types of place.”
When we look at family income over the past 30 years through that prism, the
full picture of the income divide becomes clearer—and much starker.
Seven
of our 12 county-types saw their median family incomes fall. “Immigration Nation” counties fared the
worst, as Latino immigrants, many with little education, moved in.
The “Service Worker Centers” also saw steep declines, as manufacturing dried
up. Leading in growth were the well-educated “Monied Burbs,” where white-collar
positions bloomed in office parks. Income in the “Industrial Metropolises” also
rose, driven by gentrification and new wealth in inner-ring suburbs.
*
THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/03/assualt-on-american-worker-joe-legal-vs.html
"We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers," said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. "President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws."
Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal
CA MAKES E-VERIFY ILLEGAL! COURTESY THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA!
Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal
Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically productive for the State of California...
You have 2 families..."Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2 parents, 2 children and live in California.
"Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted...."Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has "NO" Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Joe Legal...$25.00 per hour x 40 hours $1000.00 per week, $52,000 per year
Now take 30% away for state and federal tax
Joe Legal now has $31,231.00
Jose Illegal...$15.00 per hour x 40 hours $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per year
Jose Illegal pays no taxes...
Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00
Joe Legal pays Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage
$1000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal now has $19,231.00
Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00
Joe Legal makes too much money is not eligible for Food Stamps or welfare
Joe Legal pays for food
$1,000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal now has $ 7,231.00
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00
Joe Legal pays rent of
$1,000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal is now in the hole... minus (-) $4,769.00
Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy
Jose Illegal pays rent
$500.00 per month
$6,000.00 per year
Jose Illegal still has $25,200.00
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.
Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Don't vote/support any politician that supports illegal aliens...
Its WAY PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!
OBAMA HAS PROMISED HIS LA RAZA “THE RACE” PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS AMNESTY, NO E-VERIFY, NO I.D. FOR REQUIRED OF ILLEGALS VOTING… OR AT LEAST CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT!
OBAMA
HANDS MASSIVE WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, ALONG WITH OUR JOBS TO BUY THE ILLEGALS'
ILLEGAL VOTES!
The
truth about the DREAM Act
By Rep. Lamar Smith
Published March 20, 2012
|
FoxNews.com
The DREAM Act has become a rallying cry for President Obama, members of his administration, and liberal Democrats everywhere. President Obama has vowed to “keep fighting for the DREAM Act,” which would grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
It’s true when listeners or those polled don’t know the facts that the DREAM Act has some appeal. After all, we are all naturally sympathetic when children are involved.
But the descriptions of the DREAM Act voiced by President Obama and his cohorts are not accurate. And the consequences are never told.
DREAM Act supporters claim that only children would benefit from such a bill, but the facts tell another story. Under most DREAM Act proposals, amnesty would be given to individuals up to the age of 30—not exactly children. And some other proposals don’t even have an age limit.
These supporters also maintain that illegal immigrants can’t go college without the DREAM Act. But the truth is that illegal immigrants can already go to college in most states.
And ultimately, most versions of the DREAM Act actually don’t even force illegal immigrants to comply with all the requirements in the bill, such as going to college or joining the military. The administration can waive requirements because of “hardship”at its complete discretion.
DREAM Act proposals are
also a magnet for fraud. Many illegal immigrants will fraudulently claim they
came here as children or that they are under 30. And the federal government has
no way to check whether their claims are true or not.
Unfettered Immigration =POVERTY FOR
AMERICANS
By Robert Rector Heritage.org | May 16, 2006
This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was slightly lower than for citizens.[40] On the other hand, the crime rate among Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference appears to be due to immigration violations.[42] Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the welfare-dependent population, which would hinder rather than help immigrants and impose large costs on American society. On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes.[60] Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year.[61] Granting Amnesty is Likely to Further Increase Illegal Immigration The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. The primary purpose of the act was to decrease the number of illegal immigrants by limiting their inflow and by legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already here.[63] In fact, the act did nothing to stem the tide of illegal entry. The number of illegal aliens entering the country increased five fold from around 140,000 per year in the 1980s to 700,000 per year today. Illegal entries increased dramatically shortly after IRCA went into effect. It seems plausible that the prospect of future amnesty and citizenship served as a magnet to draw even more illegal immigrants into the country. After all, if the nation granted amnesty once why wouldn’t it do so again? The Hagel/Martinez legislation would repeat IRCA on a much larger scale. This time, nine to ten million illegal immigrants would be granted amnesty. As with IRCA, the bill promises to reduce future illegal entry but contains little policy that would actually accomplish this. The granting of amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants is likely to serve as a magnet pulling even greater numbers of aliens into the country in the future. If enacted, the legislation would spur further increases in the future flow of low-skill migrants. This in turn would increase poverty in America, enlarge the welfare state, and increase social and political tensions. Is your elected special interests pimp getting rich off elected office? CALIFORNIA’S SURE ARE!
