When Paul Ryan first introduced his first “Path to Prosperity” budget proposal, he framed it as an attempt to build upon “successful” welfare reform of the late 1990s. At the time, I wrote that “welfare reform” was a “catastrophic success,” because of its devastating impact on the people reform advocates claimed reform would help.

I stand by that assessment, but it turns out I got one detail wrong.

At the time I wrote that welfare reform did not reduce the number of people in need of help, but merely reduced the number of people receiving help.

I’m increasingly convinced that most of the time – whether it’s jobs, the economy, or health care – progressives and conservatives are almost never talking about the same thing. If you’re a progressive, all of the above is evidence of that conservative welfare reform was a failure and a fraud, because it didn’t leave families better off because of it. If you’re a conservative, welfare reform was a success because it reduced the number of people on welfare – and that’s all it was supposed to do. It was supposed to get people off welfare rolls. Period. After that, they were on their own.

Paul Ryan, in his WSJ op-ed, says that with his roadmap we “strengthen and improve welfare programs for those who need them, we eliminate welfare for those who don’t.” It’s curious, because it really does sound like he wants to duplicate the catastrophic success of the welfare reform of the 1990s. The “success” was getting people off welfare rolls, not necessarily improving their condition. It was about reducing the number of people receiving government assistance, not reducing the need for assistance. Simply put, it’s fewer people getting help, instead of fewer people needing help.

What makes it a success is also what makes it catastrophic; at least for the people fall from the welfare rolls. Getting people off welfare rolls isn’t a good measure of success, because it fails to ask what they fall into. If the answer is “they go to work,” the next question is whether they go to work that pays them a livable wage, and whether they go to work that gives them an opportunity to improve their economic status, rather than just barely get by. That’s success.

According to a new study, welfare reform actually did reduce the number of people needing help – by shortening their lives.

… The average number of people receiving cash benefits from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the name welfare has gone by since 1996, has fallen from 12.6 million that year to 4.6 million in 2011. “Caseloads declined by 54 percent. Sixty percent of mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts,” President Clinton wrote in a 2006 op-ed in the New York Times. “Child poverty dropped to 16.2 percent in 2000, the lowest rate since 1979, and in 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest level in four decades.”

But it’s not that simple. Indeed, the health consequences of the change, a new study suggests, are potentially quite large, and quite negative. The Health Affairs study, written by Columbia’s Peter Muennig and Zohn Rosen, along with the Wallace Foundation’s Elizabeth Ty Wilde, finds that welfare reform increases mortality among recipients, reducing life expectancy by about nine months.

Wonkblog’s Dylan Matthew’s points out that the study doesn’t look at the 1996 reform act itself, but a Florida precursor program that ran from 1994 to 1999. The study found that people in the “welfare to work” program were more likely to find employment than those in traditional welfare, but weren’t likely to have more total income. They also weren’t likely to live as long.

Of the 1,611 experiment participants in the county the study focused on, 75 died by November 2011. Of the 1,613 members of the control group, by contrast, 67 died by November 2011. That means the welfare-to-work had 16 percent higher mortality than those receiving normal cash assistance, a result that was highly statistically significant and, because of the study’s random design, can be attributed to the different welfare program. That amounts to a nine-month reduction in life expectancy between the ages of 30 and 70.

Matthews adds that, since the Florida program was even less stringent than the federal law, it wouldn’t be surprising if the same were true of the national welfare reform. The increase of households in extreme poverty after welfare reform hurt health outcomes, and would have made increases in mortality all but inevitable.

So, it looks like I was wrong. I said that welfare reform didn’t reduce the number of people in need of help, but ensured that fewer people received help. Now it appears that welfare reform did reduce the number of people in need of help, by shortening their lives. Dead people don’t need welfare, after all.

I stand corrected, but only on that one point. A policy that has the effect of shortening lives doesn’t count as a “success.” It’s still a “catastrophic success.”

While meandering the streets of Paris, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman apparently awakened to the fact that the assignment of claims to wealth through patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property is a really big deal. This is good news for those who have been jumping up and down yelling about this fact for the last 15 years or so.

There is really big money in this area. Just to take my favorite one, we spend $340 billion a year on drugs, more than 2 percent of GDP ($295 billion on prescription drugs, $45 billion on non-prescription drugs). We would probably spend about one-tenth this amount in the absence of patent protection. The difference is equal to about 20 percent of after-tax corporate profits.

And this huge gap between price and marginal cost gives drug companies enormous incentive to push their drugs as much as possible. This means concealing evidence that they are ineffective or even harmful. We routinely see stories about the drug companies responding exactly as economic theory predicts.

Of course the huge gap between price and marginal cost leads to all the predicted distortions on the consumer side as well. People have to struggle to find the money to pay for drugs that cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars a prescription when the price would be largely a non-issue if they sold for the generic price.

