Reagan Robbed the Poor and Raised the Rich
“…sleeping on the grates…the homeless…are homeless…you might say, by choice”
President Ronald Reagan
Last week, many Americans celebrated the 100th year of President Ronald Wilson Reagan’s birth. In honoring Ronald Regan’s impact on the United States of America his policies have been mislabeled as good and positive. In reality, Reagan era policies have had a net negative on our nation and its promise to grant life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens, regardless of color or cash in hand.
My mother always admonished me that if I did not have anything good to say about someone, then say nothing. Thus, Ronald Reagan made three significant contributions to public policy formation: 1) Projection of national pride, 2) Discipline of message. and 3) Generational training of young policy students. That said Reagan’s policy legacy leaves a lot to be desired.
As a high school student government leader in 1980, at the beginning of the
“Reagan Revolution”, I instinctively recognized that a massive cold front would be in the political forecast for many years. And I was correct.
Sure enough, in 1988, at the end of an 8-year Reagan Administration the nation was not better off for most Americans. In particular, Reagan and his cohorts:
• Dismantled labor unions
• Decreased living standards
• Deregulated financial industry
• Decreased wages by freezing minimum wage at $3.35 per hour for 8 years
• Increased gap between rich and poor
• Increased number of Americans in poverty
• Increased homelessness
• Appealed to racist people in America
In 1994, by my third year in college President Reagan had been re-elected to a second term. In doing so, he announced his plan for a second term in Philadelphia, Mississippi at the Neshoba County Fair. As a student of civil rights history I was keenly aware of the secessionist symbolism of Philadelphia, MS as a chosen venue. In 1964, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Mickey Schwerner were brutally murdered while registering African American residents of Philadelphia to vote. Later, trial evidence would reveal that after leaving Meridian, MS the three civil rights workers were followed by Neshoba County Sheriffs and pulled over. Those present have testified that the Sheriff “released” the three only to be followed and murdered by a mob of Ku Klux Klansmen and other racists. The bodies Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner were found week later in the dirt of an earthen dam. With such a notorious history Ronald Reagan selected Neshoba County to launch his bid for re-election to the White House.
On Sunday, February 6, 2011 I read an article in The Nation written by Peter Dreier that compellingly drove the point of Reagan’s regressive public policy ideas. In response to Reagan supporters’ insistence that he was the “Great Communicator”, Dreier researched a quote from President Reagan in which he said, “I was not the ‘Great Communicator’ as much as I communicated great ideas.” Great ideas? Really?
I, like Peter Dreier, believe that great ideas should have positive outcomes. Not true in the Reagan repertoire. Dreier correctly concludes that today’s dismal economy and widening wealth gap are due, in large part, to the you-are-on-your-own political and policy choices of Ronald Reagan rather than mere social and economic forces.
Today, for example, Republican Governor Cristie decries “big government” as the reason states and local governments are facing budget deficits. Contrarily, it may well be the fact that under the Reagan Administration federal assistance by 60%, resulting in the elimination of revenue sharing to cities; cuts to funding for public service jobs; reduced funds for public transit; severely weakened legal services for the poor; anti-poverty programs; and lowered federal funding for Section 8 rent subsidies housing. Accordingly, as federal funds decreased, homelessness increased.
Today’s mindless mantra of Tea Party conservatives that “government is not a solution to our problem…government is the problem.” Actually, good governmental policies benefit society; and bad policy hurts future generations. As the Reagan Administration robbed the poor and raised the rich in the 1980’s, such policies continued in the 1990’s and 2000’s with the George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush Administrations.
In particular, the deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry by the Reagan Administration (with the help of Neil Bush—brother and son to presidents Bush) looted the S & L industry of $130 billion dollars. In turn, the Clinton Administration deregulated the banking industry by letting the Glass-Stegall Act expire. By 2008, the second Bush Administration had allowed American corporations to eliminate domestic jobs in return of international tax credits. Moreover, two undeclared wars had given obscene profits to war companies such as Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.
In short, Reagan Administration policies of the 1980’s penalized the poor and pumped up private profiteers, which are still reaping benefits, to the demise of the most Americans.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The History of Watch Care Church Service
The History of Watch Care Church Service
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director and CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
December 26-January 2, 2010
For all Christians, the Christmas holidays are the most sacred spiritual time of the calendar years.
For African American Christians, the week after December 25 holds immense significance as well.
On September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln, following a decisive Union military victory over confederate forces at Antietam, Maryland, penned and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The Proclamation would free enslaved African Americans in confederate states that seceded from the United States of America such as Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.
The Emancipation Proclamation was to be effective January 1, 1863. As such, Christmas of 1862 and the week following was the most important week of enslaved African Americans who had fought, bled, prayed, strategized, and died for their legal emancipation. Yet, their spirits were reminded of freedom through song.