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
Since the 1986 “amnesty” give
away, there have been yearly 1.5 million illegals walk over our borders waving
their Mexican flags, and slipping right into our jobs, welfare lines and
hospital emergency rooms to give birth.
Meanwhile every year there are 1.5
million Americans that fall into poverty.
Daily there are 12 Americans
murdered by illegals. In California alone there have been 2,000 Americans
murdered by illegals that fled back to Mexico.
Foreclosure is the highest in
states with the heaviest Mexican occupation. The highest foreclosure rate in
this country is in La Raza Harry Reid’s Nevada where 25% of the population are
ILLEGALS.
In Mexican occupied Los Angeles,
47% of those employed are illegals. L.A. county pays out $50 MILLION PER MONTH
in welfare to illegals.
And yet hispandering Barack Obama
and his banksters’ LA RAZA DEMS are at this very moment working for bit by bit
amnesty.
In fact hispandering OBAMA just
took 400 border patrol guards off the border with NarcoMex. Pelosi, Feinstein
and Boxer have all vowed quick amnesty, NO WALL, no e-verify, and NO ID for illegals to vote dem!
Who pays?
*
Wsws.org….
GET ON THEIR FREE EMAIL NEWS
One in nine Americans uses food
stamps
By Tom Eley
20 August 2009
20 August 2009
One
in nine Americans relied on food stamps in May, the highest proportion ever,
according to recently released data from the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA). In all, 34.4 million people used the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP), a federal program that provides assistance to low-income
people, an increase of more than 2 percent from the previous month, and a
staggering increase of 6 million over the past year.
May’s
increase was the sixth consecutive month that set a new record in food stamp
use. Government food assistance increased in every state, with Florida
registering the sharpest gain at 4.2 percent.
The
year-over-year percentage increase in food stamp use is more striking, with 13
states, representing every region of the country, registering a spike of more
than 25 percent. These were Utah (45.5 percent), Nevada (39 percent), Idaho
(36.3 percent), Washington (34.5 percent), Florida (34.2 percent), Vermont
(33.6 percent), Wisconsin (31.3 percent), Arizona (29.7 percent), Colorado (28.9
percent), Georgia (28.3 percent), Maryland (27.2 percent), Massachusetts (25.3
percent), and Oregon (25 percent).
“Food
stamp enrollment is rising because the economy is having a devastating impact
on low-income families and they need this program to eat,” said Stacy Dean of
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said. “Every single state has been
affected.”
The
food stamp program is largely funded by the federal government and administered
by the states. Historically, recipients could redeem stamps or coupons for food
assistance at grocery stores, but in recent years paper stamps have been phased
out in favor of a debit card system called Electronic Benefit Transfer.
The
program aims to assist the desperately poor. According to the USDA, the average
gross monthly income of food stamp-receiving households was $640, with nearly
80 percent of all benefits going to households with children.
The
program provides an average of $133 monthly per person requesting food
assistance. By way of comparison, according to the USDA’s own estimates, a
“low-cost” monthly nutritional scheme for a single teenage boy requires a
minimum of $220 spending on food per month.
Federal
food assistance for the poor was a Great Society measure created during the the
Lyndon Johnson administration (1963-1969). Since the late 1970s, it has
weathered round after round of cuts at the hands of both Democratic and
Republican administrations and congresses, who claimed to be creating a
“culture of responsibility” among the poor.