In the case of the tech sector, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Samsung compete at least as much in their legal departments as in the quality of the products they develop. Patents are more often used to harass competitors than to protect innovation – and that is what the business press says.

In the realm of copyright, we have the efforts by the entertainment industry to turn as all into junior copyright cops through measures like SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) or PIPA (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, or Protect IP Act).

So intellectual property is a really big deal in the modern economy. And what is neat about it is that these property relations are almost infinitely malleable. (Okay, all property relations are malleable, but IP seems to offer much more room.) That’s the key point that we all have to understand because the bad guys want to convince us that patents and copyrights came to us from on high and that it is our obligation to enforce them in their current or strengthened form, otherwise we are dirty communists.

It’s great to see that Krugman may now be on the case. Perhaps he will be able to teach the economists a bit of economics. (Hint: An intro textbook goes far here. Large gaps between price and marginal cost are bad in trade. Much larger gaps between price and marginal cost are really bad when it comes to intellectual property.)

MORNING MESSAGE: Time Is Running Out To Stop Student Loan Rate Hikes

OurFuture.org’s Jane Yurechko: “The rates for federally-backed student Stafford loans will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1. And what has Congress done to help these already struggling students? Absolutely nothing … The House has managed to pass a bill, mainly on party lines, that would in fact seriously harm these students. This is Minnesota Rep. John Kline’s Smarter Solutions for Students Act, which ties the interest rate to the 10-year Treasury note … in a last ditch effort to keep rates from rising, Democrats in the House have filed a discharge petition bill under the leadership of Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn. The Student Loan Relief Act of 2013 would freeze existing rates of 3.4 percent for two more years … 191 Democrats have signed the discharge petition, but it needs 218 signatures – including those of at least 17 Republicans – to be moved to the floor for a vote.”

Roll Call: “Democrats Looking to Compromise on Student Loans”

Roll Call reports: “Senate Democrats will meet Thursday with Education Secretary Arne Duncan and top Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling at their weekly policy luncheon to discuss a potential compromise on student loans … Senate Democratic leaders have decided that forging a compromise is a better option than trying to score a political win by letting the rates lapse, especially given the similarities between the Obama plan and one introduced by Senate Republicans … leadership has just recently requested a score from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and an agreement could be announced in the coming days.”

Immigration Reform Will Grow Economy

CBO concludes Senate immigration bill will grow economy, reduce deficit. AP: “…Congress’ scorekeeping agency said the measure would reduce federal red ink by $197 billion across a decade, and $700 billion in the following 10 years as increased taxes paid to the government offset the cost of government benefits for newly legal residents … Sen. Chuck Schumer … said the CBO report … ‘robs the bill’s opponents of one of their last remaining arguments.’”

Boehner coy on bringing Senate bill to the House floor. The Hill: “‘I don’t see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have a majority support of Republicans,’ Boehner told reporters … However, Boehner was just referring to immigration reform legislation moving through the House. Asked if he would bring up a House-Senate conference report on immigration that lacked the support of the majority of the majority, Boehner responded, ‘We’ll see when we get there.’”

Conservative House Judiciary Cmte bill exposes GOP splits. The Hill: “The panel met to mark up the Safe Act, a conservative proposal that would make it a crime to be ‘unlawfully present’ in the U.S. and would give new authority to state and local officials to enforce immigration laws … While most of the amendment votes fell along party lines, fissures on the Republican side of the dais emerged early on. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) offered an amendment that would delay until 2015 the provision making it a crime to be unlawfully present in the U.S.. Bachus said he put forward the amendment in the hope Congress would have passed a broader immigration measure granting legal status to many of those immigrants. The amendment failed, but it won the support of 10 Republicans — a majority of those present, including Goodlatte and Gowdy.”

Tea Party pressuring GOP. Politico: “Congressional Republicans say the opposition from their activist base to the Senate plan is only growing, making it easier for GOP senators to oppose the Senate bill — particularly if the border security provisions remain largely unchanged … Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who was once viewed as a gettable vote, said, ‘There’s no great groundswell of Republicans telling me to vote for this.’”

Compromise amendments expected soon. W. Post: “The Republican senators hoping to introduce amendments are working in close consultation with members of the bipartisan ‘Gang of Eight,’ … Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said he is working on a border security proposal that would insert plans already drafted by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement into the immigration bill. The plan drafted by the immigration agencies includes specific goals for different sectors of the U.S.-Mexico border and would require the Department of Homeland Security to meet certain requirements before immigrants begin applying for legal status.”

Tough Charges Levied At Proposed Trade Deals

Rep. Alan Grayson slams proposed Trans-Pacific trade deal after seeing classified documents. HuffPost: “Members of Congress have been provided with only limited access to the negotiation documents. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) told HuffPost on Monday that he viewed an edited version of the negotiation texts last week … ‘Having seen what I’ve seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty. And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America … But I’m not allowed to tell you why!’”