The “Negro Spirituals”, developed as sacred songs of African Americans who were forcibly converted to Christianity by un-Godly Whites who disrespected the religions and cosmology of Africans legally designated as “slaves.” Regardless of earthly bondage and inhuman degradation enslaved African Americans established Spirituals to uplift their souls, in the words of James Weldon Johnson, “…felt in the day when hope, unborn, had died…”
During enslavement many states outlawed gatherings of the enslaved. Nonetheless, African Americans gathered in “camp meetings” after sunset (and 14-hour work days) in secluded and wooded areas to feed their souls through song. For example, singers long for freedom in “There Will be a Great Camp Meeting in the Promised Land”. Likewise, “In dat Great Getting’ Up Morning” the writer prophesizes freedom from bondage and wishes that the freed “fare ye well.” Similarly, the Spiritual “My Soul Be at Res” featured the lyric: “One of deese mornin’s my soul be at res.”
Leading up to January 1, 1863 our enslaved ancestors sang and prayed, and sang and prayed. On December 31, religious leaders asked the faithful to have “camp meetings” or church services to “watch” for freedom in the morning. The idea was to spiritually ensure that President Lincoln’s promise of emancipation would fulfilled.
And thus “Watch Care” service was established.
Emancipation Day featured feasts of the diet of the day in 1863—collard greens, black-eyed peas, pig’s feet, and yams.
Today, many African American communities celebrate Emancipation Day
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director and CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
December 26-January 2, 2010
For all Christians, the Christmas holidays are the most sacred spiritual time of the calendar years.
For African American Christians, the week after December 25 holds immense significance as well.
On September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln, following a decisive Union military victory over confederate forces at Antietam, Maryland, penned and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The Proclamation would free enslaved African Americans in confederate states that seceded from the United States of America such as Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.
The Emancipation Proclamation was to be effective January 1, 1863. As such, Christmas of 1862 and the week following was the most important week of enslaved African Americans who had fought, bled, prayed, strategized, and died for their legal emancipation. Yet, their spirits were reminded of freedom through song.
The “Negro Spirituals”, developed as sacred songs of African Americans who were forcibly converted to Christianity by un-Godly Whites who disrespected the religions and cosmology of Africans legally designated as “slaves.” Regardless of earthly bondage and inhuman degradation enslaved African Americans established Spirituals to uplift their souls, in the words of James Weldon Johnson, “…felt in the day when hope, unborn, had died…”
During enslavement many states outlawed gatherings of the enslaved. Nonetheless, African Americans gathered in “camp meetings” after sunset (and 14-hour work days) in secluded and wooded areas to feed their souls through song. For example, singers long for freedom in “There Will be a Great Camp Meeting in the Promised Land”. Likewise, “In dat Great Getting’ Up Morning” the writer prophesizes freedom from bondage and wishes that the freed “fare ye well.” Similarly, the Spiritual “My Soul Be at Res” featured the lyric: “One of deese mornin’s my soul be at res.”
Leading up to January 1, 1863 our enslaved ancestors sang and prayed, and sang and prayed. On December 31, religious leaders asked the faithful to have “camp meetings” or church services to “watch” for freedom in the morning. The idea was to spiritually ensure that President Lincoln’s promise of emancipation would fulfilled.
And thus “Watch Care” service was established.
Emancipation Day featured feasts of the diet of the day in 1863—collard greens, black-eyed peas, pig’s feet, and yams.
Today, many African American communities celebrate Emancipation Day
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Double Standard for Black Politicians
Double Standard for Black Politicians
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 21-28, 2010
The United States of America boasts to the world community that it is a nation of equality under the law for all citizens, regardless of color or conviction. Yet, for African American elected officials such has hardly been the case.
In 1865, following the end of the American Civil War the Freedmen’s Bureau was established by President Abraham Lincoln and Congress the protect the rights of newly freed African Americans. By 1870, Congressional Amendments stretched to U.S. Constitution to guarantee—on paper, that is—the right to be free (13th), citizenship (14th), and to be free from racial discrimination at the polling place (15th) for Black people. Moreover, citizenship afforded African Americans the right to hold elective office. Within our family, my paternal great grandfather, Lawrence Clayton, was elected Constable in Surry County, Virginia in 1882.
In total, 22 African Americans were elected to Congress following 1870. However, the forty years that followed saw the number of Black Congressmen dwindle to zero by 1910. In the words of the late Dr. Ronald Walters, White Nationalism accounted for the lost of Colored Congressmen in the white marble halls of the U.S. Capital.
By White Nationalism, I mean the use of double standards in the targeting of Black elected official for removal of office. Following the 1870 15th Amendment prohibiting racial discrimination in voting the demise of Black Congressional Representatives dropped sharply after the presidential election of 1876. Known as the Hayes/Tilden Compromise, the loser, won; and the winner, lost. Under the agreement, Rutherford Hayes agreed to remove federal troops in the south which were dispatched to protect newly freed African Americans.
