From Bread for the World

I have taken an article from Bread for the World for your information.  We need to work together with other countries to mitigate these problems and help people produce there own food.

Why Is America Cutting Emergency Food Aid in the Middle of a Famine?

Tony Hall and staff from the Alliance to End Hunger are currently in East Africa to see the devastating impact of the famine gripping the Horn of Africa. Here is his first-hand report:

When I first visited Ethiopia at the height of the 1984 famine, I watched as 24 people died of starvation in less than 15 minutes, right in front of my eyes. Barely five years into my career as a congressman, nothing my staff told me beforehand could have prepared me for what I saw on that trip. 

Gasping at awful photographs of unspeakable human suffering is one thing; bearing firsthand witness to human suffering is another thing entirely. Glancing at a picture of a starving child in the newspaper, you can always turn away. But when you're staring into the eyes of a mother who has just lost that child, it's a completely different story. There's no looking the other way. 

That's why I often describe those first Ethiopia experiences as my "converting ground" on issues of global hunger. What happened in Ethiopia changed me, and changed how an entire generation looks at hunger. 

It's also why I'm currently back on the Horn of Africa, reporting on the ground from the Dadaab refugee camp in eastern Kenya, less than fifty miles from the Somali border. And I am appealing to my affluent brothers and sisters in the United Stated and around the world not to look away. We need your help. 

The worst drought in 60 years has struck the continent, putting more than 12 million people at risk of serious malnutrition, starvation, and even death. According to USAID, more than 500,000 Somalis have already fled the worst areas of their country, seeking food and water across the border in neighboring Kenya and Ethiopia. 

Today at the Dadaab camp I met a husband and wife and their six children who have spent the last two months walking hundreds of miles from their home in Somalia. They arrived with nothing but the clothes on their back. They've made this tremendous sacrifice for one simple reason: They want to live. Dadaab gives them that hope. 

Meanwhile, back in Washington, some of America's political leaders are considering budget cuts that would make it all but impossible for us to respond to crises like these in the future. The U.S. House of Representatives already voted on a budget proposal for FY2012 cutting emergency food aid by 75 percent compared with FY2008 levels. If enacted, these cuts will decrease America's commitment to addressing global hunger from 30 percent of the current global total need to less than 15 percent. 

In my former role as the U.S. ambassador to the UN World Food Program, I visited dozens of refugee camps in crisis zones all over the world, and Dadaab is the best-run camp I have ever seen. It's clear that the money that the United States has spent on this crisis so far is being used well. We have actually learned and improved since 1984, but if we pull back now all of this is at risk. Now is not the time for deep cuts to emergency food aid. 

The proposed cuts ignore the low-cost of these life-saving programs; U.S. foreign aid spending is less than 1 percent of the total budget. They also ignore broad bipartisan support these programs have shared in recent decades; President George W. Bush actually increased funding for international feeding programs. Moreover, these cuts would undermine our national security; hungry people either migrate, revolt ,or die, all three of which create extreme instability. Finally, and most importantly, these cuts violate the basic moral principle that we should not harm the most vulnerable people in the world in their moment of greatest need.  

I walked away from my first trip to Ethiopia with the conviction that, though we live in a great nation, for everything we were doing to address the crisis our efforts were not enough. They weren't enough to save those 24 people I watched die. They weren't enough for that mother and her child. America needed to do more, not less. Bearing witness to what's currently happening on the Horn of Africa, I still feel this way.

The actions of some Washington politicians beg the obvious question: Why in God's name are they cutting funding for emergency food aid in the middle of a famine?  In 1984, people of faith and conscience said, "Never again". It's time for America to start living up to this promise. 



Taxes

Raising the debt limit is old news now,  and won't heat up again until we get close to the November 23 deadline for the Congressional "Super Committee" to find a solution for both houses to vote on.  Do you think that they will do any better than the Senate and House did on the first deadline?  I doubt it.  I doubt that they can be creative enough to come up with anything except the default solution already in place.

We can bombard them with email and phone calls, and they will not have the intelligence or courage to come up with another solution, such as raising taxes in some manner as part of the solution.  As Warren Buffett said in his recent NYT editorial:   


While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.  Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby gaining a bargain 15% tax rate.  Others own stock index futures for ten minutes and have sixty percent of their gain taxed at fifteen percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.


These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species.  It's nice to have friends in high places.


He goes on to say that for 2010 he paid only 17.4% of his taxable income and that was lower than anyone who works for him.  Their tax burdens ranged from 33% to 41%.

The tax system rewards the rich, and the so-called "trickle down" effect did not work in the Reagan years and it does not work today.

Why are our elected officials afraid to tax the top 1% of Americans their fair share?  You should ask them.

Take care.

Love

Another lovely metaphor, to take us away, for a minute, from the shortcomings of our elected officials:

Love is like a precious plant.