“Trade Deal Could Stick U.S. With EU’s Bank Bomb” argues Bloomberg’s Simon Johnson: “To the French and German governments, very low levels of bank equity are a feature of their financial systems, not a bug. This, of course, is a recipe for distortions, instability and, most likely, repeated disaster. Should the U.S. be tied more closely to the European economy under such circumstances?”

Fed Meeting Ends Today

Bernanke presser at 2:30 PM ET. NYT: “The Fed is not expected to announce any immediate changes on Wednesday, at the close of the meeting, but investors are watching for signs that the Fed is considering scaling back later this year … The Fed also will release economic projections by the 19 officials, which could help to explain the apparent momentum toward doing less by showing how quickly they expect the economy to grow and unemployment to decline.”

Government claims on mortgage settlement may raise eyebrows. HuffPost: “The government-appointed monitor overseeing mortgage practices as part of last year’s robo-signing settlement between five big U.S. banks and dozens of government agencies found few violations after grading the banks’ compliance with ambitious new standards … The finding of just three audited failures by Joseph Smith, the government-appointed watchdog heading the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight, may prompt criticism by borrower advocates, consumer attorneys, and members of Congress after numerous reports by state attorneys general and housing advocates of pervasive noncompliance with the new mortgage servicing rules the banks agreed to implement as part of the 2012 settlement.”

The clock is ticking on student loan interest rates. The rates for federally-backed student Stafford loans will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1. And what has Congress done to help these already struggling students? Absolutely nothing. Student debt now totals $1 trillion, and Congress is still deadlocked when it comes to preventing an increase in the interest rate on student loans.

The House has managed to pass a bill, mainly on party lines, that would in fact seriously harm these students. This is Minnesota Rep. John Kline’s Smarter Solutions for Students Act, which ties the interest rate to the 10-year Treasury note, adding an additional 2.5 percent to Stafford Loans. It does introduce a cap on interest rates at 8.5 percent, but if this bill were law today interest rates on student loans would rise to 4.7 percent.

However there are two proposals currently in the House, these being the Student Loan Fairness Act sponsored by Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., and the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass.

Rep. Bass’s bill calls for student borrowers to pay 10 percent of their discretionary income on their debt for 10 years, after which the remaining debt would be forgiven. It also permanently caps loans at 3.4 percent, and suspends interest rates for unemployed borrowers and forgives loan debt owed by graduates who work in public service jobs. It has received support from the United States Student Association, and represents a realistic and supportive step forward for students drowning in debt.

Read more about this bill here (PDF)

For the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act, the motivation is that students should not have to pay more than big banks do for loans, and so the interest rate for Stafford loans should be equivalent to the interest rate offered through the Federal Reserve discount window. The current rate offered to banks by the Federal Reserve is 0.75 percent. The Federal Reserve would supply the funding for these loans to the Department of Education. If this bill is passed, students would be able to get financial access to the education that they need.

Read more about this bill here (PDF)

And sign our petition to show your support for making loans rates for students the same as banks.

Finally, in a last ditch effort to keep rates from rising, Democrats in the House have filed a discharge petition bill under the leadership of Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn. The Student Loan Relief Act of 2013 would freeze existing rates of 3.4 percent for two more years while Congress attempts to work towards a more comprehensive solution. Although delaying the increase for another two years while ignoring the overall problem of soaring college costs is by no means an ideal solution, if Congress cannot come to an agreement by July 1 the rates will double. If anything, Congress should come together to protect students from an unfair increase of interest rates.

So far 193 Democrats have signed the discharge petition, but it needs 218 signatures – including those of at least 17 Republicans – to be moved to the floor for a vote.

The list below is of those Democrats who have yet to sign as of June 19:

• John Barrow, D-Ga.
• Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.
• Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas.
• Edward Markey, D-Mass.
• Jim Matheson, D-Utah.
• Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.
• Bobby Rush, D-Ill.
• Peter Visclosky, D-Ind.

If your representative is on this list, please urge that member to sign the discharge petition to prevent student loan rates from doubling on July 1st. Hopefully Congress can manage this much for our students.

And remember to sign our petition to give students the same borrowing rate as big banks.

You may have heard that Republicans are forcing (even more) cuts in programs like Meals On Wheels. Big deal, another “budget cut” to reduce the dreaded “government spending.” But what does all of this this mean to actual, real people? Read this because what really happens to real people isn’t pretty. Let’s see if you are still capable of feeling outrage.

A continuing series
Read the full series
Tell your member of Congress

And get this, for all the damage these cruel cuts do to actual, real people, they don’t even actually “cut” spending, they increase spending. Because doing cruel things to actual, real people leads to cruel results. See below.