From 1870 until 1901, voter disenfranchisement schemes eliminated Black Congressman from office. Schemes such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and voter roll purging of convicted felons were common. In some cases, an “eight box law” was used to confuse voters by forcing voters to place an individual ballot in separate boxes.
As Black voters were disenfranchised the number of Black Congressmen declined. History repeats itself. While literacy tests and poll taxes are uncommon the purging of felons and relocating polling places are used today.
Currently, Congressman Charles Rangel, former Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters…Sub-Committee Chair on Financial Services Committee are facing rulings from the House Ethics Committee. In the case of Congressman Rangel…
In the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections voters in Congressman Rangel’s district overwhelmingly re-elected the 21-term Congressman, providing a ringing affirmation of Rangel’s approval rating on the ground.
What smells funny in the Rangel case is that no corruption was found and none of the 13 charges were criminal in nature. So far, the ethics committee concluded that Congressman Rangel was essentially sloppy.
Congresswoman Waters is charged with three counts breaking House Rules by setting a meeting with African American banks, one of which her husband was on its Board of Directors. Despite lacking strong evidence of wrong doing, the Ethics Panel investigating the case announced on Friday that Congresswoman Waters’ hearing has been continued until the end of November.
Unlike most Members of Congress facing investigations, earlier in the process, Congresswoman Waters invited the media for a six-hour press conference to answer all questions. The press conference was regarded as a success.
If the Committee fails to conclude either the Rangel or Waters case both cases would be taken up in the 112th Session of Congress under Republican control.
The double standard, which screams today is that Black Members of Congress in overwhelmingly African American districts (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and others) have been investigated with flimsy evidence. On the contrary, White Congressional Representatives facing criminal charges have been treated more fairly.
If America politics is to be great, the double standard for Black Congressional Representatives must end.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 21-28, 2010
The United States of America boasts to the world community that it is a nation of equality under the law for all citizens, regardless of color or conviction. Yet, for African American elected officials such has hardly been the case.
In 1865, following the end of the American Civil War the Freedmen’s Bureau was established by President Abraham Lincoln and Congress the protect the rights of newly freed African Americans. By 1870, Congressional Amendments stretched to U.S. Constitution to guarantee—on paper, that is—the right to be free (13th), citizenship (14th), and to be free from racial discrimination at the polling place (15th) for Black people. Moreover, citizenship afforded African Americans the right to hold elective office. Within our family, my paternal great grandfather, Lawrence Clayton, was elected Constable in Surry County, Virginia in 1882.
In total, 22 African Americans were elected to Congress following 1870. However, the forty years that followed saw the number of Black Congressmen dwindle to zero by 1910. In the words of the late Dr. Ronald Walters, White Nationalism accounted for the lost of Colored Congressmen in the white marble halls of the U.S. Capital.
By White Nationalism, I mean the use of double standards in the targeting of Black elected official for removal of office. Following the 1870 15th Amendment prohibiting racial discrimination in voting the demise of Black Congressional Representatives dropped sharply after the presidential election of 1876. Known as the Hayes/Tilden Compromise, the loser, won; and the winner, lost. Under the agreement, Rutherford Hayes agreed to remove federal troops in the south which were dispatched to protect newly freed African Americans.
From 1870 until 1901, voter disenfranchisement schemes eliminated Black Congressman from office. Schemes such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and voter roll purging of convicted felons were common. In some cases, an “eight box law” was used to confuse voters by forcing voters to place an individual ballot in separate boxes.
As Black voters were disenfranchised the number of Black Congressmen declined. History repeats itself. While literacy tests and poll taxes are uncommon the purging of felons and relocating polling places are used today.
Currently, Congressman Charles Rangel, former Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters…Sub-Committee Chair on Financial Services Committee are facing rulings from the House Ethics Committee. In the case of Congressman Rangel…
In the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections voters in Congressman Rangel’s district overwhelmingly re-elected the 21-term Congressman, providing a ringing affirmation of Rangel’s approval rating on the ground.
What smells funny in the Rangel case is that no corruption was found and none of the 13 charges were criminal in nature. So far, the ethics committee concluded that Congressman Rangel was essentially sloppy.
Congresswoman Waters is charged with three counts breaking House Rules by setting a meeting with African American banks, one of which her husband was on its Board of Directors. Despite lacking strong evidence of wrong doing, the Ethics Panel investigating the case announced on Friday that Congresswoman Waters’ hearing has been continued until the end of November.
Unlike most Members of Congress facing investigations, earlier in the process, Congresswoman Waters invited the media for a six-hour press conference to answer all questions. The press conference was regarded as a success.
If the Committee fails to conclude either the Rangel or Waters case both cases would be taken up in the 112th Session of Congress under Republican control.
