When I go through the Chicago airport I get a hot dog.
When I travel to New Orleans I go to a newspaper machine and purchase a copy of "The Louisiana Weekly".
I obtain as much pleasure in reading the last item as I do eating the first two parcels of food.
I withdraw my previous label which was "The Louisiana Weekly, The Most Biased Newspaper In America". Instead a more accurate term is "The Louisiana Weekly, The Most Ideologically Unified Newspaper In America".
To some people this is a testament to the "correctness" of their ideology and their ability to assemble the best and brightest voices who represent the "Black Interests" in New Orleans and America.
While everyone has a right to their own opinion of their utility there is a need to have these assumptions verified by some independent reference. For me I choose to make measure of the viewpoint put forth by the "LA Weekly" and other members of the NPAA by referencing their viewpoint and the entrenchment that it has within the Black community with their ability to actually SOLVE the problems that our community faces. I said "solve" not the INTENTION to solve.
When the rank and file is content that the INTENTION is in alignment with what they popularly feel as are solutions they won't bother to make observations as to how other communities are addressing their problems with more success. This also leads to the most infamous of conspiracy theories that allow those who are unwilling to allow the preponderance of evidence to force them to depart from their entrenched positions to remain mentally comforted.
The Opinion Page - Syndicated Journalists
The "hired help" on the opinion page is a testament to the commitment to diversity that is at the very soul of the Louisiana Weekly (sarcasm).
The line up in their August 2 - August 8 edition is as follow:
- Gary Flowers - "Full Employment Is Needed Fast"
- Dr Julianne Malveaux - "Race, heat, economic light: Advancing economic justice"
- George Curry - "NAACP's appalling attack - and retraction"
- Earl Ofari Hutchinson - "The real Sherrod injustice: Right-wing vs. Black Farmers"
- Marc Morial - "Urban League celebrates 100 years"
Now, of course - if you were to ONLY receive your view of the world from the "LA Weekly" there is little doubt that you would carry around an incomplete view of the total facts that would assist in your ability to see that not everything is a RACIST conspiracy to oppress Black people. Instead the points that they so frequently leave out or deemphasize is merely a display of their journalistic bias in their attempt to sculpt the views of the Black readership.
This line up could have been cherry picked from "The Huffington Post" and no one would note the difference.
Two of the opinion writers (and an additional home grown article on the left page of the opinion section) mention the Shirley Sherrod dust up with the USDA and Andrew Brietbart - the right wing "racist" who "lynched" a Black woman via the media. Mr Hutchinson goes on to detail how the settlement for Black farmers that is being blocked by Congressional Republicans is another reason for Black people to continue our fight against this band who longs for the day when a Black man had no rights that a White man need respect.
Mr Hutchinson says:
A decade ago the USDA shelled out $2.3 billion to the farmers to settle the discrimination suits but they didn't end the injustice. Thousands of Black farmers who lost their land did not get a nickel. They were excluded from the settlement through bureaucratic bungling, technicalities, and challenges from Justice Department officials during the W. Bush years.
With President Obama's approval, Vilsack agreed to a second settlement of $1.25 billion. But again, the injustice continued.
He goes on to tell how the GOP has blocked the legislative process.
It was important for Mr Hutchinson to set up the narrative of those who were pursing justice (the Black farmers) and those who were antagonists, making sure that they would not see a dime (the Republicans and the operatives in the Justice Department under Bush).
Why didn't Hutchinson detail what Rep Aurtur Davis was forced to admit? The second round of payments were budgeted at $100M and thus were approved. Davis said that had they put the real number ($1.2 billion) that the provision would have been stripped out of the budget. Thus we have the situation where a slight of hand that allowed the second round to make it through the early rounds of the legislative process should be ignored because the end of JUSTICE justifies the means.
Then there is the real story of the first round. Both parties agreed that there was to be a 6 month window for filing all claims. Those who missed the window were given a 1 year extension if they could show just cause. Of course Mr Hutchinson's slant of the story can't place the onus of fault upon the aggrieved Black farmers - it was an assorted klan within the Bush Justice Department that insured that no "aggrieved Negro" would ever see a penny of compensation.
Mr Hutchison' claims do not pass the "smell test".
- Original number of Black farmers that received the pay out - approx 23,000
- Present number of Black farmers vying for the second pay out - 72,000
If Mr Hutchinson's claims are to be believed - the Bush Administration attacked the claims filed for 72,000 Black farmers to prevent them from receiving funds in the settlement. Now that a "favorable" president is in office they hope to receive "justice" via cash.
I wonder why Mr Hutchinson failed to talk about the jump from $100M to $1,500M? The differences between a "just payout" and a "money grab" comes from weeding out these type of antics in which the budget negotiator were misled by the lowball numbers.
This, shamefully, is the function of the "LampBlack Yellow Journalist". Spin the story so that the Black farmer was VIOLATED rather than the violation being the terms of the original settlement.
FULL EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT FUNDS
The combination of Dr Julianne Malveaux and Gary Flowers discuss the recent passage of unemployment funding beyond the 99 week cut off. Flowers claimed that the GOP's concern about budget off-sets were fraudulent. Malveaux manages to get a shot in at the "Tea Parties" in the context of this funding debate despite the fact that they have no legislative power.
In the name of economic justice they propose "full employment" via the channels of government. More specifically Flowers seeks:
- Government jobs training programs
- Government based financing for start up business.
Full Employment - Wikipedia:
The law states that full employment is one of four economic goals, in concert with growth in production, price stability, and balance of trade and budget, and that the US shall rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve these goals. Specifically, the act is committed to an unemployment rate of no more than 3% for persons aged 20 or over and not more than 4% for persons aged 16 or over (from 1983 onwards), and the Act expressly allows (but does not require) the government to create a "reservoir of public employment" to effect this level of employment. These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay so as to not draw the workforce away from the private sector.
However, since the passage of this act in 1978, the US has, as of 2010 never achieved this level of employment, nor has such a reservoir of public employment been created.
Question - when was the last time we had "full employment" in America?
Answer: Wikipedia's reference says never. However, I conclude that we obtained functional "full employment" during the month of Oct 2000 when the rate was 3.90%.
My problem with the "economic justice" theory of government centric stimulation is that they appear oblivious to the negative residue that comes from unchecked government spending (which we are presently experiencing).
While the collapse that was suffered when the Internet bubble burst triggered an economic slowdown, the money lost in the market was borne by individual and institutional investors (including some government funds that were invested). Compare this to government debt based financing where the government acts as a "venture capitalist". These money stay recorded as debt. The bonds that back these funds must pay interests until they are paid off.
In summary unless the government "investments" trigger enough economic activity to:
- Pay off the bond debt
- Pay the perpetual interest payments until these bonds are paid off
then this policy is little more than a maintenance of a facade. The American economy (or local economy) is not able to deliver organic productivity so the debt money merely (and temporarily) maintains the lifestyle that is demanded at the peril of unchecked debt.
When the "capitalist credit" runs out in this Marxist plan - the entire system is imperiled.
The key flaw in the Malveaux-Flowers plan is that it loads up obligations upon the central government with the INTENTION of bringing prosperity to the individuals at the edge. We have gotten away from the most efficient archetype for this nation: Productivity within the local economies at the edge that aggregate into a strong nation when they are tallied.
Malveaux-Flowers promotes the notion of social justice/economic justice over sound and sustainable economic policy. At minimum if they were to apply their theories locally where the people's standard of living is the key "at risk" component if they fail then they would be motivated to have their theories malleable and in line with organic growth because the consequences will be borne by those who allowed bad ideas to linger for too long.
0 comments:
Post a Comment