Deficit Hawks

The crowd that complains about “government spending” instead of mass unemployment and poverty and low wages and offshoring of jobs tends to live pretty well. These are the upper-level people with all the influence over what our government does. They have good-paying jobs, health insurance, matched-IRAs, a stock portfolio and plenty of savings for retirement, new cars, eat out at nice restaurants when they want to, vacations…

To this crowd “government spending” is academic, not something that is for them. To them it’s just a problem. Taxes mean they have a few less dollars to spend, but are not something they will really feel… Academic… What do they care? Not something immediate, in their face… But they don’t like democracy’s concept of “redistribution.”

Living a life with plenty of money changes a person. You can’t help it. Problems just are not as pressing, immediate, … as serious as they are for so many Americans.

The people at the table who complain about just splitting the bill, when they didn’t eat as much — they’re just annoying.

Why don’t people with beat-up cars get something that isn’t so ugly?

“If they complain about how they can’t afford to go to another concert I’m going to have to stop doing things with them.”

“She’s got a Masters Degree, why doesn’t she find a job that pays more than minimum wage?”

The thing is, times have changed, a LOT of people are not finding good jobs anymore, a LOT of people are not getting by anymore. The economy does not work, and aA LOT of people are vulnerable, in need, hungry …

What Budget Cuts Really Do To Real People

Here is a hard, cold reality that might help you understand the human impact of cuts in government spending. The “sequester” is forcing serious cutbacks in the “Meals on Wheels” program — along with so many other programs so urgently important to real people (cancer clinics, Head Start, even parks…). But the sequester isn’t the first round of harsh budget cuts forced by Republicans. Previous budget cuts also hit people hard, and there is proof.

Here is an example of what happened when Meals on Wheels were cut and the results were studied.

First Came The Cuts

January, 2011: The cuts.

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, Cuts hit Meals on Wheels

The Times of Munster reports that about 100 seniors whose meals had been funded will see those meals reduced or eliminated entirely under the cuts announced this month by Northwest Indiana Community Action Corp. … funding has also been cut for a program that provides extra meals during the winter so clients can refrigerate them in their homes in case poor weather interrupts regular meal delivery.

Besides reducing meals, Noe says the cuts also add to the isolation of some seniors by reducing or eliminating their socialization with food delivery crews.

Valparaiso Merriville Community.com, Funding cuts impact senior meals,

Meals on Wheels prepares nearly 2,000 meals each day for Lake County senior citizens in need.

Yes, that’s how bad things are out there, just one county in Indiana has 2,000 seniors who need this program. That is not academic. That is real.

Then Came The Results

September, 2011: The results.

Indiana Economic Digest, Cutbacks leave low-income seniors ‘in a bad situation’,

More than one-third of respondents in the March survey conducted of Meals on Wheels clients whose meals were reduced reported losing weight after the cuts and one-quarter claimed to be “food insecure,” fearful of running out of food or going hungry.

Wait, did you read that right? It’s so bad out there that seniors who suffered these cuts had to literally stop eating? 1/3 “reported losing weight after the cuts?” And another 1/4 on top of that were “fearful of running out of food or going hungry?”

And now, with these results in front of their faces, they are forcing even more cuts?

The Cuts Don’t Actually “Cut” — They Increase Spending

But wait, there’s more. The study of the results of the cuts in food to seniors found that the money saved on cutting food to seniors actually causes to government to spend more, because of what happens to seniors when you stop giving them food.

South Shore Journal: The Impact of Nutrition Program Service Cuts on a Senior Population in Northwest Indiana. From the abstract,

Low-income seniors receiving home-delivered meals in Northwest Indiana experienced service cuts in late 2010 and early 2011. Reductions came in the form of fewer food deliveries per week, less food, or new cost-sharing. Six months after the cuts began, 283 seniors who experienced reductions were surveyed. Ninety-five responded for a 34% response rate. Twenty-five percent of respondents were identified as “food insecure,” more than four times as great as statewide and national prevalence rates among seniors. A disturbingly high 35% of respondents lost weight in the six month period. The authors warn that continued budget cuts for community-based senior nutrition programs is a penny-wise-pound-foolish fiscal policy given the documented risk of increased hospitalizations and premature nursing home admissions attributable to nutritional disorders among the elderly.

These “cuts” don’t even actually “cut.” Because they cause the government to have to spend on “increased hospitalizations and premature nursing home admissions attributable to nutritional disorders.”

And THIS is what our Republicans are demanding more of. It is not just cruel to cut off things like food to poor seniors. It is also stupid, because it doesn’t even save money – the one thing Republicans actually care about.

Cruel and stupid. But we knew that. How do we get them out of the way, so our country can move forward again?

—–

Follow me and CAF on Twitter:

For an estimated 4 million people, including about 210,000 schoolchildren, the farm bill the House is scheduled to start debating today could mean they will be going hungry a lot more often.