The double standard, which screams today is that Black Members of Congress in overwhelmingly African American districts (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and others) have been investigated with flimsy evidence. On the contrary, White Congressional Representatives facing criminal charges have been treated more fairly.
If America politics is to be great, the double standard for Black Congressional Representatives must end.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Preaching the Politics of Privilege
Preaching the Politics of Privilege
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 24-31, 2010
“…the detection of national White-majority interests can be achieved by understanding the sources of White racial alienation that led to the development of an intellectual rationale of polices of ‘failure.’…this rationale was used as a pretext for attacks upon policies oriented toward Black group interests and on the federal government which supported them…the federal government must be weakened…Whites who control that system have always utilized their power to create a subclass of Blacks who are especially attentive to their political needs.”
Dr. Ronald Walters
White Nationalism, Black Interests
Politics is widely defined as who gets what, when, and how much.
The mid-term elections for United States Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and Governorships scheduled for Tuesday, November 2, 2010—whichever American political party prevails—will determine the who gets what, when, and how much.
My interpretation of the connection between politics and religion is simple: Religion determines politics rather than politics determining religion.
Such an interpretation was tested last Sunday for me while visiting my parents and sister in Richmond, Virginia. While sitting with my family I surfed television channels and found the Sunday Broadcast of Grove Avenue Baptist Church. What caught my eye was the introduction of Bishop Earl Jackson as the morning speaker. Bishop Earl Jackson, who is African American trained lawyer who took classes in Divinity School, and founder of Exodus Faith Ministries, presented quite an interesting case for religion as a predicate for politics to which I distinctly disagreed. Having been raised in a Christian household I found his inferences un-Godly.
Bishop Jackson asserted that the “Founding Fathers” (Smith, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al.) were “ordained” by God to establish a Democratic Republic in America. If so, their God ordained ethnic annihilation, economic exploitation, rape, and the false notion of White supremacy. Captain John Smith was sent to America by the Virginia Company of London to make a profit on the land, albeit the presence of Native Americans. Nearly all of the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention legally enslaved Africans. Thomas Jefferson himself wrote of the racial inferiority of dark-skinned people. Moreover, the religion of racial superiority led the founders to use violence to achieve their greedy ends. I do not believe anyone’s interpretation of God condones rape, pillage, and plunder in the name of religion.
To further support his point, Bishop Jackson cited the Biblical Book of Ephesians, which calls for believers to put on the “full armor of God.” The last time I checked giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans; voting against extending unemployment benefits; and repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not in accordance with Christian belief of “…do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before God”, found in the Book of Micah, Chapter 6, verse 8.
Bishop Jackson finally revealed his political hand more directly by encouraging Christians to go to the polls on Tuesday and vote for “Godly” candidates and implied that Tea Party candidates were worthy of elective office because of their religious beliefs. Yet, such Tea Party candidates have admitted experimenting with witchcraft, donned German Third Reich uniforms, and supported taking up arms to enforce their political views. Wow, what a God they serve!
I agreed with Bishop Jackson’s point that Americans, by way of the upcoming elections, are fighting a pitch battle for the soul of our nation. One side believes in suppression and one team believes in liberation. On the paradox of the “Founding Father’s” support of slavery, Bishop Jackson said, “If slavery is what it took to get me here, I am glad to be here.” Seriously?
The “Founding Fathers” and their Tea Party descendants have let their belief of politics of privilege, exploitation, and race superiority determine their religion. Both their politics and religion bend toward the false notion of White supremacy, from their portrayal of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus to their “Anglo-first” political views on immigration and other issues.
Tea Party and their White nationalists cohorts often exclaim, “God bless America.” I believe America must bless God by electing righteous candidates who believe in the policy of people over profits; inclusion over exclusion; and helping the “least of these” within our nation. Who gets what, when, and how much should not be predicated on privilege, but on the Godly principles of justice and equity.
Vote conscientiously. God is watching.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 24-31, 2010
“…the detection of national White-majority interests can be achieved by understanding the sources of White racial alienation that led to the development of an intellectual rationale of polices of ‘failure.’…this rationale was used as a pretext for attacks upon policies oriented toward Black group interests and on the federal government which supported them…the federal government must be weakened…Whites who control that system have always utilized their power to create a subclass of Blacks who are especially attentive to their political needs.”
Dr. Ronald Walters
White Nationalism, Black Interests
Politics is widely defined as who gets what, when, and how much.
The mid-term elections for United States Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and Governorships scheduled for Tuesday, November 2, 2010—whichever American political party prevails—will determine the who gets what, when, and how much.
My interpretation of the connection between politics and religion is simple: Religion determines politics rather than politics determining religion.
