http://news.linktv.org Link TV News Videos (Filtered by topics: Poverty in the United States) en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:48:00 -0700 Copyright 2011 Link Media, Inc. http://news.linktv.org/videos/thousands-march-against-chicago-school-closures?start=0 Thousands of teachers in the third-largest US city of Chicago are protesting against plans to shut down schools in poor neighborhoods. The city's council said the closures are needed to plug a $1bn dollar budget gap. Critics of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, however, said he is targeting schools with mostly low-income and minority students. Al Jazeera's Diane Eastabrook reports from Chicago. Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:48:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/thousands-march-against-chicago-school-closures Chicago Public Schools, Chicago Teachers Union, Rahm Emanuel, Education in the United States, Chicago, Protest, Education policy, Poverty in the United States, Mayor of Chicago, Politics of the United States Thousands of teachers in the third-largest US city of Chicago are protesting against plans to shut down schools in poor neighborhoods. The city's council said the closures are needed to plug a $1bn dollar budget gap. Critics of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, however, said he is targeting schools with mostly low-income and minority students. Al Jazeera's Diane Eastabrook reports from Chicago. http://news.linktv.org/videos/obama-focuses-on-middle-class-ignores-poor?start=0 US President Barack Obama opened his State of the Union with a call to revive the middle class and with a challenge to a divided Congress to back his economic proposals to create jobs. Democracy Now! get reaction from Bob Herbert, Distinguished Senior Fellow with Demos, and Cathy Cohen, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and founder of the Black Youth Project. "Median income in the United States has gone down since the recession ended," Herbert says. "Poverty is expanding. We have nearly fifty million people who are officially poor in this country and another 50 million who are near poor. That's close to a third of the entire population. So there's no way to address challenges that are that enormous without making enormous investments." <br /> Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:49:00 -0800 http://news.linktv.org/videos/obama-focuses-on-middle-class-ignores-poor Middle Class, Poverty in the United States, Barack Obama, State of the Union address, Income in the United States, Bob Herbert, Income distribution, US Congress President Obama opened his State of the Union with a call to revive the middle class and with a challenge to a divided Congress to back his economic proposals to create jobs. We get reaction from Bob Herbert, Distinguished Senior Fellow with Demos, and Cathy Cohen, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and founder of the Black Youth Project. "Median income in the United States has gone down since the recession ended," Herbert says. "Poverty is expanding. We have nearly fifty million people who are officially poor in this country and another fifty million who are near poor. That's close to a third of the entire population. So there's no way to address challenges that are that enormous without making enormous investments." http://news.linktv.org/videos/raw-video-obamas-pitch-in-at-food-bank?start=0 In a presidential handout even Mitt Romney would approve of, President Obama and his family helped out at a Washington DC food bank on the eve of Thanksgiving. The Obamas distributed bags of produce and chatted to clients at the Capital Area Food Bank, which provides the needy with around 30 million pounds of food a year.<br /> Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:45:00 -0800 http://news.linktv.org/videos/raw-video-obamas-pitch-in-at-food-bank Thanksgiving, Barack Obama, Washington, D.C., Food bank, Capital Area Food Bank, Family of Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, United States, Poverty in the United States, Associated Press In a presidential handout even Mitt Romney would approve of, President Obama and his family helped out at a Washington DC food bank on the eve of Thanksgiving. The Obamas distributed bags of produce and chatted to clients at the Capital Area Food Bank, which provides the needy with around 30 million pounds of food a year. http://news.linktv.org/videos/us-election-campaigns-ignore-child-poverty?start=0 The US presidential election campaign has focused a lot on strengthening the country's middle class, but little has been said about low-income families. Al Jazeera English reports from an area of Mississippi where more than half of children are living in poverty. Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:31:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/us-election-campaigns-ignore-child-poverty Poverty in the United States, US presidential election, 2012, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Poverty, Politics of the United States, Unemployment, Economic inequality, Middle Class, Global Financial Crisis So far the US presidential candidates have focused a lot on strengthening the country's middle class, but little has been said about low-income families, particularly those at the very bottom of the heap. But, with 46 million Americans living in poverty, why are the campaigns so quiet on issues affecting the poor? Shihab Rattansi discusses with guests Cheri Honkala, Marcy Wheeler, and Austin Nichols. http://news.linktv.org/videos/remote-area-medical?start=0 Over three days in April 2012, Remote Area Medical, the pioneers of "no-cost" health care clinics, treated nearly 2000 patients on the infield of Bristol, Tennessee's massive NASCAR speedway. Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:26:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/remote-area-medical Remote Area Medical, Health care, Public health, Poverty in the United States, Bristol, Tennessee, Volunteer, Health, Focus Forward Films, NASCAR Over three days in April 2012, Remote Area Medical, the pioneers of "no-cost" health care clinics, treated nearly 2000 patients on the infield of Bristol, Tennessee's massive NASCAR speedway. http://news.linktv.org/videos/inside-story-americas-us-war-on-drugs-a-racist-failed-policy?start=0 President Obama's drug czar, has said that the US's war on drugs has not been successful and that "it's very clear we can't arrest our way out of this problem." But despite promises to shift policy, the war continues. Inside Story Americas discusses. Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:57:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/inside-story-americas-us-war-on-drugs-a-racist-failed-policy War on Drugs, Gil Kerlikowske, Drug czar, Baltimore, Illegal drug trade, Racism in the United States, Crack cocaine, Cocaine, African American, Poverty in the United States Gil Kerlikowske, US President Barack Obama's drug czar, has said that America's war on drugs has not been successful and that "it's very clear we can't arrest our way out of this problem." But despite promises by the president to re-evaluate US drug policies, more than half of Obama's drug control budget continues to go towards law enforcement. And, as the war on drugs rages in America's inner cities, the issue has not come up on the campaign trail with either President Obama or his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney. Inside Story Americas reports from the front line of the drug war in Baltimore, and discusses the issues with guests Deborah Small, Kevin Sabet, and Eric Sterling. http://news.linktv.org/videos/inside-story-americas-why-is-chicagos-murder-rate-soaring?start=0 After a stray bullet killed seven-year-old Heaven Sutton outside her home, Chicago's mayor pointed to the city's gangs as the cause of this year's soaring murder rate in the city. But is the problem that simple? Guests discuss on Inside Story Americas. Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:49:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/inside-story-americas-why-is-chicagos-murder-rate-soaring Crime in Chicago, Chicago Police Department, Law enforcement in the United States, Chicago, Crime statistics, Murder, Gang violence, Poverty in the United States, Community organizing, Rahm Emanuel For years, the murder rate in Chicago had been decreasing but this year has been different. Through the end of July, the number of murders in the United States' third largest city was more than 25 per cent higher than it was during that same time period in 2011. After a stray bullet killed seven-year-old Heaven Sutton outside her home, Chicago's mayor pointed to the city's gangs as the root of the problem. But community organizers say the rise in murders is a result of failed urban policies, arguing that a systemic change is needed and not just a police crackdown. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-15-2012?start=1918 Days before Egypt's presidential runoff, the Egyptian Supreme Court has dissolved the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated parliament, handing power back to the military. The minimum wage hasn't increased since 2007, but a new bill aims to restore the hourly rate to its inflation-adjusted 1968 figure of over $10. And, as the presidential race heats up, the focus is increasingly on the nation's slow economic recovery. Plus headlines, and more. Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:02:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-15-2012 Egyptian presidential election, 2012, Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, Egypt, Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, Muslim Brotherhood, US presidential election, 2012, Minimum wage, US economy, Mohamed Morsi, Ahmed Shafiq In 2008, Barack Obama pledged to raise the minimum wage every year once elected, but the hourly rate of $7.25 hasn't increased since 2007. Low-wage workers now make far less than they did four decades ago. Last week Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. introduced the Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2012. It draws its name from the idea that the federal minimum wage would be $10.55 an hour now if it had kept up with inflation over the past 40 years. While the bill has about 20 co-sponsors so far, President Obama has yet to endorse it. We speak to longtime consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. "The U.S.'s federal minimum wage is lower than all Western countries," Nader says. "This is basically an issue that reflects the craven, cruel nature of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill, but it also reflects the caution, the cowardliness, the betrayal of the Democratic Party of its core constituency." We turn now to the economy. On Thursday, presidential rivals, Republican Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, gave major addresses in Ohio. Both blamed the slow economic recovery on each other's parties. Romney spoke first in Cincinnati. He is going to be a person of eloquence as he describes his plans for making the economy better. But don't forget, he's been president for three-and-a-half years. And talk is cheap. Action speaks very loud. And if you want to see the results of his economic policies, look around Ohio, look around the country, and you'll see that a lot of people are hurting, a lot of people have had some real tough times. Meanwhile, at a rally in Cleveland, President Obama acknowledged the slow economic recovery. He cast his re-election battle with Mitt Romney as a clash between contrasting philosophies on how to fix it. The debate in this election is not about whether we need to grow faster or whether we need to create more jobs or whether we need to pay down our debt. Of course the economy isn't where it needs to be. Of course we have a lot more work to do. Everybody knows that. The debate in this election is about how we grow faster and how we create more jobs and how we pay down our debt. That's the question facing the