That has promoted organizations such as Half in 10 and the Food Research and Action Center to organize a National Call-In Day to lobby against almost $21 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program being pushed by House Republicans,. The debate on these cuts in the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act (FARRM) is another pivotal moment in which we can show just how powerful the public voice can be.

The SNAP, or “food stamp,” program is more than just another “government handout.” It is a comprehensive social safety net program that is vital tool in our arsenal to fight food insecurity in America. It is also one of the key instruments in alleviating poverty, a phenomenon that has increased since the Great Recession in 2008.

The cuts being sought by House conservatives would cause about 2 million individuals to lose their SNAP benefits entirely, would cut benefits for an estimated 1.7 million others by an average of $90 a month, and would cut 210,000 children from the free school meal program.

Republican obstructionism has exacerbated this issue, furthering a misguided economic agenda so focused on austerity measures that job creation has been minimal at best. It’s because of this unemployment, and in many cases underemployment, that SNAP participation increased by almost 170,000 people in March 2013 alone.

A bill proposing $4 billion in cuts to this program has already passed the Senate, much to the chagrin of the many Americans who depend on SNAP benefits. Don’t let steeper cuts to a vital program occur while no one is watching. This will be a day of action for you to call your representative and make your dissatisfaction known. Together, we can make our voices heard and stop this latest onslaught to defund invaluable social safety-net programs.

The Farm Bill that is expected to pass the U.S. House this week explains income inequality in America.

The Republican-sponsored proposal slashes food stamps for poor children and pads farm subsidies for wealthy agri-businessmen. 

This comes just a week after Senate Republicans refused to protect the poorest students from doubled college loan interest rates because that required closing tax loopholes that benefit big corporations. It comes just weeks after a new study showed the Walmart heirs, among the richest people in the world, pay their workers so little that taxpayers fork over billions to subsidize Walmart’s payroll through programs like – food stamps.

This all violates America’s cherished ideal of equal opportunity. Americans strive to achieve believing they have the same chance at success as everyone else and, more importantly, that the egalitarian American system will provide their children with a level playing field on which to attain their full potential. Americans believe their government should maintain that level field. But it does not. Not when poor students are denied access to low-interest college loans while Washington charges Wall Street virtually no interest. Not when the House farm bill feeds the rich and starves the poor.

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Republican Congressman Stephen Fincher of Frog Jump, Tenn., is the ugly face of the feed-the-rich public policy. He is a seventh generation millionaire agri-businessman. He raked in $3.5 million in federal farm subsidies from 1999 to 2012. That averages out to $269,000 a year in farm welfare. It makes him one of the largest farm welfare recipients in Tennessee history as well as among members of Congress.

This politician, who thrived on the government dole, raking in $738 a day in farm welfare over the past 13 years, is among the loudest advocates for increasing subsidies to agribusiness by about $10 billion and slashing food stamps by $20 billion.

That would take food from 2 million poor people. They get an average of $133 a month in food stamps. That’s less than $5 a day for the poor – not the $738 a day that Fincher got.

Fincher justified taking food out of the mouths of poor people by quoting the Bible, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, to be specific: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.”

Citing that verse shows a frightening level of cluelessness. First, Fincher took it out of context. It was intended as an admonishment of those who’d stopped working in anticipation of the Second Coming, not as a castigation of generic non-workers.

Second, 49 percent of those receiving food stamps are children. Would Fincher have five-year-olds work for their supper?  How about infants?

Finally, the food stamp program encourages work, and the number of recipients who do tripled in the first decade of the century.

Among the working poor are Walmart employees. Generally, to qualify for food stamps, a family can’t earn more than 130 percent of poverty level, which would be $25,000 for a family of three. A typical Walmart worker earning $8.81 an hour, slightly more than minimum wage, receives $15,576 a year.

An analysis by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce found that such low wages harm families and burden taxpayers. Government benefit programs – such as food stamps – enable Walmart’s low wage workers to barely scrape by, the report says.

Using data from Wisconsin’s Medicaid program, the staff determined that the average Walmart Supercenter there costs taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.7 million each year. That’s for programs like Medicaid and food stamps.

The report also notes: “Rising income inequality and wage stagnation threaten the future of America’s middle class. While corporate profits break records, the share of national income going to workers’ wages has reached record lows.”

Walmart provides the perfect example of that. The corporation made $17 billion last year, while paying its workers poverty wages. As Walmart workers use government programs to get by, the six Walmart heirs now have more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. Between 2007 and 2010 the wealth of the six richest Walmart heirs rose from $73 billion to $90 billion while the wealth of the average American declined from $126,000 to $77,000.

This results from government policy. The government doesn’t require Walmart to pay a living wage. Instead, the government uses taxpayer dollars to minimally subsidize low-paid Walmart workers while cutting taxes on the wealthy Walmart heirs.

The government subsidizes Walmart the way it does millionaire famers like Fincher. Though low-income workers receive the food stamps, essentially that government aid is welfare for Walmart.  A food stamp applicant must prove poverty to qualify for government aid. But not big business.  Not agri-business.

The number of food stamp recipients increased dramatically since 2008 because of the great recession, an event caused by reckless gambling on Wall Street. House Republican policy calls for the victims of the recession to suffer and the perpetrators to continue receiving low interest federal loans.

This policy, this funneling of money to the top, increases inequality and decreases opportunity. A child who goes to school hungry, for example, has a very hard time learning.

Universal Studios is among the corporations that have institutionalized inequity. At its parks, middle-class parents and their children wait for hours for entrance to attractions, but the wealthy and their scions simply cut in line. The children of the wealthy don’t have to wait. Universal facilitates this with expensive VIP tickets that entitle rich children to park privileges. The VIP package includes hand sanitizer in case a rich kid accidently touches a “regular Joe” kid, as Universal called them. Also, VIP families get exclusive breakfast and lunch service.

America feeds the rich. Equal opportunity is dead.

MORNING MESSAGE: We Need a New Deal for Millennials

OurFuture.org’s Richard Eskow: “Studies show that unemployment at the start of a career lowers lifetime earnings. We need to end our youth unemployment crisis now with a Millennial WPA that jumpstarts their careers, and our economy, the way the Works Progress Administration did under Franklin D. Roosevelt. We also need a major initiative in primary and secondary education. Millennials are having children now, and those children need schooling. What’s more, Millennials represent a large part of the workforce that can provide teachers for them. That means committing to a renewed emphasis on public education. Lastly, let’s end all this talk about cutting Social Security and expand it instead…”

Drama Abounds In Immigration Battle

Friction within Gang of 8. Sen. Lindsey Graham vents about Sen. Marco Rubio to HuffPost: “How do we put together a bill and then the guy who put it together says that he may not vote for it? I just don’t get what we’re doing here.”

Top House conservative threatens Boehner’s speakership over immigration. The Hill: “Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) warned Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would face a conference revolt that could threaten his Speakership if he allows a House vote on the immigration bill presently being debated in the Senate … Rohrabacher conceded that he didn’t know if a majority of Republicans in the House currently supported a vote on immigration, but said if they do, it’s only because they’ve been deceived by propaganda from the media and a push from conglomerates looking to import cheap labor.”

Bipartisan House group close to final agreement. Politico: “The House bipartisan group, which has labored for four years without releasing anything, is finally on the verge of producing a bill … And the all-Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus will huddle with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday.”

Corporations lean on House to back immigration reform. WSJ: “With the Senate in the throes of debate over a comprehensive immigration bill, the Business Roundtable – an association of chief executives from major companies – prodded House leadership Monday to keep up the immigration-overhaul momentum.”

AFL-CIO pushes Senate to scrap last-minute change on high-tech visas. Politico: “In a four-page letter sent to senators Monday evening, the AFL-CIO also said they would fight to reinstate the original agreement on H-1B workers — a deal that was changed during the committee markup to placate Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and the high-tech community, much to the dismay of unions.”

GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions employing same tactics as 7 years ago to kill immigration bill. NYT: “His tactics are the same as they were back then: organize the opposition, break down the bill section by section, raise questions over every aspect of it, slow progress on the floor to a crawl through procedural objections and a flurry of amendments, and hope that in the light of day a conservative backlash will crush final passage.”

Sen. Ted Cruz tries Voter ID poison pill to sink immigration. CNN: “His announcement came in response to the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to strike down an Arizona provision in its voter registration law that required identification confirming citizenship.”

Sen. Rand Paul has even more. The Hill: “Paul’s most ambitious proposal would eliminate the pathway to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants and lift the caps on guest workers … Under [another amendment], immigration reform would not proceed until Congress votes on whether several criteria have been met … [A third] would make federal election funding contingent on states checking voter rolls against visa databases …”

Libor Charges Coming

UK prepares criminal charges in Libor scandal. WSJ: “Tom Hayes, a 33-year-old British citizen living near London, could face charges from the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office as soon as Tuesday. It would be the first move by U.K. authorities to seek criminal penalties against anyone allegedly involved in rigging the London interbank offered rate … U.S. prosecutors charged Mr. Hayes and a former colleague in December with conspiracy to commit fraud by attempting to manipulate Libor, but he wasn’t in the U.S. and hasn’t been extradited.”

Fed begins 2-day meeting today, faces “dilemma.” McClatchy: “The economy is showing enough improvement to justify dialing back some of the Fed’s life support, yet financial markets are terrified of what might happen and are taking it out on the housing sector … Chairman Ben Bernanke is likely to attempt to clarify in a news conference whether and when the Fed will begin tapering back its unconventional bond purchases that have boosted the economy.”