The
most savage of these cuts came in 1996, through Bill Clinton’s “Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act,” which eliminated
eligibility for legal immigrants (these restrictions have since been only
slightly relaxed), limited stamp use for “able bodied” adults without
dependents to three months during a 36-month period, and substantially reduced
maximum food benefits.
The
result is a food stamp program that, even in more favorable economic
conditions, fails to meet basic nutritional needs and shuts out the vast
majority of the working class from any assistance whatsoever. The economic
crisis has laid bare the woefully inadequate character of the program and the
“social safety net” as a whole.
In
Texas, demand is such that in July the state was delinquent in processing
nearly 40 percent of new requests. Rachel Cavazos, who has four children, is
jobless, and is in the midst of a divorce, applied for food stamps in April and
has not yet heard back on her request. “It’s very hurtful, especially when
somebody doesn’t give you the benefit of the doubt,” the 32-year-old Houston
native recently told the Houston and Texas News. “The help is not for
me. It’s for my babies. I don’t want my children to suffer.”
Recently
at a Dallas, Texas, food stamp office, a line of the desperate and hungry
formed before 5 a.m. “I got a four, a five and a 15-year-old. And right now I
got $2.27. So we’re going to have some Ramen noodles tonight,” Kenyadda Momanyi
told a local news station. A class action lawsuit has been filed against the
state of Texas to force it to process applications more swiftly.
Mickey
Warren, food directer of Christian Life Food Pantry in Knox County, Kentucky,
recently went before the local Chamber of Commerce in a desperate bid for
charitable contributions. “It’s toward the end of the month and people are
starting to look for more and more food, because by now the ones that draw food
stamps, they’re gone, the kids are hungry,” he said.
“Warren
recalled [recently watching] a small girl rip open a whole pound cake package
in the pantry parking lot, grasping it with both hands and eating it like a
candy bar, because she had been hungry,” the local TimesTribune.com
reported.
In
Wichita, Kansas, a grandmother summed up her plight in a word. “The most simple
word would be we’re hungry,” Kathi Boggs told a local news station, as she sat
with her 6-year-old grandson, Alex, at a soup kitchen. “At the end of the day
there’s not enough for food.”
“People
are desperate,” said Gary Madden, a charity worker who assists people in
gaining access to food stamps in San Bernardino County, California. “People
calling now are saying things like ‘I’ve never asked for help in my life. I
don’t know what I’m going to do. I’ve lost my job and I’m about to lose my
home.’ More men are calling. Families are doubling up in homes.”
“Callers
are saying, ‘bank bailouts, auto company bailouts, where’s my bailout?’,”
Madden told BlackVoiceNews.com.
*
from the March 30, 2006 edition – CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
MEXICO PREFERS TO EXPORT ITS POOR, NOT UPLIFT THEM
Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them At this
week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.
By George W. Grayson
WILLIAMSBURG, VA. - At the parleys
this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President
Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the
Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to
enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and
the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the
continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive
excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico
border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow
of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato. Mexican
legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized
that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful
migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with
"understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility." Such rhetoric
would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort
to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty. To
his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly
the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers
have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of
the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad.
Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact
science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying
efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal
immigration at the border and the workplace. Insufficient revenues mean that
Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility:
Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10
percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. Transparency
International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with
Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for
corruption. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's
neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration.
However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions
necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses.
Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite
act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder
burdens Mexico should assume.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SPENDS 37
MILLION... ONE MONTH... WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS!
Welfare and food stamp benefits soar $3 million higher than
September payout. New statistics from the Department of Public Social Services
reveal that illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected
over $37 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in November 2007 – up $3
million dollars from September, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael
D. Antonovich. Twenty five percent of the all welfare and food stamps benefits
is going directly to the children of illegal aliens. Illegals collected over
$20 million in welfare assistance for November 2007 and over $16 million in
monthly food stamp allocations for a projected annual cost of $444 million.
“This new information shows an alarming increase in the devastating impact
Illegal immigration continues to have on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” said
Antonovich. “With $220 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare,
and $444 million in welfare allocations, the total cost for illegal immigrants
to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions
of dollars for education.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts
40 MILLIONS AMERICANS LIVING IN
POVERTY WHILE 40 MILLION MEXICANS HAVE CLIMBED OUR BORDERS AND JOBS AND ARE
LOOTING US TO THE TUNE OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS YEARLY!
LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE PUTS OUT
$600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS (source: JUDICIAL WATCH)!
US Census Bureau report: 40 million
living in poverty
By Kate Randall
30 September 2009
30 September 2009
The
overall poverty rate in the US rose to 13.2 percent in 2008, as workers across
all sectors of the economy became jobless and increasing numbers of families
were forced into destitution, according to a new government report. Real median
household income also declined by 3.6 percent.
The
report released Tuesday, part of the US Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey, is the most recent to measure the recession’s impact on working class
families and the poor. Based on the changes between 2007 and 2008, the first
full year of the recession, its findings do not reflect increases in poverty
and joblessness this year as the consequences of the crisis have become even
more acute.
The
official poverty rate of 13.2 percent in 2008 was up from 12.5 percent in 2007.
This figure translates into 39.8 million people in poverty across America. The
official poverty level is set at $22,000 annually for a family of four with two
children or $12,000 for an individual, an absurdly low threshold. This means
that far more people than indicated by the survey do not have adequate
resources to pay for food, shelter, medical care and other basic necessities.
The
poverty rate rose across virtually all demographic groups. Poverty among
Hispanics climbed from 21.5 percent in 2007 to 23.2 percent in 2008.
Non-Hispanic whites saw poverty rise from 8.2 percent in 2007 to 8.6 percent in
2008, while poverty among Asians was up from 10.2 percent in 2007 to 11.8
percent in 2008. African-Americans were the only group where poverty remained
statistically unchanged at a staggering 24.7 percent, or about one in four
people.
The
Census Bureau reported a rise in poverty in 31 states and the District of
Columbia. Two of the four most populous states—California and Florida—saw
poverty rates rise by 1 percent, to just over 13 percent in each state.
Connecticut
saw the largest increase in poverty, rising to 9.3 percent, with an additional
1.4 percent of the state’s population living in poverty. Connecticut’s
proximity to Wall Street, the center of the financial collapse, contributed to
the state’s poverty as spending cuts by bankers and other financial employees
in the New York City suburbs were reflected in declines in income for the
lowest paid workers.
William
Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, commented in an interview,
“People don’t go from being a CEO or a hedge fund manager into poverty, but
there is a trickle-down effect when these groups of people start to cut back on
their spending. In many places, the first people to go when things get tight
are the lowest-earning workers.”
Michigan,
which has been devastated by the collapse of the auto industry, is the only
state that has seen poverty increase for two years in a row, with the rate now
standing at 13 percent. The industrial states of Pennsylvania and Indiana also
saw significant increases in poverty, along with Oregon and Hawaii.
The
South remained the most impoverished, at 14.3 percent, up slightly from 14.2
percent in 2007. Mississippi, with 21.2 percent in poverty, saw the highest
rate of any state, while poverty in Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas
hovered around 17 percent.
The
Midwest poverty rate rose to 12.4 percent from 11.1 percent the previous year.
The West saw the largest increase in poverty, up by 1.5 percent, rising from 12
percent in 2007 to 13.5 percent. The Northeast, which saw an increase in
poverty in 2007, saw the rate remain statistically unchanged, at 11.6 percent
in 2008.
The
rate of poverty among America’s children is alarming, with 19 percent—14.1
million children—affected in 2008, up a full percentage point from a year
earlier. This rate increased in 26 states and in Washington, DC. Children in
families headed by a single female suffered the highest rates of poverty: 43.5
percent of those under 18 years of age live in poverty, while 53.3 percent of
children under 6 years are poor.
Increasing
numbers of families, both the jobless and workers facing shrinking hours and
paychecks, are turning to food pantries and the Food Stamp program. Food Stamp
use in 2008 jumped 13 percent to nearly 9.8 million US households, led by
Louisiana, Maine and Kentucky. Two cities—Pharr, Texas, and the former General
Motors production center, Flint, Michigan—each had more than a third of their
residents on food stamps. Families with two or more workers accounted for 28.4
percent of food stamp recipients in 2008, up 1.5 percent from 2007.