American voter. Concerns about the troubled economy have helped push Obama's approval ratings to their lowest level since January. But a new Gallup poll finds that two-thirds of Americans blame his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, for the downturn. Many economists say more jobs could be created by generating more consumer demand. Well, a new bill introduced by Illinois Democratic Congressmember Jesse Jackson Jr. aims to do that by increasing minimum wage for the first time since 2007. He says the increase could generate tens of billions of dollars in spending by poor families and workers almost immediately. Congressmember Jackson recently introduced the Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2012. It draws its name from the idea that the federal minimum wage would be $10.55 an hour now if it had kept up with inflation over the last 40 years. Instead, it's $7.25. While the bill has about 20 co-sponsors, so far President Obama has yet to endorse it despite a campaign promise he made in 2008. His poverty agenda included a pledge to, quote, "raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 [so that] full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing." One prominent supporter of increasing the minimum wage has been longtime consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. He's joining us now from Washington, D.C. His latest book is Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism: Build it Together to Win. Ralph Nader, welcome back to Democracy Now! Start off by talking about the minimum wage bill that Congressmember Jackson has put forward and what President Obama is doing about it. Well, President Obama has done nothing since he promised in 2008 to go to $9.50 by 2011, as you pointed out. This is a problem of the Democratic Party, Amy. The case for the minimum wage going to $10 is overwhelming. That's why Jesse Jackson called it "Catching Up with 1968." That's when the economy was half the size of it is today and half the worker productivity as today. So, if you look at the political scene, all the stars are aligned for the Democratic Party to take the lead and push this through Congress in an election year. For example, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney have been on the record of saying they want to—wanted a minimum wage keeping up with inflation. That would break the grip of McConnell, Senator McConnell, and Speaker Boehner over 100 percent of their Republicans and split the ranks. Furthermore, all these large membership groups like the AFL-CIO and the NAACP and La Raza, Center for Council on Budget Priorities [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities], all of them and many more, are for an increase in the minimum wage. This is the signal issue of the old Democratic Party, when the minimum started in 1938 under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But the Democratic Party has become a party of caution, cash and co-optation. And so, they don't even know a winning humanitarian, moral and political issue if it was put on their desk. Well, Jesse Jackson Jr. has broken ranks from the lethargy on Capitol Hill. He has about 20 good progressives in the House supporting him. And this is jolting what everybody's been waiting for. The AFL has been waiting for George Miller, a congressman, a senior congressman from San Francisco. The White House apparently is waiting for George Miller. Nancy Pelosi is waiting for George Miller. So, in a few days, George Miller, after three-and-a-half years of doing nothing, is going to put in a bill for a three-year stage, going to $9.80 by 2014. That is not a political winner. If you go from seven and a quarter and catch up with 1968 by taking it to $10, that's 30 million workers that you can appeal to—30 million workers. And that doesn't count the tipping of restaurant workers and fast-food workers, who are still at $2.55 an hour plus tips. Who knows what they are in terms of getting even to today's federal minimum wage? The U.S.'s federal minimum wage is lower than all Western countries. Ontario in Canada has a minimum wage of $10.25. And another star that's allied, this. They usually cater to the business community. When there's a minimum wage increase in the past, they say, "Well, let's give them a tax break." Well, they've already given, under Obama, 17 small business tax breaks. And, of course, we all know that Wal-Mart and McDonald's have got the tax system pretty well gamed. So here we have this gross inequity where workers in Wal-Mart are making $8, $9, $10 an hour before deductions, with hardly any health insurance, and their boss, the CEO of Wal-Mart, is making $11,000 an hour, eight hours a day. So you can see it's a great, powerful, fair-play political message if the Democrats would rise up. But I think we have to have another slogan here: "30 million American workers arise. You have nothing to lose but some of your debt." And we have a website to mobilize these workers. It's a simple one: timeforaraise.org, timeforaraise.org. Ralph? And H.R.5901 of—Jesse Jackson's bill, H.R.5901, will do it. So call the White House. Ask for Gene Sperling. He's the economic adviser to Mr. Obama. And call your members. This thing can really roll, especially if the Occupy movement begins to surround the local congressional districts on this issue. Well, Ralph, I want to ask you about Mitt Romney's views on raising the minimum wage. This is what he said in January when approached on the campaign trail. My view has been to allow the minimum wage to rise with the CPI or with another index, so that it adjusts automatically over time. REPORTER: So you'd support that as president? I already indicated that when I was governor of Massachusetts that that was my view. That was Republican candidate Mitt Romney. He also supported raising the minimum wage in 2002 when he was running for governor. But speaking on CNBC in March, Romney described how he vetoed such a raise in 2006. Well, actually, when I was governor, the legislature passed a law raising the minimum wage. I vetoed it, and I said, "Look, the way to deal with the minimum wage is this. On a regular basis," I said in the proposal I made, "every two years, we should look at the minimum wage. We should look at what's happened to inflation. We should also look at the jobs level throughout the country, unemployment rate, competitive rates in other states—or in this case, other nations." So, certainly the level of inflation is something you should look at, and you should identify what's the right way to keep America competitive. In that case, there's no inflation, or at least very minimal inflation so far. So, right. Yeah, so—so that would tell you that right now there's probably not a need to raise the minimum wage. What I can tell you is, had one indexed the minimum wage back to, let's say, 1990, the minimum wage would be lower now than it actually is. Democrats make big hay of this every—every few years — "Oh, we're going to raise the minimum wage" — and get a lot of hoopla for it. Frankly, the right way to process it is to look at the minimum wage, look at how unemployment rates are, make adjustments as time goes on based upon our need to compete, the need of the job market, and, of course, what's happened to inflation. So, Ralph, is he for it or against raising the minimum wage? He doesn't know where he is. You know, he's—historically, he's been for supporting the minimum wage keeping up with inflation. He's waffling now. After all, his wife only drives two Cadillacs, he's only worth over $200 million. This is the plutocrat speaking to 30 million workers who are working on a minimum wage that's the lowest in the Western world. I might add, there are Republicans against that position. This minimum wage keeping up with inflation comes in at 70 percent in the polls, historically. Seventy percent means that a lot of Republican workers in Wal-Mart and McDonald's and others are not going to say, "Oh, we're Republicans. We don't want to go from seven and a quarter or seven and a half to $10." This is a winning issue. In 2004, there was a $1 minimum wage increase on the ballot. There was no money by the promoters to go on TV. Wal-Mart, McDonald's, all these low-wage big chains plastered TV against it, and they lost. It came in 70 percent winning for the minimum wage increase in Florida. So, this is basically an issue that reflects the craven, cruel nature of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill, but it also reflects the caution, the cowardliness, the betrayal of the Democratic Party of its core constituency. Historically, this would be a no-brainer. This would be on the platform. And Senator Harkin introduces a modest bill in March. Look how late in the season. And George Miller in the House hasn't introduced it yet. And he comes from a progressive San Francisco Bay Area district. So, this minimum wage issue is the Rorschach test for our two-party tyranny. If they can't even pick up on that and increase consumer demand in a recessionary economy, and be backed up by the chief economic adviser to Obama, Alan Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, who's the main researcher, when he was at Princeton, disproving that an increase in the minimum wage costs jobs—it increases jobs. It increases sales. A lot of small businesses know that, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for Women, which is supporting a minimum-wage increase in New York state, which is also stuck at seven and a quarter. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce for Women. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-6-2012?start=1746 Joseph Stiglitz talks about how economic inequality is now greater in the United States than any other industrialized nation. "What's even more disturbing is we've [also] become the country with the least equality of opportunity," he says. Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:01:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-6-2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012, Scott Walker (politician), Joseph Stiglitz, United States, Politics of the United States, Economic inequality, Wisconsin, Tom Barrett, Occupy movement, Campaign finance Several months before Occupy Wall Street, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%," an article for Vanity Fair. He returns to the subject in his new book looking at how inequality is now greater in the United States than any other industrialized nation. He notes that the six heirs of the Wal-Mart fortune command wealth equivalent to the entire bottom 30 percent of American society. "It's a comment both on how well off the top are and how poor the bottom are," Stiglitz says. "It's really emblematic of the divide that has gotten much worse in our society." On Tuesday, Bloomberg News reported that pay for the top CEOs on Wall Street increased by more than 20 percent last year. Meanwhile, census data shows nearly one in two Americans, or 150 million people, have fallen into poverty or could be classified as low-income. "United States is the country in the world with the highest level of inequality [of the advanced industrial countries], and it's getting worse," Stiglitz says. "What's even more disturbing is we've [also] become the country with the least equality of opportunity." We turn now to an issue that's gained increasing prominence in the last year: increasing inequality in the United States and the divide between the richest 1 percent and the rest of the country. Bloomberg News reported Tuesday that pay for the top CEOs on Wall Street increased by over 20 percent last year. The article is based on analysis of data reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission and finds that the substantial rise comes after a 26 percent jump in CEO salaries in 2010. Meanwhile, census data shows nearly one in two Americans, or 150 million people, have fallen into poverty or could be classified as low-income. Thirty-eight percent of African-American children and 35 percent of Latino children live in poverty. Well, our next guest has helped to popularize the expression "the 1 percent" and brought to light the causes behind increasing inequality in the United States. Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize-winning economist. During the Clinton administration from '93 to '97, he served on the Council of Economic Advisers. His May 2011 Vanity Fair article, "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%," serves as the basis of his new book, _The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future_. Joseph Stiglitz teaches at Columbia University. We welcome you back to Democracy Now! Nice to be here. I mean, this figure you have on page eight of your book, when you say, "Consider the Walton family: the six heirs to the Wal-Mart empire command wealth of $69.7 billion, which is equivalent to the wealth of the entire bottom 30 percent of U.S. society." It's a comment both on how well off the top are and how poor the bottom are. And it's really emblematic of the divide that has gotten much worse in our society. One of the points I try to make in the book is, none of this is inevitable. It's not just market forces. United States is the country in the world with the highest level of inequality, and it's getting worse. The highest level? Of the advanced industrial countries. The highest level. Highest level of the advanced industrial countries. And to me, what's even more disturbing is, we've become the country with the least equality of opportunity of all the advanced industrial countries for which there's data. You know, we think of ourselves as a land of opportunity, American Dream. And there are all examples that we know of where people have made it—you know, immigrants, other people who have made it to the top. But what matters really are the numbers, the chances. You know, what are your life chances if you had the misfortune of being born to a poor family or somebody whose parents are not well educated? What are your chances of going from the bottom to the middle or the bottom to the top? And they are lower in the United States than in other advanced industrial countries. I mean, it's a striking fact, because you talk about it a few times in your book, that now in old Europe there is more class mobility than there is in the U.S. And, of course, we always here think of Europe as being very class rigid. That's right. And this is a change, in many respects. And one of the other points I try to emphasize in the book is it has consequences. It has consequences for our sense of identity, of what we are, but it also has even more, you know, you might say, narrow economic consequences, because what it means is that if you have the—you know, make the mistake of choosing the wrong parents, the likelihood is that you're not going to live up to your potential. And we are, in that sense, wasting our most important assets: our human resources. You also say that, ultimately, the rich will also pay an extraordinary price for this inequality. How? Well, we're all in the same boat together. You know, there are a lot of people who are very bright, who work very hard in developing countries, emerging markets, who have very low incomes. The point is that all of us benefit from our education system, our legal system, the way our whole society functions. In those parts of the world where there's a large divide, mainly in, you know, emerging markets, developing countries, where there's a large divide, societies fall apart. There's political, social, economic turmoil. And in that context, not even the 1 percent can do that well. I wanted—I wanted to ask you about the people we value and the people we don't. You have an amazing set of examples. You say, "Few are inventor" — you say, "By looking at those at the top of the wealth distribution, we can get a feel [for] the nature of this aspect of America's inequality. Few are investors who have reshaped technology, or scientists who have reshaped our understandings of the laws of nature. Think of Alan Turing, whose genius provided the mathematics underlying the modern computer. Or of Einstein. Or of the discoverers of the laser (in which Charles Townes played a central role) or John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley, the inventors of transistors. Or of Watson and Crick, who unraveled the mysteries of DNA, upon which rests so much of modern [medicine]. None of them, who made such large contributions to our well-being, are among those most rewarded by our economic system." We have very different names that are tied to these so-called inventions, like of the internet. That's right. And the point is that the theory that was developed in the 19th century to justify the inequality that was emerging with capitalism was marginal productivity theory. It was the notion that those who contributed the most to society will get bigger rewards. It was a sense, you might say, of moral justification, but also an argument for economic efficiency. And what we now realize is the individuals who have made the most important contributions are not those that are at the top. The people—many of the people who are at the top, for instance, are those financiers who brought the world to the brink of ruin. And the moment of Great Recession, I think, was a really telling moment in our rethinking of what was going on. You know, we all sort of understood that there was something wrong. But in that crisis where you saw so many bankers who had brought the world to the brink of ruin, who actually brought their companies to the brink of ruin, walk off with pay in the millions of dollars, it was very clear there was a disconnect between private rewards and social returns, really undermining the theory that was the basis of the justification of inequality in our society. So when did financiers, though, come to have this kind of power? Well, it's been an evolution. But I think, in my mind, a really telling change was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, where we told the banks, you know, "Don't focus on what you're supposed to be doing, which is providing credit to new businesses to expand businesses." We brought together the commercial banks, which were the basis of the kind of prudent lending, and investment banks, who took rich people's money and gambled. And we put it together. We created these financial institutions that were too big to fail. And the result of that was they grew larger and larger, and the risk taking, gambling, speculation dominated, rather than the lending, which is the basis of a growing, productive economy. But in a way, the evolution of our economy, more generally, began about 1980. That's—if I would say, where's there a dividing point—where the CEOs began to realize that they could take a larger and larger share of the corporate income. They understood that we have deficient corporate governance laws. And so, we didn't require a say in pay. We didn't require—you know, shareholders are supposed to own the firms, but the shareholders had no say in the pay of the companies—of the managers of the companies that they were supposed to own. A very strange situation. I mean, if you have somebody working for you, you would say you ought to have some say in their pay. And the result of that is they took a larger and larger share. And if you look at those at the top—as I say, they're not the Watson and Cricks, the people who made these big changes—they're corporate CEOs. Who is Berners-Lee? Well, these are people who, you know, made the internet, the people who— But we think Mark Zuckerberg. We think Gates. We think Jobs. You know, all of these played an important role. You know, we shouldn't underestimate the importance of that. But all these rest on a foundation, and that foundation was largely publicly provided, publicly funded. You couldn't have a program if you didn't have a computer. And you don't have a computer unless you do the mathematical research that is—provided the foundation. That was the—Turing. Alan Turing. That was Alan Turing. You don't have internet programs unless you have the internet. And that was something that the U.S. government helped to develop, and these other people that helped develop the World Wide Web. So, you know, the irony is that the people who provided the foundation on which our entire modern economy is based are not the people who have done well. I want to ask you about the presidential race and about Republican candidate Mitt Romney's record. Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a supporter of President Obama, generated controversy last month when he defended Romney's former company, Bain Capital. Booker spoke on Meet the Press. MAYOR CORY BOOKER: I have to just say, from a very personal level, I'm not about to sit here and indict private equity. It's—to me, it's just this—we're getting to a ridiculous point in America, and especially that I know. I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, it ain't—they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses. And this, to me—I'm very uncomfortable. Joseph Stiglitz, your comments on the role of private equity, and on Bain Capital, in particular? Well, let me first say, the financial sector is very important. A financial—you know, no economy can work well without a well-functioning financial sector. The problem with the United States is that our financial sector hasn't been doing what it's supposed to be doing. It's supposed to provide finance to create jobs, not to destroy jobs. It's supposed to allocate capital, manage risk. The concern about Bain Capital are twofold. One is that much of what they were doing was financial restructuring, which meant not creating jobs, taking money out of companies, putting them in a very fragile situation in which, a few years later, they go over the cliff, and jobs get destroyed. So, it is important to restructure firms to make them sustainable, efficient. But that wasn't what a lot of the enterprises that they were engaged in doing. The second problem, and I think most people find very disturbing, is that we have a tax law that says that those who are engaged working for this kind of restructuring—an important activity if it's done well and done in a way that creates more productivity, more jobs—why should those people pay so little taxes? And that—you know, going back to the upper 1 percent, their average tax rate is about 15 percent. We tax speculators at a lower rate than we tax people who work for a living. It makes no sense. Mayor Booker got a lot of flak for saying, sort of, "Back off Bain." But a number of Democrats have been saying that, and there's a war in the Obama administration now. Do you attack Romney on Bain, the company that he is running on, more than being governor of Massachusetts? And a lot of the Democrats are involved with Bain or have support from people at Bain or other similar companies. Your president, President Clinton—you served as the chief of economic advisers—he said, "Back off Bain." And you can see this tug-of-war going on, not only about Bain, though, and now you see them not really talking about Bain and talking about what you were just mentioning, Joe Stiglitz, but also about his offshore investments, offshore bank accounts, himself and his company. Can you talk about this and the fact that Clinton is one of the champions of saying, "Don't raise this. He's a good businessman"? Yeah. Well, first, we should understand, you know, that Romney is running on the platform: it's good to have a businessman running the White House; we do a better job. You know, the last MBA president we had was George Bush, and I don't think anybody would say that the economy was well run in those eight years. Deficits soared, and the economy finally went over the brink and into the Great Recession. So that qualification that he's touting, if I looked at that, you know, a Harvard MBA, I'm not sure I would say that that is a kind of certification that I would want for running the country. You have to understand public policy, not just how to make money for yourself, which they do a good job of doing, but that's