Grand Bargain Busted?

Dean Baker sees defeat for the grand bargain. HuffPost: “Maya MacGuineas, the leading spokesperson for [Campaign for Fix The Debt], apparently having given up on Congress, was last seen calling on Silicon Valley to use its technological prowess to disrupt the political process. And the Washington Post, which has been an open CFD cheerleader, mournfully noted the improbability of a deal involving major cuts to Social Security and Medicare. In this case the strong support of the public for these programs — which cuts across party and demographic lines — overcame the power of corporate money and the political elite. When push came to shove, not enough politicians were prepared to go against the strongly held views of their constituents. And it helped that the facts were on their side.”

Alliance for Retired Americans plans July 2 rallies to prevent Chained CPI: “More than forty actions are already scheduled to take place in front of key Congressional offices and Federal Buildings across the country. A comprehensive map of events is now available….”

What kind of society abandons its own young? What kind of society allows the generations in power to favor themselves over those who follow them, and then lets them claim they’re doing it out of selflessness?

Look around you.

This weekend we reviewed nine ways an extreme-right right social agenda has harmed the millennial generation.  But there’s a cure for that, a formula that’s rational, sane, wise, and fair. It involves time-tested techniques for jobs, growth, and education – a New Deal for Millennials.

And a New Deal starts with new values.

Value Proposition

Our weakening values can be found in the “above the fray” stance of presidents and pundits who treat Republicans’ ruthless Randianism as if it were a moderate and reasonable point of view, rather than a morally bankrupt corporate-funded bid for economic totalitarianism.

Those frayed values can be found in that hollow street corner strut where GOP politicians holler out to deep-pocketed strangers, Pick me. No, me! I’ll make your selfish agenda sing with the voters. Free market? “Yes!” Competition? “Oh, yes!” Contempt for the majority? “Yes, oh yes, God yes!”

But hollow values are also present in Wall Street Democrats who invert the GOP’s What’s the Matter with Kansas? formula by luring liberals with progressive stands on issues like gay marriage while eagerly pushing Wall Street’s economic agenda. The Clinton-Cuomo-Booker crowd is doing exactly what the right did – using social issues to draw people into voting against their own economic interests.

Social justice and economic justice aren’t “either/or.” They’re “and/and.”

Those empty values were present at last week’s Clinton Global Initiative, where corporate-sponsored pitches about “public/private partnerships” pushed the oligarchy-friendly premise that the federal government can’t and won’t help its citizens any longer. Conveniently, that would leave us at the mercy of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and former President Clinton’s other prominent corporate funders.

Those hollow values are present in the countless editorials at political organs like The Washington Post, which falsely argue that we can’t afford to preserve and expand Social Security and Medicare, or pose false choices between help at the dawn of life or fair play at its sunset.

They’re present in the argument that we can’t help millennials with student debt, even as we toss them into a jobless economy. Or help them find jobs, as their lifelong earnings erode with every passing year.

Run, Millennials, Run

The millennial generation doesn’t need us, but here’s a little unsolicited advice:  Run! Run from the radical-right Republicans and demand sanity instead of madness. Run from anyone who tells you corporatist Democrats are the best you can hope for politically.

Run from Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles and the other overpaid sales shills who claims that the way to “preserve entitlements for you” is to make sure they’re eviscerated before you need them.

Run for the education “reformers” who claim there’s no money to educate kids unless someone can make a profit.

Run from the people who tell you it’s your fault jobs are so hard to find.

Run for your lives.

This isn’t generous advice. It’s actually very selfish. Truth is, we need you.  We need your intelligence. We need your strength. We need your numbers.

The corporatists and extremists don’t realize it, but our offer to help you is also a plea – one that’s is based on sound economic principle as well as sound moral reasoning.

Morally and economically, the answer is the same: When you win, we all win.

Who Owes Who?

A New Deal for millennials would relieve the inhumane and unconscionable burden of debt we’ve imposed on college graduates. Ellen Brown wrote an excellent review of Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to allow students to refinance through the Federal Reserve at the ultra-low rates offered to banks and other financial institutions.

There may be ways to modify the Warren proposal to make it even stronger. But one objection that doesn’t hold up is to say, “That’s not what the Federal Reserve does; it helps banks.” The Fed wasn’t supposed to help GE Capital or Goldman Sachs either. They weren’t banks. But Tim Geithner and others rewrote the rules to bail them out.

Then GE Capital’s CEO was named head of Obama’s “Jobs Council.” And Goldman’s COO just shared the stage with Bill Clinton at the Global Initiative.

Are you telling us you’ll bend the rules for them, but not for our young people? Well, yeah, come to think of it you are. That’s not acceptable.

As Brown points out, the government makes 36 cents on the dollar for student loans. It shouldn’t make a nickel. It won’t have to pay a nickel, either.
Brown offers New Deal programs that succeeded without costing the federal government a dime.

And some of these loans shouldn’t be paid back at all. They were issued for worthless or highly overpriced degrees at “paper mills” like the University of Phoenix. The government should have protected consumers from these scams, and it has a moral obligation to right that wrong now.

Student loan forgiveness would release a trillion dollars of debt obligation back into the general economy. Millennials would have more to spend on some of the first purchases of adult life. That’s a stimulus that’s built to last.

And if any tax revenue is needed, here’s a suggestion: Start with GE Capital and Goldman Sachs.

A Generation at Work

Jobs come next.  Studies show that unemployment at the start of a career lowers lifetime earnings. We need to end our youth unemployment crisis now with a millennial WPA that jumpstarts their careers, and our economy, the way the Works Progress Administration did under Franklin D. Roosevelt.

We also need a major initiative in primary and secondary education. Millennials are having children now, and those children need schooling. What’s more, millennials represent a large part of the workforce that can provide teachers for them.  That means committing to a renewed emphasis on public education.

Lastly, let’s end all this talk about cutting Social Security and expand it instead, which can be done through lifting the payroll tax cap and other strategies. The Millennial Generation has already had its Social Security benefits cut, above and beyond the gradual rise in the eligibility age already underway.

Benefits are calculated based on lifetime earnings, and those have already been eroded by youth unemployment.   Further cuts in benefits, like President Obama’s proposed “chained CPI” that reduces the cost-of-living adjustment, will only add to the injustice created by youth unemployment, while the erosion of the other elements of American retirement – corporate pensions and other assets – will leave millennials in a painfully vulnerable position in their senior years.

Run For Your Lives

Economically, millennials should run from Randian Republicanism and its Selfishness Lite Democratic version. Culturally, they should run from their elders’ ideas about home ownership and consumerism – ideas which left them in thrall to corporations and banks.

What should they run to?

To politicians like Warren who speak for them and to them, rather than against them and down to them. To the people who tell them the truth.  To the streets, parks, and public squares – anywhere demonstrations are being held against the corporate agenda and in favor of an economy for all.

And they should run for office. The oldest millennials will soon be qualified to run for president. They can already hold every other office. I’m not a big believer in identity politics – look where it got us last time – but millennials need candidates who speak to their needs and are equally invested in their future.

We need them too, because their New Deal will be everyone’s.

We need the courage of the young. Yours is not the task of making your way in the world, but the task of remaking the world which you will find before you. May every one of us be granted the courage, the faith and the vision to give the best that is in us to that remaking!
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

A new CNN/ORC International poll released today reveals that Democrats may be in trouble during the 2014 midterm elections. Amid political controversies, an anemic economy and high unemployment, President Obama’s approval rating dropped eight percentage points in a single month.

Standing now at only 45 percent, this is the president’s lowest approval rating in more than a year and a half. The poll found that “half of the public says they don’t believe he is honest and trustworthy.”

Most startling of all is the fact that Obama’s dramatic drop was fueled by millennial discontent – disaffection among 18-29-year-olds. “The drop in Obama’s support is fueled by a dramatic 17-point decline over the past month among people under 30, who, along with black Americans, had been the most loyal part of the Obama coalition,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

Just last month, the unemployment rate for 18-29-year-olds rose to 11.6 percent. Those under 30 are also burdened by an average of more than $21,000 in student loan debt. And if Congress does not act by July 1, interest rates on student loans will double. With millions of Americans still struggling to get by, the poll should come as no surprise for the Obama administration.

The Rising American Electorate (RAE)—unmarried women, racial minorities and millennials—will comprise more than 52 percent of the vote in the 2014 midterm elections and are key to a Democratic win. However, the recent poll shows that members of the RAE are increasingly disenchanted with the Democratic Party.

Unless Democrats fervently support and pass progressive policies that build an economy for all, the Obama administration’s lackluster leadership could take a toll on the entire Democratic party come 2014. A progressive path forward includes: Repealing the sequester; making investments in research and education; bailing out students over banks; implementing a jobs agenda that fixes our crumbling infrastructure and creates a national green manufacturing policy; strengthening and protecting Social Security and Medicare; placing controls on the financial industry so it serves the real economy; closing tax loopholes and our trade deficit; raising the minimum wage, empowering workers, and progressive tax reform. This is a real and sustainable path forward, unlike the one we are currently on.

The 2014 elections, therefore, present a choice for Democrats. If they can rally behind a progressive strategy, members of the RAE will be much more likely to turn out in force to help ensure Democrats regain the House. If they don’t, 2014 could mirror 2010 and the losses Democrats experienced in Congress and key statewide races.

As Robert Borosage, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, wrote recently, demography isn’t destiny.