Such an interpretation was tested last Sunday for me while visiting my parents and sister in Richmond, Virginia. While sitting with my family I surfed television channels and found the Sunday Broadcast of Grove Avenue Baptist Church. What caught my eye was the introduction of Bishop Earl Jackson as the morning speaker. Bishop Earl Jackson, who is African American trained lawyer who took classes in Divinity School, and founder of Exodus Faith Ministries, presented quite an interesting case for religion as a predicate for politics to which I distinctly disagreed. Having been raised in a Christian household I found his inferences un-Godly.
Bishop Jackson asserted that the “Founding Fathers” (Smith, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al.) were “ordained” by God to establish a Democratic Republic in America. If so, their God ordained ethnic annihilation, economic exploitation, rape, and the false notion of White supremacy. Captain John Smith was sent to America by the Virginia Company of London to make a profit on the land, albeit the presence of Native Americans. Nearly all of the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention legally enslaved Africans. Thomas Jefferson himself wrote of the racial inferiority of dark-skinned people. Moreover, the religion of racial superiority led the founders to use violence to achieve their greedy ends. I do not believe anyone’s interpretation of God condones rape, pillage, and plunder in the name of religion.
To further support his point, Bishop Jackson cited the Biblical Book of Ephesians, which calls for believers to put on the “full armor of God.” The last time I checked giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans; voting against extending unemployment benefits; and repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not in accordance with Christian belief of “…do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before God”, found in the Book of Micah, Chapter 6, verse 8.
Bishop Jackson finally revealed his political hand more directly by encouraging Christians to go to the polls on Tuesday and vote for “Godly” candidates and implied that Tea Party candidates were worthy of elective office because of their religious beliefs. Yet, such Tea Party candidates have admitted experimenting with witchcraft, donned German Third Reich uniforms, and supported taking up arms to enforce their political views. Wow, what a God they serve!
I agreed with Bishop Jackson’s point that Americans, by way of the upcoming elections, are fighting a pitch battle for the soul of our nation. One side believes in suppression and one team believes in liberation. On the paradox of the “Founding Father’s” support of slavery, Bishop Jackson said, “If slavery is what it took to get me here, I am glad to be here.” Seriously?
The “Founding Fathers” and their Tea Party descendants have let their belief of politics of privilege, exploitation, and race superiority determine their religion. Both their politics and religion bend toward the false notion of White supremacy, from their portrayal of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus to their “Anglo-first” political views on immigration and other issues.
Tea Party and their White nationalists cohorts often exclaim, “God bless America.” I believe America must bless God by electing righteous candidates who believe in the policy of people over profits; inclusion over exclusion; and helping the “least of these” within our nation. Who gets what, when, and how much should not be predicated on privilege, but on the Godly principles of justice and equity.
Vote conscientiously. God is watching.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc
Monday, October 18, 2010
Minimum Wage Must Be Livable Wage
Minimum Wage Must Be Livable Wage
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 17-24, 2010
“How would you like to be making $200,000 a year today after 25 years on the job? Well, if you started with the pay of an average worker 25 years ago that is what you would be making today—if you got the same kind of raises that the CEO’s of American companies got for the post 25 years.”
Jack Rasmus
The American ethos holds that working people should have the same basic options for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as those of wealthy people. Regrettably, those who make minimum wage and those who make maximum wage are worlds apart.
In 1965, CEO’s in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker. In 1978, the ratio of CEO to worker compensation increased to 35 times more for the CEOs. By 1989, CEOs made 71 times more than their average employee. If you are already upset, it gets worse. In 2000, the ratio in favor of CEOs went to 300 to 1. In 2005, CEOs “only” made 262 times the average worker.
The concept of a minimum wage began in Australia and New Zealand in the 1890’s. By 1912, the State of Massachusetts enacted a minimum wage for women and children. The first federal minimum wage in the United States of America was the Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted in 1938, with a .25 cent per hour wage and a maximum 44-hour worker week for laborers.
Since then, the issue of minimum wage (and now livable wage) has been hotly debated. The idea that anyone would argue against the minimum wage baffles me. Rather, the issue for most American workers is whether the wage they earn can pay the bills. Unfortunately for most, the answer is no.
Consequently, the “living wage movement” was launched in 1994 by ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). While the national minimum wage was $4.25 per hour the City of Baltimore increased pay for city workers to $6.10 per hour. Following the example of Baltimore, many cities across the nation saw the development of living wage coalitions. In fact, over 140 American cities have adopted living wage laws.
Simply put, if the prevailing minimum wage does not afford a worker to pay minimum wages than wages should be increased to pay living costs in each city. It does not take an economist to figure out a fix to the issue.
Violations to minimum wage rates are most common in the apparel and textile manufacturing industries. Violation rates were substantially lower in residential construction, social assistance and education, and home health care.
Critics of the living wage say that the idea sounds better than its practical effect by displacing jobs, discouraging hiring, and not positively affecting the quality of life for workers. Really?