not what's entailed in running the country. I have some sympathy and say, let's not make this personal. Let's try to keep this at the basic level of principles. And, you know, the basic level of principles are relatively simple: people should be paying their share of the taxes. And paying share of taxes mean you don't pay half the rate of other people who are working for a living. It means you don't use offshore centers to escape taxes. You know, why is so much banking going on in the Cayman Islands? It's not that the weather there is really particularly suited for moving electrons and running banks. You know, it's there for one reason only: to escape regulation, to escape taxation, to undermine the basic principles of our economy. And it's wrong for somebody who is trying to run for the president, who should be symbolizing, you know, making their fair share, to be using offshore accounts to avoid taxes and to avoid regulation. The other point is, businesses are supposed to be creating value, creating jobs in America, and new American business. Now, this is where we have a tax system that's distorted. But when you're running for the president, you should be out there and saying we don't want a distorted tax system that encourages jobs to move abroad, that encourages speculation over real wealth creation. If he had come out and said, like Warren Buffett, that it's wrong for him—that Warren Buffett to have a lower tax rate than his secretary—if he came out and said it's wrong to have a tax structure that encourages jobs to move abroad, you know, then I might have a little bit more sympathy. But so far, I haven't heard that. Ed Conard, the former managing director at Bain Capital, who has contributed to Romney, advises Romney, and argues explicitly for doubling income inequality? Yeah. I find that astounding. I debated him yesterday, actually. The point is, he believes in trickle-down economics, a notion you throw a lot of money at the top and everybody does a lot better because of their innovation. Given the level of inequality in the United States, I wish it were true, because if it were true, we'd all be doing very well. But the evidence is, you know, overwhelmingly against that. We've had a growth at the top, but what's been happening to the average American? He's not doing very well. Most Americans today are worse off than they were a decade-and-a-half ago. And the people at the bottom have done even worse. If you started looking at, say, male workers, a full-time male worker, people who work for a living, for a male worker today, the average, typical—half above, half below—his income today is lower than it was in 1968, almost a half-century ago. So the American economy has been delivering for the people at the very top, but it's not been delivering for most Americans. And you can see it in another way in the data. In the periods like the period after World War II, we grew together, inequality was shrinking, and we grew much more rapidly than we have since 1980, where we've been growing apart. So the notion that more inequality leads to more growth, to put it quite frankly, is nonsense. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-1-2012?start=2638 The Justice Department has ordered Florida to end a controversial voter purge that has primarily targeted Latino and Democratic voters. New constitutional amendment aims to overturn the Citizens United decision by banning corporate campaign cash. In victory for marriage equality, appeals court rules Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against same-sex couples. And "Inside Job" director Charles Ferguson asks: where are the criminal prosecutions for the financial crisis? Plus headlines, and more.<br /> Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:06:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-1-2012 United States, Politics of the United States, Same-sex marriage, Defense of Marriage Act, US Department of Justice, Mitt Romney, Ted Deutch, LGBT rights, Freedom to Marry, United States courts of appeals The Labor Department has just announced the United States economy gained only 69,000 jobs in May and the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent. We air part two of our interview with Academy Award-winning director Charles Ferguson, who first examined the network of academic, financial and political players who contributed to the nation's financial crisis in his documentary, "Inside Job." In his new book, "Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America," Ferguson draws on newly released court filings to continue his investigation. Ferguson notes the Clinton administration oversaw the most important financial deregulation, and since then, "We've seen in the Obama administration very little reform and no criminal prosecutions, and the appointment of a very large number of Wall Street executives to senior positions in the government, including some people who were directly responsible for causing significant portions of the crisis." Ferguson also calls for raising the salaries of senior regulators and imposing stricter rules for how soon they can lobby for the private sector after leaving the public sector. The Labor Department has just announced the U.S. economy gained only 69,000 jobs in May and the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent. We end today's show with part two of my conversation with the Academy Award-winning director Charles Ferguson. He first examined the network of academic, financial and political players who contributed to the nation's financial crisis in his documentary, Inside Job. Charles Ferguson now has a new book out that's called Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America. It's based on newly released court filings that reveal how major players contributed to the financial crisis. I began by asking Charles Ferguson about a recent comment of Mitt Romney's. President Obama is an old-school liberal whose first instinct is to see free enterprise as the villain and government as the hero. America counted on President Obama to rescue the economy, to tame the deficit and help create jobs. Instead, he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of your dollars to companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt to this country as all the prior presidents combined. The consequence is that we are now enduring the most tepid recovery in modern history. And let's follow that up with the interview he did with CNN's Soledad O'Brien when he talked about not being concerned about the poorest Americans. I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it You just said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," because they have a safety net. And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that? Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them. Got it. OK. The challenge right now—we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and—and there's no question, it's not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans. My campaign—I mean, you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans. Mitt Romney. Charles Ferguson, your response? Mr. Romney is doing a good job of focusing on the rich, including himself, with a net worth of almost $300 million. Unfortunately, the best way to—in the long run, to help the poor in the United States is to give them fairness and opportunity. And that is not something that Mr. Romney's policies or the direction of the country have been giving us recently. And his comments about the adequacy of America's safety net also seem highly questionable. In fact, in this morning's New York Times, there's an article about the imminent cessation of long-term unemployment benefits for very large numbers of Americans who have been unemployed for, in some cases, up to four years. So, I fear that a Romney administration would not bring us a solution to America's economic problems. And Mitt Romney's advisers you referred to earlier, as you talk about, for example, Larry Summers and President Obama? Who does Mitt Romney turn to? And also talk about the fact that he is running for president not as the former governor of Massachusetts but as the former head of the private equity firm Bain. That is what he is saying is his—are his credentials for the job. Yes, both disturbing. Glenn Hubbard is one of his principal economic advisers, and Hubbard not only has the major financial conflicts of interest that I detail in the film and also in the book, he also, when he was head of the Council of Economic Advisers in the George W. Bush administration, was one of the principal designers of the Bush tax cuts, half of whose benefits went to the upper 1 percent of the population. So, I do not think that Mr. Romney's choice of economic advisers indicates his concern for the middle class, needless to say not for the poor. With regard to his record at Bain Capital, the private equity industry, in general, and including Bain Capital, is an industry that is largely unregulated. And although in some cases private equity deals, private equity transactions, have had benefits for companies that are required, for the most part private equity is an extremely efficient machine for making lots of money for private equity executives, in some cases at the direct expense of the companies themselves or the government. One thing that is not widely discussed about the private equity industry is that it frequently depends on hidden subsidies from the government, of the sort that Mr. Romney says he opposes. For example, for-profit—largely unregulated, for-profit universities depend extremely heavily on subsidized student loans, and there have been very widespread abuses of—by private universities that have been owned by private equity firms, including Goldman Sachs. I want to go to a clip, Charles Ferguson, of your Academy Award-winning film, Inside Job. The clip includes your interview with Scott Talbott, one of the top lobbyists for the Financial Services Roundtable. In the U.S., the banks are now bigger, more powerful and more concentrated than ever before. MARTIN WOLF: There are fewer competitors. A lot of smaller banks have been taken over by big ones. JPMorgan today is even bigger than it was before. NOURIEL ROUBINI: JPMorgan took over first Bear Stearns and then WaMu. Bank of America took over Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. Wells Fargo took over Wachovia. After the crisis, the financial industry, including the Financial Services Roundtable, worked harder than ever to fight reform. The financial sector employs 3,000 lobbyists, more than five for each member of Congress. Do you think the financial services industry has excessive political influence in the United States? No. I think that every person in the—in the country is represented here in Washington. And you think that all segments of American society have equal and fair access to the system? The—you can walk into any hearing room that you would like. Yes, I do. One can walk into any hearing room. One cannot necessarily write the kind of lobbying checks that your industry writes or engage in the level of political contributions that your industry engages in. Between 1998 and 2008, the financial industry spent over $5 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions. And since the crisis, they're spending even more money. That was Matt Damon, the actor, narrating the Academy Award-winning film, Inside Job. Charles Ferguson directed that film and then went on to write Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America. Take the lessons we learn from Scott Talbott, Charles Ferguson, to what we're seeing today, for example, with Jamie Dimon and the $3 billion loss at JPMorgan Chase. Who has access? Who doesn't? His lobbying, for example, JPMorgan Chase and Jamie Dimon, against the Volcker Rule and what this all means? Is it strong enough? The fierce lobbying about the implementation of the Volcker Rule is yet another example of this phenomenon. The banking industry, including and frequently led by JPMorgan and Mr. Dimon, have spent enormous