Following
three years of annual income increases, real median income declined in the US
by 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008, falling from $52,163 to $50,303. The
Midwest and South saw the biggest declines in median income, 4 percent and 4.9
percent respectively.
The
gap between the richest and poorest Americans is also widening as the economic
crisis ravages household budgets. An Associated Press analysis of the Census
Bureau statistics shows that the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, those
making $138,000 or more a year, earned 11.4 times the $12,000 made by individuals
living below the poverty line in 2008. In 2007, the richest 10 percent made
11.2 times more.
The
jump in poverty and income inequality comes as the job market continues to
shrink, even as government and economic analysts speak of a turnaround. According
to US Labor Department figures from July, job seekers now outnumber openings
six to one, with only 2.4 million full-time, permanent jobs open while 14.5
million people are officially unemployed and looking for work.
Many
companies remain cautious about hiring new workers in the uncertain economic
environment. Having trimmed back workers’ hours and laid off temporary workers,
even if businesses do expand in the future they are likely to increase output
by increasing the workload on existing employees.
Heidi
Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, told the New York
Times, “They have tons of room to increase work without hiring a single
person. For people who are out of work, we do not see signs of light at the end
of the tunnel.”
From
December 2007 through July 2009, job openings have declined in every area of
the country: 45 percent in the West and South, 36 percent in the Midwest, and
23 percent in the Northeast. According to the Times, since the end of
2008 virtually every sector of the economy has been hit by the collapse in job
openings, which have shrunk 47 percent in manufacturing, 37 percent in
construction, 22 percent in retail, and 21 percent in education and health
services.
While
it is estimated that the government could spend in excess of $23 trillion to
bail out the banks, and hundreds of billions to pursue its military conquests
in Iraq and Afghanistan, nothing of any substance is being done to help the
millions of Americans being plunged into joblessness and poverty.
The
National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group, estimates that 400,000
Americans nationwide could exhaust their unemployment benefits by the end of
September and 1.4 million long-term unemployed could stop receiving checks by
the end of the year.
In
some states, such as California, where the unemployment rate hit 12.2 percent
in July—the highest level since 1940—workers laid off early in the recession
have received three extensions on the regular 26 weeks of benefits, bringing
them to a maximum of 79 weeks of payments.
The
US House recently passed a $1.4 billion bill to provide another 13 weeks of
jobless benefits in high unemployment states like California. The legislation
still faces a vote in the Senate. The extension in benefits, however, would not
cover many of the newly unemployed, or those yet to lose their jobs.
In
California, for instance, hundreds of thousands who filed claims after June 14
of this year would be eligible for no more than 39 weeks of benefits. A House
bill that would have provided longer extensions through 2010 was scrapped
because it would have cost $70 billion, a price tag the lawmakers were
unwilling to authorize.
ILLEGAL
ALIEN POPULATION MAY BE AS HIGH AS 38 MILLION!
Study: Illegal alien population may be as high as 38 million A new report finds the Homeland Security Department "grossly underestimates" the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Studies released a report August 31 that estimates the number of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. is between 8 and 12 million. But the group Californians for Population Stabilization, or CAPS, has unveiled a report estimating the illegal population is actually between 20 and 38 million. Four experts, all of whom contributed to the study prepared by CAPS, discussed their findings at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington Wednesday. James Walsh, a former associate general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said he is "appalled" that the Bush administration, lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and every Democratic presidential candidate, with the exception of Joe Biden, have no problem with sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. "Ladies and gentlemen, the sanctuary cities and the people that support them are violating the laws of the United States of America. They're violating 8 USC section 1324 and 1325, which is a felony -- [it's] a felony to aid, support, transport, shield, harbor illegal aliens," Walsh stated. Walsh said his analysis indicating there are 38 million illegal aliens in the U.S. was calculated using the conservative estimate of three illegal immigrants entering the U.S. for each one apprehended. According to Walsh, "In the United States, immigration is in a state of anarchy -- not chaos, but anarchy."
IT’S ALSO THE NEXT GENERATION AFTER GENERATION OF “CHEAP” (FOR EMPLOYERS) MEXICAN LABOR......! ...
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment