Careful What You Wish For

In the historic 2010 mid-term elections voters worried about the economy and stubborn unemployment numbers gave Republicans an overwhelming victory both in the US House of Representatives and in state houses and legislatures all over the country.  Republicans enjoyed gains from independents, women voters and blue collar voters.  In fact, Republicans earned the majority (51%) of the women’s vote, something that has happened only a handful of times since the emergence of the gender gap in the 1980s. 

Even more surprising exit polls showed 62% of the blue collar vote went to Republicans.  This after the almost year long fight in 2010 to extend unemployment benefits to the long term unemployed.  Prominent Republican officials opposed to extending the benefits labeled the unemployed as “lazy”, “hobos”, “drug addicts” and “people with poor work habits”.  In the end the extension was only possible because President Obama and Congressional Democrats agreed to extend the Bush era tax cuts to the nation’s wealthiest citizens. 

Yet women and blue collar workers took a leap of faith that a change in leadership would lead to job creation and a healthier economy. 


So, let’s pause a moment to reflect on what the Republicans have actually proposed since taking control of the House of Representatives.  First up was the largely symbolic vote on H. R. 2 Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.  It had no chance of passing the Senate but was an important nod to the base.  The next gift to the base was H.R.3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act which when first proposed suggested changing the language regarding the exemption for rape to "forcible rape".  The language had to be removed after widespread criticism.

Now Congress is consumed in the fight over H.R. 1 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. The bill and its amendments contain provisions to defund the Health Care Act, Planned Parenthood, Title X (comprehensive family planning and preventative health services), and the National Foundation on the Arts and cut Head Start programs 22.4%.  A review of the 583 proposed amendments is a soul-killing experience.  The issues that have traditionally been considered women’s issues - education, healthcare, programs for children, social welfare and housing are all clobbered by this legislation.

There has so far been no specific legislation related to job creation.  Indeed the most promising opportunity for long term job creation and innovation, alternative energy, is specifically targeted by amendments to H.R. 1 that expressly prohibit funds made available under the “Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy” for being used for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, wind energy, solar energy, vehicle technologies, water power and industrial technologies. 

For weeks we have watched as states across the country have demolished collective bargaining rights for workers.  Now some states are considering, and Michigan has passed, legislation reducing maximum state unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 20 weeks for the first time in over 50 years.  Workers of the world despair.

Research from the Pew Research Center suggests that only about 21% of voters in 2010 voted specifically to support Tea Party candidates and issues, yet it is clear that the Republican Party is catering to the extreme positions of their Tea Party supporters.  Now a radically conservative group of freshman Republicans in the House is refusing to negotiate their demands for the proposed budget cuts and amendments in H.R. 1 and are threatening a government shutdown if they don’t get what they want.  They are supported by prominent senior Republicans in the House and the Senate and it is uncertain if cooler heads will prevail.

Voters should have considered the consequences of electing candidates who so freely expressed their contempt for government institutions and the social safety net.  I expect they are doing so now.  Buyer’s remorse anyone?

Let Them Eat Farm Subsidies

In the March 21st edition of Think Progress, Pat Garofalo reports that the House Agricultural Committee is proposing to reduce funding for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, otherwise known as food stamps, as a deficit reduction measure.  As Garofalo notes, this is a time when nearly one in five households are food insecure.  Food insecurity is defined by the USDA as lacking access at some time during the year to adequate food for active healthy living for household members.   A 2009 USDA report showed that 49 million people, including nearly 17 million children, were food insecure. That was an increase of 30% from December 2007, the start of the current recession.

The House Agriculture Committee reported to the House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan (R-WI),  that SNAP funding had tripled over the last ten years and that much of the increase had come through government action rather than macroeconomic forces.

Garofalo acknowledges this fact but points out that those increased benefits have already been reduced to pay for a jobs bill passed last year.

By contrast the chairman of the committee Frank Lucas (R-OK) and the ranking member Collin Peterson (D-MN) are proposing that “tens of billions” in annual agricultural subsidies also administered by the USDA should be exempt from any reductions.  They are calling for cuts to the food stamp program only.