sums of money to push back against strong implementation of the Volcker Rule and other aspects of even the relatively weak regulation embodied in Dodd-Frank legislation. And Mr. Dimon repeatedly has said that he doesn't think that such regulation is required. And indeed, one of the most astounding things about JPMorgan's recent loss is that regulation is still sufficiently weak that we don't know what that trade actually is. We do not know the details of that transaction, because they do not have to be publicly disclosed. It has been said by people who apparently do know something about the transaction that if the situation in Europe worsens, the losses could extend upwards of $5 billion. And this is a loss that occurred in a relatively forgiving economic environment, at least in the United States, and in a bank that is widely regarded, probably correctly regarded, as the best-run bank in the United States. So, it doesn't give one a great deal of security about what could happen if we have another financial crisis and what could happen in other less well-run, less financially strong banks. You talk about the crisis in Predator Nation being not just, you know, a Republican affair or a Democrat affair, it's a bipartisan affair. Talk about the role of Democrats in all of this. The role of Democrats, I would say, has been at least as great as the role of Republicans. The most important deregulatory legislation was actually passed in the Clinton administration, championed by Robert Rubin, who was secretary of the treasury, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and then also Larry Summers, who was first deputy treasury secretary and then treasury secretary. First there was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the law that separated investment from commercial banking. And then, in 2000, the— That was under Clinton. Yes, under the Clinton administration. And then, in the year 2000, also in the Clinton administration, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which actually banned regulation of all so-called over-the-counter derivatives, including the credit default swaps and many other instruments that were at the heard of the 2008 crisis. To his credit, President Clinton has actually publicly stated that he now regrets having passed that law. But it was definitely championed by major fractions of the Democratic Party and policy leadership. And then, of course, we've seen in the Obama administration very little reform and no criminal prosecutions, and the appointment of a very large number of Wall Street executives to senior positions in the government, including some people who were directly responsible for causing significant portions of the crisis. You also talk about how the once-revered figures Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers have simply become courtiers of the—to the elite. Unfortunately, I think that's an apt description. Of course, Alan Greenspan was a private economist before he went into the government, and had even taken money in the 1980s for lobbying on behalf of savings and loan executives who were later sent to prison, including Charles Keating. Larry Summers was first an academic and actually did not start working for the financial sector until after he left government for the first time, when he was president of Harvard and then subsequently a professor at Harvard. But he has consistently favored the financial sector's interests in all ways, and now he has made, by this point, tens of millions of dollars from the financial sector. The issue of regulatory capture—you talk about the importance of more regulation, but what about the—that revolving door between business and regulators? Very important problem. Difficult to address, but not impossible. I think that one very important measure that would be very beneficial would be raising the salaries, dramatically raising the salaries, of senior regulators and senior civil service personnel responsible for economic policy. In some other nations, senior regulators are very well paid, hundreds of thousands, even in some cases over a million dollars a year. And if that's the case, their temptation to favor banks, to go to work for banks, is of course much reduced. And I think that increased pay for the public sector should be accompanied by much stricter restrictions on what people can do after they leave government. Of course, people should be permitted to work in the private sector, but, for example, a five- or 10-year ban on lobbying would, I think be a very beneficial thing. http://news.linktv.org/videos/are-michigans-efforts-to-fix-americas-worst-city-racist?start=0 There is a growing controversy over how one state in the US is trying to turn around cities that have fallen on hard times. Some residents of Benton Harbor city in Michigan welcome the intervention, while others are calling it undemocratic and racist. Thu, 24 May 2012 14:45:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/are-michigans-efforts-to-fix-americas-worst-city-racist Benton Harbor, Michigan, Economic inequality, Michigan, Social inequality, Whirpool, Racism, Poverty in the United States, United States, Lake Michigan, Al Jazeera English There is a growing controversy over how one state in the US is trying to turn around cities that have fallen on hard times. Benton Harbor city in Michigan has been in financial meltdown since the 1980s, when the city was so far in debt that its police cars were repossessed. Some residents welcome the intervention, while others are calling it undemocratic and racist. Al Jazeera's John Hendren has more from Benton Harbor in Michigan state. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-may-23-2012?start=1955 Census data shows nearly one in two Americans live in poverty, and things could soon get worse if Obama and Congress remain at an impasse over the 2013 fiscal budget, with Republicans calling for cuts to food aid, healthcare, and social services. Wed, 23 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-may-23-2012 Egyptian presidential election, 2012, Politics of Egypt, Egypt, Egyptian Revolution, Two-round system, Poverty in the United States, Hosni Mubarak, Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, Welfare system, US Budget Census data shows nearly one in two Americans live in poverty, and now the Congressional Budget Office warns things could soon get worse if President Obama and Congress remain at an impasse over the 2013 fiscal budget. House Republicans are calling for cuts to food aid, healthcare and social services, while protecting funds for the Pentagon. We discuss poverty with Peter Edelman, who resigned as assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services over then-President Bill Clinton's signing of the 1996 welfare reform law that threw millions off the rolls. "Basically, right now, welfare is gone," Edelman says. "We have six million people in this country whose only income is food stamps. That's an income at a third of the poverty line. ... Nineteen states serve less than 10 percent of their poor children. It's a terrible hole in the safety net. Welfare has basically disappeared in large parts of this country." Now a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, Edelman has written a new book, "So Rich, So Poor: Why It's So Hard to End Poverty in America." "I'm very much in support of Occupy," he adds. "The idea ... of the 1 percent and the 99 percent ... all fits together — we really should be all one country." We turn now to the issue of extreme poverty in America. Census data show nearly one in two Americans have fallen into poverty or could be classified as low-income. Meanwhile, more than a third of African-American and Latino children live in poverty. Now the Congressional Budget Office warns things could soon get worse if President Obama and Congress remain at an impasse over the 2013 fiscal budget. Republicans, who control the House, are calling for cuts to food aid, healthcare and other social services, while protecting funds for the Pentagon. On Sunday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan defended the Republican budget and sought to downplay the massive impact it would have if enacted. REP. PAUL RYAN: What we're saying is, let's get on growth and prevent austerity. The whole premise of our budget is to pre-empt austerity by getting our borrowing under control, having tax reform for economic growth, and preventing Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid from going bankrupt. That pre-empts austerity. The President, his budget, the fact the Senate hasn't done a budget in three years, puts us on a path toward European-like austerity. That's what we're trying to prevent from happening in the first place. That was House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan. Some analysts say the Republicans' budget would actually add to the national debt. According to the Economic Policy Institute, it would also increase the number of people who are looking for a job, resulting in a net loss of more than four million jobs over the next two years. For more, we're joined by Peter Edelman. He is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, was top adviser to Senator Robert F. Kennedy and also a member of President Bill Clinton's administration, until he resigned in protest after Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Peter Edelman has a new book out; it's called So Rich, So Poor: Why It's So Hard to End Poverty in America. Peter Edelman, welcome to Democracy Now! Thank you. It's wonderful to be here. Why is it so hard to end poverty? Because, fundamentally, our economy has been very unkind to the entire bottom half of our people over the last 40 years. We have terrific public policy in place, although it's threatened now by Paul Ryan, as you just showed. But we've done a lot, from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, to food stamps and the earned income tax credit. We're keeping more than 40 million people out of poverty now by the public policy that we have. But that's fighting against the flood of low-wage jobs that we've had over the last 40 years and the fact that people in the bottom half have been absolutely stuck, that the wages for people at the bottom have not—have grown only 7 percent over that 40-year period. So we're fighting uphill with the public policies that we have. It's even harder for people who are—which is single moms in this economy, who are all by themselves in this low-wage economy trying to earn enough to support their children. It's very, very hard to do that with the flood of low-wage jobs that we have. I want to ask about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In February, he told CNN's Soledad O'Briae that he is not concerned with the poorest Americans. I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it You just said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," because they have a safety net. And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that? Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them. Got it. OK. The challenge right now—we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and—and there's no question, it's not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans. My campaign—I mean, you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans. That was Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Peter Edelman, you talk about the issue of deep poverty at length in your book. So who are the very poor? To say the least, Governor Romney doesn't know what he's talking about. We've had a terrible hole ripped in the safety net that we have for the lowest-income people in this country. It's nice to hear him say if there is a problem, he's going to fix it—not too credible, since he says he's not even focusing. But 20 million people now—and these are census numbers—live in deep poverty, extreme poverty, incomes below half the poverty line. That's below $9,000 for a family of three. Why is that? Well, partly because the economy has been so weak at the bottom, but the most vulnerable people have lost the safety net of cash assistance. I'm talking about mothers and children, welfare. The 1996 law turned everything over to the states to do what they want. And basically, right now, welfare is gone. We have six million people in this country whose only income is food stamps. That's an income at a third of the poverty line. In the state of Wyoming, there are 644 people in the whole state, 4 percent of the state's poor children, receive TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Children [Families], what we now call welfare. Nineteen states serve less than 10 percent of their poor children. It's a terrible hole in the safety net. Welfare has basically disappeared in large parts of this country. The Clinton administration presided over a drastic transformation of U.S. welfare laws. I mean, people talk about the tremendous rift in Washington between Democrats and Republicans, but you might say, on the issue of poverty, it's a kind of bipartisan affair, even to mention the word. But I want to go back to President Clinton in 1996 at the welfare reform signing ceremony. This is when you served under him as assistant secretary of Health and Human Services. The signing ceremony in 1996. PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: But let's not obscure the fundamental purpose of the welfare provisions of this legislation, which are good and solid and which give us at least the chance to end the terrible, almost physical, isolation of huge numbers of poor people and their children from the rest of mainstream America. We have to do that. So that was President Clinton when he signed welfare reform, and I'm sure you remember that day well. I spoke to you in November of 1996, soon after you resigned your post as Clinton's assistant secretary of Health and Human Services. I think it was the first broadcast interview you did. Mm-hmm. You quit over—in protest of the welfare bill. I want to go back to Democracy Now!, 1996. I am deeply opposed to the current welfare law and very troubled by what happened last year in the Congress. It ends a very fundamental entitlement of assistance to children in need. The way the law used to work—and this has completely ended—is that if a family with children satisfied the eligibility requirements—and those were national, federal requirements—they could get aid. What's happened now is it's entirely up to the state, each state, to decide whether it will help people at all, whether it will give them cash or help them with a voucher, whether it will have its system run by a public agency or by a corporation or some private agency. So that was assistant secretary of Health and Human Services—well, former assistant secretary, because he had just quit. President Clinton signed off on welfare reform just before the election. You quit right after he was elected. How hard a decision was that for you? And, well, I'll ask the question I asked you then: why did you wait so long—why did you wait 'til President Clinton was re-elected, given how extremely critical you were of what he had done? Well, that's not correct, Amy. I quit two weeks after he signed the bill, two months before the presidential election. Ah. Just so we're clear about that. You can go back and look at the New York Times. OK. No, I did not wait. And I just couldn't continue. I simply disagreed, as the interview with you shows. This—it's turned out that exactly, I'm sorry to say, what I thought would happen has happened. We had 68 percent of children in poor families on the old welfare system. There was a lot wrong with the old welfare system; it needed to be fixed. It didn't help people to get off and find jobs. We had 14 million people—that's too many—on welfare. But this was a blunderbuss. This was just an axe, a hatchet, that was taken. And so, that 68 percent then, with low benefits in a lot of places, but still legally entitled, as I told you in that interview, down to 27 percent now. That's just a tremendous, tremendous drop. It's fundamentally not there. And in this recession, when you would expect that it would be helpful to people, it turned out that there were 3.9 people on welfare—3.9 million people on welfare at the beginning of the recession. It went up to 4.4 million. Now, food stamps, which worked beautifully in the recession—why? Because there's a legal right to it—went, amazingly, from 26.3 million people to 46 million now, almost 20 million more people on food stamps. Problem is, if you have no income—and now it's six million people who only have food stamps for their income, don't—can't get the cash assistance—you get so much more terrible, deep, extreme poverty. I mean, that's extraordinary figures that you cite. One of the things that you point out in your book is that states now practically have a disincentive to give cash assistance, to give welfare. Why is that? States have complete—I'm sorry, the question is why— States are practically given an incentive not to give cash assistance to the poor. Well, states have a block grant, so there's no legal right to it. And starting in the late 1990s, when the welfare rolls plummeted, the states actually found that they had money to spare. Instead of raising benefits or letting people who actually needed help get it, they pushed people away at the door. That's how they got the rolls down to about four million people, from 14 million. And they started spending the money in other ways. So we come to the recession, and they're spending the money on other programs. They're spending money to support the child welfare system, a number of other programs, but they're not helping families that have desperate need. And that's because it's entirely up to them what they do with the money, as long as it stays in some way that's related to the question. But they don't have to extend a dollar of benefits to low-income people. And that's why we have such a—such a tremendous diminution in the case log. The millions of people who only have food stamps? That's their only, if you could call it, income? It isn't? Yes, yes, yes. Jason Deparle did a fabulous piece of reporting two years ago in the New York Times — and these are government figures, but nobody had really gone and dug them up — and found that—it's an astonishing number—found that six million, 2 percent of our population, have no income except those food stamps. The food stamps is the sole thing that stands between them and being totally without any income. We're speaking with a guest who quit as a high-level official in the Clinton administration over welfare reform—that was, what, almost 20 years ago—but continues to deal with these issues with a new book, So Rich, So Poor: Why It's So Hard to End Poverty in America. We'll come back to Peter Edelman after break. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-april-27-2012?start=2058 As the Obama administration continues to expand its use of drone strikes, activists and victims' advocates join a DC summit on the growing civilian death toll. The Vatican has reprimanded the largest group of Catholic nuns in the United States, saying they've focused too heavily on issues of social justice, while failing to speak out enough on abortion and same-sex marriage. And a transgender African-American woman is set to go on trial next week on charges of second-degree murder following an altercation in which she was reportedly physically attacked and called racist and homophobic slurs outside a Minneapolis bar last year. Plus headlines, and more. Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:52:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-april-27-2012 United States, Barack Obama, Predator drone, Drone attacks in Pakistan, Drone, Yemen, Pakistan, Chrishaun 'Cece' McDonald, Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, Pope Benedict XVI The Vatican has reprimanded the largest group of Catholic nuns in the United States, saying they have focused too heavily on issues of social justice, while failing to speak out enough on "issues of crucial importance," such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In a report issued last week, church leaders accused the nuns of promoting "radical feminist" ideas and challenging key teachings on homosexuality and male-only priesthood. An archbishop and two bishops — all of them male — have been appointed to oversee the nuns. "To me, it's quite puzzling that our work with the poor, which Jesus told us to do in the gospels, would be the source of such a criticism," says Sister Simone Campbell, head of the Catholic social justice group NETWORK, which was harshly criticized in last week's report. The rebuke comes as the so-called "war on women" has become a key issue in the 2012 presidential race. Some Catholic nuns have opposed the bishops by supporting Obama's healthcare reform law and contraceptive mandate. Campbell says she believes the Vatican targeted her group because of their support for healthcare reform. "They like it when we just do service, but don't have thoughts, don't have questions, don't have criticism," Campbell says. "That is a real challenge in a political society, when we have to do a deep, nuanced analysis in order to know the way forward for this, for the common good." The Vatican has reprimanded the largest group of Catholic nuns in the United States, accusing them of promoting "radical feminist themes" and challenging church teachings on homosexuality and male-only priesthood. In a report issued last week, the Vatican criticized the nuns for focusing too heavily on "promoting issues of social justice," while failing to speak out enough about, quote, "issues of crucial importance to the life of the church and society," such as abortion and same-sex marriage. An archbishop and two bishops have been appointed to oversee the nuns and ensure their obedience to church doctrine. This is not the first time a U.S. nun has been targeted for social justice activities. Sister Margaret McBride, an administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, Arizona, was excommunicated for permitting an abortion to be performed in order to save a woman's life in 2009. She was later reinstated. Critics have drawn a contrast between the church's harsh treatment of nuns and past attempts to cover up the widespread sexual abuse of children by male clergy members. Some believe the nuns were targeted because they supported President Obama's healthcare overhaul two years ago, while U.S. bishops opposed the law. Healthcare and the so-called "war on women" have become key issues in the 2012 presidential race. The Catholic Church has strongly opposed Obama's rule requiring health insurance coverage for contraception, accusing Obama of infringing on religious liberty, despite an exemption for religious institutions. But some nuns have supported the rule. The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents most Catholic nuns in the United States, declined to join us on the program, but they did release a statement last week saying they were "stunned" by the Vatican's report. On Wednesday, they issued a second statement saying their national board would meet to discuss implementation of the Vatican's plan in, quote, "an atmosphere of prayer, contemplation and dialogue." We're joined from Washington, D.C., by Sister Simone Campbell, head of the Catholic social justice group NETWORK, which was also heavily criticized in last week's report. Sister Simone Campbell, welcome to Democracy Now! What did the Vatican say, and what is your response? Well, the Vatican said that they found our intensive work with people who live in poverty, our speaking out for the poor, to be insufficient for their lights. They were concerned that we, as celibate women, were not focusing enough on some of the issues around abortion or gay marriage. To me, it's quite puzzling that our work with the poor, which Jesus told us to do in the gospels, would be the source of such a criticism. I actually find it quite a badge of honor to be thought to be working so much for those who live at the margins of our society. That's what we're