Reality retorts that when workers make a living wage the entire economy benefits.
If for no other reason, America should pay workers a livable wage pursuant to our American creed of providing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 17-24, 2010
“How would you like to be making $200,000 a year today after 25 years on the job? Well, if you started with the pay of an average worker 25 years ago that is what you would be making today—if you got the same kind of raises that the CEO’s of American companies got for the post 25 years.”
Jack Rasmus
The American ethos holds that working people should have the same basic options for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as those of wealthy people. Regrettably, those who make minimum wage and those who make maximum wage are worlds apart.
In 1965, CEO’s in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker. In 1978, the ratio of CEO to worker compensation increased to 35 times more for the CEOs. By 1989, CEOs made 71 times more than their average employee. If you are already upset, it gets worse. In 2000, the ratio in favor of CEOs went to 300 to 1. In 2005, CEOs “only” made 262 times the average worker.
The concept of a minimum wage began in Australia and New Zealand in the 1890’s. By 1912, the State of Massachusetts enacted a minimum wage for women and children. The first federal minimum wage in the United States of America was the Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted in 1938, with a .25 cent per hour wage and a maximum 44-hour worker week for laborers.
Since then, the issue of minimum wage (and now livable wage) has been hotly debated. The idea that anyone would argue against the minimum wage baffles me. Rather, the issue for most American workers is whether the wage they earn can pay the bills. Unfortunately for most, the answer is no.
Consequently, the “living wage movement” was launched in 1994 by ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). While the national minimum wage was $4.25 per hour the City of Baltimore increased pay for city workers to $6.10 per hour. Following the example of Baltimore, many cities across the nation saw the development of living wage coalitions. In fact, over 140 American cities have adopted living wage laws.
Simply put, if the prevailing minimum wage does not afford a worker to pay minimum wages than wages should be increased to pay living costs in each city. It does not take an economist to figure out a fix to the issue.
Violations to minimum wage rates are most common in the apparel and textile manufacturing industries. Violation rates were substantially lower in residential construction, social assistance and education, and home health care.
Critics of the living wage say that the idea sounds better than its practical effect by displacing jobs, discouraging hiring, and not positively affecting the quality of life for workers. Really?
Reality retorts that when workers make a living wage the entire economy benefits.
If for no other reason, America should pay workers a livable wage pursuant to our American creed of providing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Public Education Should Not Be Privatized
Public Education Should Not Be Privatized
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 26-October 2, 2010
Prior to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and seating of a Constitutional Convention, the issue of public education in our nation has always been a divisive issue. In nearly every colony restrictive codes existed which prohibited public education for all people of color and virtually all poor White people. The rationale in against public education 18th Century America rested on the notion that an un-educated enslaved Black or indentured White made for a better worker who had few options other than hard labor.
As colonies were formally federalized into the United States of America the question of whom among the nation’s citizens should be educated and at what quality of instruction divided public policy makers. Initially, only White males were considered American citizens, and thereby entitled to be educated through colonial educational policy. While a Constitutional Amendment (14th) was enacted in 1868 to grant citizenship to newly freed African Americans another Amendment (10th) granted states control over public education. Legislators—federal and state—across the nation were sharply split over public education. One school of thought (slave owners, Confederates) was that public education should be reserved for Whites only. The other school of thought (abolitionists and educational liberators) held than all children—regardless of race, religion or resources—are entitled to public education.
Against such a polarized philosophical background the public school system in the United States was established in 1852. However, unlike other industrialized countries around the world that completely funded public education the American system was established with limited federal funding, resulting in control of educational policy primarily posited in state, county, and municipal government. Yet, confederates and capitalist never die.
Following the American Civil War and the erosion of federal authority in favor of states’ rights public education was declared “separate, but equal” in the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Plessey v. Ferguson in 1896. State control and racially segregated schools persisted until the landmark High Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Following Brown, many White Americans, rather than allow their children to attend pubic schools with students of color (particularly in former slave states in the south), removed them and formed all-White private academies. However, upon realizing that their public tax dollars were helping to fund racially mixed public schools the “voucher” plan was conceptualized to allow “some” public students to attend special public schools funded by private financiers.
Today, the issue of private funders of public schools can is being debated in cities such as Washington, DC and Newark, NJ. In Washington, DC the outgoing mayor, after dismantling School Board, lost his reelection bid in large part due to his education “reform” plan for public schools that included private funding. In fact, when private corporate funders realized that the outgoing mayor would probably lose his party’s primary CEO’s essentially threatened to pull potential funding if the presumed incoming mayor would not retain the Public School Chancellor who supported private funding for public schools.