Agricultural subsidies were enacted in the 1930s during the Great Depression when farm-household incomes plummeted.  They were meant to be a temporary measure to deal with the emergency presented by harsh economic times.  Now, over 80 years later the “temporary” subsidies are a fixture of the US budget.  Garofalo points out that 61% of agricultural subsidies go to just ten percent of subsidized farmers and that 90% of the subsidies go toward production of just five crops -  corn, wheat, rice, soy and cotton. 

Meanwhile fruits, vegetables and livestock production which account for 2/3 of the annual US agricultural production receive no subsidies at all. 

It is not small family farms that receive this largesse.  Garofalo quotes Annie Shattuck of the Institute for Food and Development Policy as saying “most of that 90% went to the large farming corporations”.  Shattuck goes on to say, “much of those commodities were not used for food, but for animal feed and industrial applications”.  Critics of farm subsidies on the right and the left have been calling for reforms in agricultural subsidies but have seen no substantive progress toward reform.  With both the House and Senate Agricultural Committees dominated by farm state representatives, meaningful reform is unlikely.

Garofalo is clearly writing for all those who join me in watching with growing alarm as this new House majority insists on putting the sacrifice required to bring down our deficit on the shoulders of those least able to bear it.  At a time of high unemployment and increasing food costs it is a shameful display of callous disregard for struggling, and hungry, families.

Hearings on Islam in America Begin

In a column in the March 9^th edition of The New York Times, Akbar Ahmed takes a pragmatic, unemotional approach to today’s Congressional hearings on Islamic radicalism in the United States.  He is calling on his fellow American Muslims to look at the hearings not as an attack on their community but as an opportunity to acquaint Americans with their religion.  He rightly blames anti-Muslim sentiment in America on fear of terrorism and ignorance of the Islamic faith.  He also acknowledges the suspicion of many American Muslims toward the law enforcement community who they often find heavy-handed in their interactions with them.  Efforts to cooperate with law enforcement agencies is often hampered by what many Muslim Americans find to be clumsy and insulting efforts by the agencies to “study” them and their religious institutions.  They are convinced that Homeland Security and the FBI are planting informants in their mosques instead of simply reaching out for a dialogue with them.

Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at American University, relates his experience in 2008 and 2009 traveling the country talking to American Muslims about their experiences and attitudes regarding their American Identity.  In talking to people in 75 communities and some 100 mosques he found a diverse Muslim population comprised of African Americans, Middle Eastern and South Asian immigrants and white converts to Islam.  While he found evidence of anger and extremism he also talked to many American Muslims who have found a satisfying and successful life here, including some who told him that America is “the best place in the world to be a Muslim”.

Professor Ahmed also notes that although many American critics of Islam believe radicalism is based in religious beliefs or teachings, he found radicalized American Muslims are more often motivated by their anger at American foreign policy.  Our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially when they result in violence toward women and children, fuel their anger.  He also fears that if these hearings go badly that Muslims around the world who will be following the hearings will feel even more anger and frustration with America which could harm our interests and result in even more danger to our troops.

Professor Ahmed calls on the Muslim community to more fully embrace their American identity, culture and history.  At the same time he urges non-Muslim Americans to make the effort to learn about the Muslim religion and culture and to honor our ideals of religious freedom and tolerance.  He calls for a “civil and respectful” discussion at these hearings. He suggests that Representative King invite respected, credible social and religious leaders from the Muslim community to testify at the hearings while lamenting some of the witnesses that have been chosen. 

I think Professor Ahmed strikes an optimistic tone in his column and is even handed in his call for both sides to make an effort to learn about each other and the values we share.  Islam is the second largest religion in the world and over 1400 years old.  As the anger and suspicion against American Muslims has been escalating over the past couple of years the rhetoric has been venomous and ugly.  Americans are appallingly ignorant of Islam and the religious ideals Judaism and Christianity have in common with it.  Although I fear these hearings will further inflame tensions, I hope Professor Ahmed’s responsible and optimistic approach proves to be true and a beginning of a new understanding between us.