about. That's who we are. Do you see this as somewhat of a shift in church policy? Obviously, Pope John Paul, who was—who had very conservative views on a number of issues, similar to the current pope, also urged constant attention to social justice issues by the members of the church. I think it evidences some divisions within the leadership of the church, because also this pope, Pope Benedict XVI, has this fabulous encyclical—that's a letter to the church—called "Charity in Truth," where he talks about all of the basic principles of social justice. And it's very interesting. He says there in that encyclical that while you might have individual sense of justice—and he links the life issues there—there's also the demand for engagement in social justice, which is the communitarian approach. He calls for both. And so, I'm totally puzzled that the Vatican, when we're working on one piece of it—because you can't do everything—why the Vatican would then criticize us for doing the communitarian justice piece that the Pope was calling for. I want to go to a clip of Father Roy Bourgeois. He organized the annual protest against the U.S. Army School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, for many years. He has come under criticism from the Vatican for ordaining women. This is a comment he made in which he compares the Vatican's silence on priest sexual abuse to its outcry over the ordination of women. Less than three months after I attended the ordination of a woman in Lexington, Kentucky, less than three months, I received a letter from the Vatican demanding that I recant within 30 days or I will be excommunicated. The severity, the swiftness of the Vatican's letter, I think it calls into question, you know, just what's going on here. What really is the problem? I do believe that I did not commit a crime. I am following my conscience. Women—you know, it's amazing, the thousands of priests and the many bishops were aware of these crimes of their priests, they remained silent. These priests committing the crimes and the bishops who remained silent have not been excommunicated. Yet, the many women who have been ordained to the priesthood and the priests and bishops who support their ordination are excommunicated. I do believe that there is a problem here. This is also a grave injustice. Father Roy Bourgeois went on to explain why he thinks women priests are so important to have in the church. FATHER ROY BOURGEOIS: Any institution, organization that's controlled where the power is in the hands of any particular group, whether they be men or women, is not healthy. Our church, the Catholic Church, is going through a real crisis. There are thousands of churches that are being shut down because there is a lack of priests. The sexual abuse crisis has really rocked the church to its roots. I am convinced, of course, that if we had women priests and women bishops, that sexual abuse and the silence during those years would not have been possible. Women simply would not have been silent. I'm also convinced, if we had women priests and women bishops, there would not be such silence about this war in Iraq. I'm convinced, too, that there would be, if we had women priests and women bishops, they would have called for the closing of this School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia. We need women priests in our church for it to be healthy, for it to be complete. That was Father Roy Bourgeois. Sister Simone Campbell, your response? I think Father Roy has some really good points. In terms of women in the church, especially Catholic sisters, we were encouraged in the 1950s by Pope Pius XII, and then in our renewal program in the 1960s, to get educated, to get advanced degrees and to enter into engaging the world. We have done that. And I think that's part of what some of the challenge is, is that many of our hierarchy who have grown up in an all-male clergy don't really know how to engage women who are thoughtful, prayerful, questioning and willing to stand up for beliefs, even if it's not popular. I think they're not used to dealing with that level of candor. And I also believe that a lot of the tension that's currently being experienced within the Catholic Church is a tension around culture, because if you'll notice, none of the criticism—while it's the doctrine of the faith that's criticizing us, they're not criticizing the core teachings of Jesus. I mean, we follow the gospel. What they are criticizing, though, is the engagement in culture. We come from a democratic culture. My community lives in a democratic culture. We elect our leadership. We nurture each other. We're communitarian. We discern together. We follow the rule of Saint Benedict from the 500 A.D., where Benedict says, "When you're making a decision, listen to every member of the community, and the truth will emerge." This is compared to, really, a culture of monarchy, where the Vatican comes out of the European experience, where the monarch is always right, where dissidence or questioning—questioning is seen as dissidence, and where there is not room for a plurality of thought. The United States has an amazing pluralism that is really our gift, because it creates such diversity, like biodiversity. It creates a vibrant society. And I think that vibrant society really is running headlong into the culture of monarchy at this point. And Sister Simone Campbell, the issue that Father Roy Bourgeois also raised about the sexual abuse scandal in the church. Do you believe that if there has been—had been more women in leadership roles throughout the church worldwide, that there would have been over the past half-century somewhat of a different response by the elders of the church to this whole issue of sexual abuse, which really has created—it's unbelievable, the extent of it, from country after country? It's horrifying. It's horrifying. And the anguish that this has caused to the victims, to their families, but also to the whole church, to the whole body of the church, it is serious anguish. I guess—I mean, we'll never know whether or not women would have made a difference. I'm a lawyer, and I practiced family law for many years, for 18 years, in California. And I know that some of the cases that I was most vigilant about, most protective about, that, you know, I really rose up sort of like that mama lion to protect her cub, were the cases where there was abuse and when I was representing children. So I have a hunch that maybe it would have made a difference. I think the thing is that, going forward, the piece that is missing in, I think, the institutional response is sorrow and repentance. And while there's been apologies, they seem more paper apologies than engaged in the process. When you repent, you don't just create a new structure. You have to be sad. You have to sorrow. You have to mourn. And it's those who mourn that will be comforted. The fact that my church is not able to mourn this horrible sin together, I think, is a serious problem. And women often are looked to in our society as being able to express grief more easily. Guys sort of seem to think they have to look tough, and if they show weakness, you know, it's a problem. But women know that it's the integrated full human person and that we can only break open the sin if we weep and mourn. And that's something that our church needs to do, both with regards to the censure of the women religious to the scandal of the sexual abuse, and to all the other ways that the church is a very limited human organization started by Christ. And, oh, man, it really need some help at this point. Sister Simone Campbell, I want to turn quickly to a clip of you on Fox News, Bill O'Reilly's show. In this clip, you express support for President Obama's healthcare plan. So you are—you believe that Jesus, if He were alive today, would be saying, "Look, the government of the United States has an obligation to ensure, at taxpayer expense to every American, to make sure that they get quality healthcare, and that's that"? I think what Jesus says, over and over, both in our lives and in the scriptures, is that it's our response to make sure that the least are cared for and that it is a societal responsibility. Therefore, we must, as a nation, make sure that everyone has access to healthcare. OK. Simone Campbell, how much of the Vatican's criticism of your group, NETWORK, do you think has to do with your position on Obama's healthcare plan? And overall, what has been the Catholic Church's position, not just on the issue of reproductive rights, the most recent controversy, federal support for reproductive healthcare, but overall for Obama's healthcare plan? Well, basically, Catholic Health Association, which is the association of all the Catholic healthcare providers in the United States, and NETWORK stood together in favor of the Senate bill, which was the one that eventually passed, the Affordable Care Act. Not perfect. It's got a long way to go, but—to be—to get everybody healthcare, but we saw it as a significant step forward. I think this leadership is a direct contrast to what the bishops did. The bishops' office, the staff there, did an analysis of the bill, and they were afraid that there was maybe a dime that might go from federal money to fund abortion, and because of their fear, they said that they could not support the healthcare bill. The fact is that the—at least one federal court in Cincinnati—and I think there are a couple of others who have looked at the issue—has said, as a matter of law, there is no federal funding of abortion in the healthcare bill. In addition, it is also very clear that the Pregnant Women Support Act is to give women alternatives, to provide them with the economic options that they need in order to make a conscience choice. So, from our perspective, this was a significant step forward. The bishops, for reasons I don't understand, the bishops' office, continues to maintain that they worry that there might be some federal funding of abortion. I think this a—this difference is a direct, I think—it appears to me to be directly related to why we got named. I mean, we're a political organization. We don't even have formal ties with Rome. Many of our members are Catholic sisters and priests, but we have 18,000 people across the country who are activists. And a lot of them are lay folks, a lot of them are non-Catholic. But they named us, I think, because we had a different position from the bishops on this. We took our one faith. It's not a faith fight; it's a political fight. I'm a lawyer. I read the bill. I applied my faith to the bill. But they—their staff applied it in a different way. And they seem to be saying that they like our work, they like—I mean, they like it when we just do service, but don't have thoughts, don't have questions, don't have criticism. And that is a real challenge in a political society, when we have to do a deep, nuanced analysis in order to know the way forward for this, for the common good. Sister Simone Campbell— That's what we're about, is the common good. We want to thank you very much for being with us, executive director of NETWORK, a Catholic social justice group. This is Democracy Now! http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-april-24-2012?start=2930 A shocking new PBS documentary exposes the tasing and beating death of a Mexican immigrant by US border agents in California, and renews scrutiny of what critics call a culture of impunity. And in part two of Democracy Now's interview with Tavis Smiley and Prof. Cornel West, they discuss American poverty and their own experiences of growing up in working-class households. Plus headlines, and more.