Two weeks later, ironically, Mark Zuckerberg, Executive Founder of Facebook appeared on the world-renowned Oprah Show to announce that he would donate $100 million dollars to the public school system of Newark, NJ. His reason: the “leadership” in Newark. Ironically, the mega money will help to restore control of school system to the current mayor of Newark. Hmm? Fancy that: The public votes out a mayor in the nation’s capital largely for supporting private funding for that school system, and in a matter of days, a privateer grants big money to same type of public school system in Newark rejected by the people in Washington, DC.
Ultimately, the public should fund the American public school system to do so; the federal government should increase federal outlay for public schools (currently set at only 9%). Such an increase in funding could go a long way to incentivising potential teachers in college, and improving public school facilities and faculty. If the federal government would support legislation to fiscally value public schools, privateers would not have an inroad to unofficially influence educational policy. Not to do so would render the public school system in the United States of America “open to the highest offer.”
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 26-October 2, 2010
Prior to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and seating of a Constitutional Convention, the issue of public education in our nation has always been a divisive issue. In nearly every colony restrictive codes existed which prohibited public education for all people of color and virtually all poor White people. The rationale in against public education 18th Century America rested on the notion that an un-educated enslaved Black or indentured White made for a better worker who had few options other than hard labor.
As colonies were formally federalized into the United States of America the question of whom among the nation’s citizens should be educated and at what quality of instruction divided public policy makers. Initially, only White males were considered American citizens, and thereby entitled to be educated through colonial educational policy. While a Constitutional Amendment (14th) was enacted in 1868 to grant citizenship to newly freed African Americans another Amendment (10th) granted states control over public education. Legislators—federal and state—across the nation were sharply split over public education. One school of thought (slave owners, Confederates) was that public education should be reserved for Whites only. The other school of thought (abolitionists and educational liberators) held than all children—regardless of race, religion or resources—are entitled to public education.
Against such a polarized philosophical background the public school system in the United States was established in 1852. However, unlike other industrialized countries around the world that completely funded public education the American system was established with limited federal funding, resulting in control of educational policy primarily posited in state, county, and municipal government. Yet, confederates and capitalist never die.
Following the American Civil War and the erosion of federal authority in favor of states’ rights public education was declared “separate, but equal” in the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Plessey v. Ferguson in 1896. State control and racially segregated schools persisted until the landmark High Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Following Brown, many White Americans, rather than allow their children to attend pubic schools with students of color (particularly in former slave states in the south), removed them and formed all-White private academies. However, upon realizing that their public tax dollars were helping to fund racially mixed public schools the “voucher” plan was conceptualized to allow “some” public students to attend special public schools funded by private financiers.
Today, the issue of private funders of public schools can is being debated in cities such as Washington, DC and Newark, NJ. In Washington, DC the outgoing mayor, after dismantling School Board, lost his reelection bid in large part due to his education “reform” plan for public schools that included private funding. In fact, when private corporate funders realized that the outgoing mayor would probably lose his party’s primary CEO’s essentially threatened to pull potential funding if the presumed incoming mayor would not retain the Public School Chancellor who supported private funding for public schools.
Two weeks later, ironically, Mark Zuckerberg, Executive Founder of Facebook appeared on the world-renowned Oprah Show to announce that he would donate $100 million dollars to the public school system of Newark, NJ. His reason: the “leadership” in Newark. Ironically, the mega money will help to restore control of school system to the current mayor of Newark. Hmm? Fancy that: The public votes out a mayor in the nation’s capital largely for supporting private funding for that school system, and in a matter of days, a privateer grants big money to same type of public school system in Newark rejected by the people in Washington, DC.
Ultimately, the public should fund the American public school system to do so; the federal government should increase federal outlay for public schools (currently set at only 9%). Such an increase in funding could go a long way to incentivising potential teachers in college, and improving public school facilities and faculty. If the federal government would support legislation to fiscally value public schools, privateers would not have an inroad to unofficially influence educational policy. Not to do so would render the public school system in the United States of America “open to the highest offer.”
Monday, September 13, 2010
Congressional Black Caucus at Forty
Congressional Black Caucus at Forty
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 12-19, 2010
“I recently wrote about the attempt of the Congressional Black Caucus to get legislation out of the House of Representatives that targets job creation to local areas through direct funding. This legislation is being held up in the House and Senate by politicians who care more about posturing in and election over how frugal they have been with money by supporting deficit reduction over the pain people are suffering.”
Dr. Ronald Walters
June 24, 2010
“Political players who are on the field get their uniform dirty. The loudest voices from players tend to be by those on the sidelines with clean uniforms.”
Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr.
In 1971, members of Congress visualized a caucus within the United States House of Representatives to legislatively advocate for the political and policy interests of African Americans. At that time—recently after Chairman Adam Clayton Powell was pushed out of Congress, Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, followed by destructive riots—there were only 13 Black members of the House and zero members of the U.S. Senate. Predictably, meaningfully influencing federal legislation by individual Representatives was arduous, to say the least, for the most skilled legislators.
Consequently, Representatives Shirley Chisholm (NY), John Conyers (MI), Charles Rangel (NY), William Clay (MO), George Collins (IL), Ronald Dellums (CA), Charles Diggs (MI), Augustus Hawkins (CA), Ralph Metcalfe (IL), Parren Mitchell (MD), Robert Nix (PA), Louis Stokes (OH), and Walter Fauntroy (DC) founded the first ethnically based body in Congress and named it the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). And for forty-years the CBC has served as the “conscience of the Congress.”
Separate from the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) this week (Wednesday, September 15-18, 2010) will host the Annual Legislative Conference (ALC) will assemble the best and brightest political minds in the world to advance the interests of Black Americans.
Now some decry that the CBC’Fs Annual Legislative Week is frivolously filled with epicurean events that only focus attendee’s attention to “eat, drink, and be merry.” Those who believe such have either never attended the ALC or are inclined to seek parties and playtime wherever they go. After all, most people find what they seek. That said, for those who seek a better understanding of public policy priorities in the Black community and political strategies for people of color spending time with the Congressional Black Caucus is immensely enriching.
For example, the 2010 ALC will feature 90 “Brain trusts” on the most salient issues impacting the Black community at the federal, states, county, and municipal level. Proceeds from the weeklong Conference help fund CBCF Internships for students interested in public service.
Regrettably, perhaps our brightest political light for the past forty years has been extinguished in the death of Dr. Ronald Walters. Dr. Walters was the engine of a plethora of political campaigns, most notably the 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns of Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr. If Reverend Jackson was the “conscience of the nation” Dr. Walters kept the “political pulse of the nation.”
Whether 1971 or 2010, if the words of Reverend Jesse Jackson and Dr. Ronald Walters and the example of the Congressional Black Caucus direct America, particularly Black America, they do so to increase civic participation and political awareness. In other words, either join those of us on the battlefield of justice or surrender your right to criticize. Please join us!
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 12-19, 2010
“I recently wrote about the attempt of the Congressional Black Caucus to get legislation out of the House of Representatives that targets job creation to local areas through direct funding. This legislation is being held up in the House and Senate by politicians who care more about posturing in and election over how frugal they have been with money by supporting deficit reduction over the pain people are suffering.”
Dr. Ronald Walters
June 24, 2010
“Political players who are on the field get their uniform dirty. The loudest voices from players tend to be by those on the sidelines with clean uniforms.”
Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr.
In 1971, members of Congress visualized a caucus within the United States House of Representatives to legislatively advocate for the political and policy interests of African Americans. At that time—recently after Chairman Adam Clayton Powell was pushed out of Congress, Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, followed by destructive riots—there were only 13 Black members of the House and zero members of the U.S. Senate. Predictably, meaningfully influencing federal legislation by individual Representatives was arduous, to say the least, for the most skilled legislators.
Consequently, Representatives Shirley Chisholm (NY), John Conyers (MI), Charles Rangel (NY), William Clay (MO), George Collins (IL), Ronald Dellums (CA), Charles Diggs (MI), Augustus Hawkins (CA), Ralph Metcalfe (IL), Parren Mitchell (MD), Robert Nix (PA), Louis Stokes (OH), and Walter Fauntroy (DC) founded the first ethnically based body in Congress and named it the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). And for forty-years the CBC has served as the “conscience of the Congress.”
Separate from the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) this week (Wednesday, September 15-18, 2010) will host the Annual Legislative Conference (ALC) will assemble the best and brightest political minds in the world to advance the interests of Black Americans.
Now some decry that the CBC’Fs Annual Legislative Week is frivolously filled with epicurean events that only focus attendee’s attention to “eat, drink, and be merry.” Those who believe such have either never attended the ALC or are inclined to seek parties and playtime wherever they go. After all, most people find what they seek. That said, for those who seek a better understanding of public policy priorities in the Black community and political strategies for people of color spending time with the Congressional Black Caucus is immensely enriching.
For example, the 2010 ALC will feature 90 “Brain trusts” on the most salient issues impacting the Black community at the federal, states, county, and municipal level. Proceeds from the weeklong Conference help fund CBCF Internships for students interested in public service.
Regrettably, perhaps our brightest political light for the past forty years has been extinguished in the death of Dr. Ronald Walters. Dr. Walters was the engine of a plethora of political campaigns, most notably the 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns of Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr. If Reverend Jackson was the “conscience of the nation” Dr. Walters kept the “political pulse of the nation.”
Whether 1971 or 2010, if the words of Reverend Jesse Jackson and Dr. Ronald Walters and the example of the Congressional Black Caucus direct America, particularly Black America, they do so to increase civic participation and political awareness. In other words, either join those of us on the battlefield of justice or surrender your right to criticize. Please join us!
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