<br /> Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:58:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-april-24-2012 Anastasio Hernández-Rojas, Mexico – United States border, US Customs and Border Protection, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Illegal Immigration, United States, Immigration, Poverty in the United States, Tavis Smiley, Cornel West In part two of our interview with Tavis Smiley and Prof. Cornel West, they discuss growing up in working-class households. "I saw so much poverty growing up," says Smiley, who lived with 13 family members in a three-bedroom trailer and learned that even when he was not optimistic, he could be hopeful. "Hope needs help," Smiley notes. West recalls how he worked with the Black Panthers to organize a general strike while growing up in Sacramento, California, in order to push for African-American studies programs in local high schools. Looking at current events, Smiley and West cite Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s comment that "war is the enemy of the poor." They compare the amount of money spent on the war in Iraq, and the 2012 presidential campaign, to funding for programs that assist the one in two Americans who are now poor. Click here to see part one of this interview. We turn now to part two of our interview with Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley. They have just come out with a new book, The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifesto, which draws in part on a 10-state tour they conducted last year to highlight the issue of poverty in the United States. Professor Cornel West teaches religion and African-American studies at Princeton University and is headed to Union Theological Seminary in New York. He has authored many books. Tavis Smiley is an award-winning television and radio broadcaster and does Tavis Smiley on PBS and The Tavis Smiley Show and Smiley & West, which he hosts with Cornel West. In part one of our interview last week, Democracy Now! co-host Juan González and I talked with Cornel West and Tavis Smiley about the absence of poverty as a political issue despite growing inequality that's increasing the ranks of the poor. We turn now to part two of that conversation. We continue by talking about their own backgrounds and how their upbringings have shaped the work they do on the issue of poverty today. We began by speaking with Tavis Smiley. Let me just say, given that I regard Dr. West as the leading public intellectual in our nation, that I regard him as a Du Bois of our time. For all the good work we've done together for 25 years, nothing has delighted me more than to have my name on the cover of a book next to his name, because I so love and respect and revere Cornel West and his contributions to this great nation and the world, for that matter. So, to get a chance to sit and write a book with him, where we bring our shared experiences and individual experiences to bear on a topic like poverty, was just an opportunity I couldn't pass up. And our upbringings are very different. We are brothers connected at the heart. We grew up in very different environments. He can speak about his own. But I grew up as one of 10 kids. I'm the eldest of 10 kids, grew up in a three-bedroom trailer, my seven brothers and me in one bedroom, my two sisters and my maternal grandmother, Big Mama, in the second bedroom, and my mother and father, Joyce and Emory Smiley, in the third bedroom—13 people in a three-bedroom, one-bathroom trailer. That's how I was raised, in a trailer park with all white people. We were the only black family for miles around in this white trailer park. The good— Where? In Indiana, North Central Indiana. The good news about that is I learned at an early age that we can get along, if I could take Rodney King's question and answer it: yes, we can get along. America is a nation where black and white and red and brown and yellow can come together for the sake of making America a greater democracy. So I've always believed in the best of America. In that sense, I resonate with Martin's dream, rooted in the American Dream. I resonate with Dr. King in that regard. On the other hand, though, I saw so much poverty growing up, because I lived that story growing up. And I've been fortunate, and I've been blessed. And the short answer is, I know that, even when we can't be optimistic—and Doc makes this point all the time—even when we can't be optimistic, we can always be hopeful. And I'm a witness, I'm an example, that you can build an entire life on hope. As I've gotten older, though, I realize, though, that hope needs help. And those of us who have the platform and have the opportunity to speak for those who don't have a voice, Doc and I believe and argue in the book, that is, the telling of truth that allows suffering to speak, so that the suffering is never heard, much less addressed, if those of us who have platforms, like Democracy Now!, don't raise our voices to speak out on their behalf. That's why I celebrate what you do and celebrate the opportunity to do this book with Dr. West. And, Cornel West, the amazing thing about this is that poverty is no stranger to either of you. Talk about your upbringing. Well, I didn't grow up in the same kind of poverty this brother did, though. He was broke as the Ten Commandments financially. We had some flow of resources, you know what I mean? It was more working class, lower middle class. But most importantly, we were spiritually rich. We were morally rich. Irene and Clifton, my parents, my brother Cliff, my sisters Cynthia and Cheryl. I'm the father of Zeytun and Cliff and grandfather of Kalen. I've lived an extremely blessed life, even though I come out of that—both stable working class, lower middle class. When I met this brother, we decided—what, 25 years ago? You grew up in Sacramento. Sacramento, California, yeah. It was 25 years ago, I say, "We are going to live and die to keep alive the legacy of Martin King and Fannie Lou and [inaudible]— You were fighting from when you were in school. You were what? President of your class, but fighting to include African-American studies? Yeah, we had a general strike, absolutely. What year was it? That was 1969. We shut the whole— And why did you strike? —city down to make sure they had black studies in every high school, who wanted it. We weren't authoritarian or coercive about it, you know. But already, you know, we had been set on fire by not just Martin King, but I was working closely with the Black Panther Party, as a Christian, of course. We had wonderful tensions, but I was working the breakfast program, working with them every day trying to ensure they had black studies. And so, when Tavis and I come together, he's from Kokomo, Indiana—Sacramento, California—boom! King legacy 2012, in our own feeble way. I mean, you know, we're just doing what we could do before we die. And we've been covering extensively on Democracy Now!, when you talk about fighting for black studies in the schools, the battle in Arizona in Tucson over the state legislature passing a law— Oh, yeah, absolutely. —that essentially bans Latino studies in the city of Tucson in the public schools there. Absolutely. And the books that are the heart of the curriculum. Absolutely. Yeah, and they banned the books that are the curriculum. As you point out in your magisterial text, old brother, in some ways, that's a compliment, because when the powers that be want to suppress the truth, we know truth crushed to earth shall rise again. The truth is dangerous. Right. The truth is—pushes people against the wall. You both, in your book, The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifesto, refer to Dr. King. I wanted to play a clip of Dr. King. You talk about his campaign against poverty. This was the speech he gave not far from here, Riverside Church, April 4th, 1967, a year to the day before he was assassinated. REV. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.: Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans. That is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. That was Dr. King, April 4th, 1967. Tavis Smiley, it's not the speech we usually hear when referring to Dr. King. It is the most courageous speech that Martin King ever gave in his life. And for giving that speech, he was demonized. We talk about this in our work. King, in the last poll taken in his life about his acceptance in popularity in the country, 55 percent of black had turned against black people because of his opposition to the Vietnam War. Seventy-two percent of Americans across the board had turned against Dr. King because of his opposition to the war. New York Times and the Washington Post editorialized against him. Oh, man. They killed him. Basically him a communist, basically called him a communist. They absolutely did. They did. That speech is, again, the most courageous speech he ever gave. And there's one line in that speech—many lines, but one that always resonates with Dr. West and myself, and we talk about it in this book, we quote him in this text: "War is the enemy of the poor." That's Martin King. "War is the enemy of the poor." And the two of you, given the fine work you do here on this Peace Report every day, you understand that. All the resources, the trillion-plus dollars we've spent in these military excursions—you can't even call them "excursions" now, because we're now—this is the longest war in the history of this country; it's not an excursion anymore. Invasion, occupation. Exactly, without, obviously, an exit strategy. But think of all the money spent there that could have been spent on programs here for the poor, number one. Number two, now that we're no longer in Iraq, as we once were, at least, how will that money be spent domestically that was being spent in Iraq? And since I'm talking about money, and we're talking about this campaign for the White House, if Mitt Romney is going to raise, as the papers suggest, about $600 million this time around, Barack Obama last time raised $750 million and will raise more now that he's an incumbent—I'm no math major—you put those two together, you're talking a billion-plus dollars. Think of how much money—what that money could be used for vis-à-vis programs in this country. But there's so much money in our politics, both parties beholden to big business and to corporate America, and that's not even mentioning all the money now being activated by these super PACs. But just think about all that money to run a campaign for the White House and what that money could be used for. It's sickening to me, quite frankly. That was Tavis Smiley and Cornel West. They have just written their first book together, The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifesto. For the full interview, you can go to our website at democracynow.org. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-april-19-2012?start=2303 The latest census data shows nearly 150 million Americans have fallen into poverty or could be classified as low income. Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley continue their efforts to spark a national dialogue on the poverty crisis with their new book. Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:40:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-april-19-2012 United States, Afghanistan, US-Afghanistan relations, Barack Obama, Afghanistan War, US Army, Cadaver, Syria, Syrian Civil War, Tavis Smiley The latest census data shows nearly one in two Americans, or 150 million people, have fallen into poverty — or could be classified as low income. We're joined by Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley, who continue their efforts to spark a national dialogue on the poverty crisis with the new book, "The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifesto." Smiley, an award-winning TV and radio broadcaster, says President Obama has failed to properly tackle poverty. "There seems to be a bipartisan consensus in Washington that the poor just don't matter. President Obama is a part of that," Smiley says. "I take nothing away from his push on healthcare, but jobs for every American should have been priority number one." West, a professor of religion and African American studies at Princeton University, says that after the historic U.S. struggles against monarchy, slavery and institutionalized racism, "the issue today is oligarchy. Poverty is the new slavery, oligarchs are the new kings — the new heads of this structure of domination."