You can't just accept it and leave it in the cupboard

or just think it's going to get on by itself.

You've got to keep watering it.

You've got to really look after it and nurture it.

John Lennon (1969)

Take care.

Jobs & Poverty

Good Jobs

The lack of family supporting jobs is the root of poverty and all of its related problems, such as hunger, substandard housing, lack of educational opportunities, etc.  For a large share of Americans, the U.S. labor market no longer works as a reliable way to build a stable career and support their families.

This was true before the job losses of the current recession (as of October 2009, the country had 7.6 million fewer jobs since the start of the recession in December 2007). And unless there are structural changes in the economy, it will be true again once the recession has passed.

Down on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, where too many people who once had middle-income careers now reside, the real value of wages when adjusted for inflation has been declining for years.

One in four jobs does not pay enough to lift a family of four out of poverty. The federal government tries to compensate low-wage workers through programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

Without this and other forms of assistance, many more working families would be struggling to put food on the table and pay for housing, utilities, health care, child care, transportation to and from work, and more. Many families are forced to survive by living under a mounting pile of debt.

Our state and federal governments need to develop viable plans to increase meaningful work.  This will not happen overnight, but will take a commitment to change.  Part of this commitment does include the increase of taxes, especially on those who can afford to pay.  Please educate yourself on this issue and talk to your elected officials.

Take care.

What the Congress does....

My metaphor for the day:

Written laws are like spiders' webs, and will, like them, only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them. (from Anacharsis, the first outsider to be made an Athenian citizen, and who was included among the legendary Seven Wise Men of Greece by ancient historians.)


Ah, our wonderful Congress, which makes a political football out of every issue that comes up.  Even though they finally approved the raising of the debt limit, only done 70 times in the last 50 years, they created a crisis out of it with repercussions still to follow.

They fail to appropriate $25 million to the FAA and the result will be a loss of revenue of $ 1 billion by the time they get around to approving it when they come back to work in September.  Why don't you ask your senator and representative about that when they are home in the district the next few weeks?  It would be interesting to hear what they have to say....

Yes, they don't want to raise taxes at all (the debt "compromise" was approved by both parties!) yet they can cut services to the poor and to the middle class.  Of course they can easily break through the lack of services - do they have to worry about health care, education for their children, or retirement, just to name a few areas of cuts.  Why no - they have a cadillac health plan that we provide, they can afford to put their children in private schools (and forget about the needs of public schools in this country), and have a generous retirement program once they serve a few terms.

Now they are calling the rich "job providers" - and we can't take any money out of their pockets.  Of course a big problem with the economic recovery is that the fat cats are not creating jobs.  They are just sitting on it.

Keep informed my friends, and take care.

Myths to the Budget Cutting Process

Friends,

Please follow the link to get information concerning the myths and truths of cutting the US budget.  It is from the not for profit organization called bread for the world at bread.org.

It is http://www.bread.org/what-we-do/resources/papers/background/background-paper-214.pdf.  You may have to cut and paste the address.

Here also is a link to the same organization's site that provides a chart that illustrates what the proposals have been that would effect hungry and poor people.  I am not aware of what the current compromise proposal will do, but that may be something this site or others will post very shortly.

The link is http://www.bread.org/hunger/budget/pdf/budget-cuts-comparison-charts-1.pdf.  Again you may have to cut and paste.

Please take these matters seriously.  Whether the top 1% of wealthy Americans are not taxed more is a small issue in regards to the needs of the poor and hungry.  It is the difference between having a 3rd or 4th residence, multiple cars, and pure opulence and death, disability, and disaster.

Take care.

What independent research shows on Entitlement Programs

I apologize for the long post that follows, but I think it is important to share independent research with you.  I also think it is better to raise the taxes associated with these programs and reform them to make them better programs than to reduce the benefits for these programs.  By doing the latter the government would just be hurting those who are already hurting and expanding the already too large of  a spread between the wealthy in this country and the middle and lower classes.  

Take care.

PEW RESEARCH CENTER FOR THE PEOPLE & THE PRESS

Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits

GOP Divided Over Benefit Reductions

July 7, 2011

As policymakers at the state and national level struggle with rising entitlement costs, overwhelming numbers of Americans agree that, over the years, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have been good for the country.

But these cherished programs receive negative marks for current performance, and their finances are widely viewed as troubled.  Reflecting these concerns, most Americans say all three programs either need to be completely rebuilt or undergo major changes.  However, smaller majorities express this view than did so five years ago.

The public's desire for fundamental change does not mean it supports reductions in the benefits provided by Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.  Relatively few are willing to see benefit cuts as part of the solution, regardless of whether the problem being addressed is the federal budget deficit, state budget shortfalls or the financial viability of the entitlement programs.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 15-19 among 1,502 adults, finds that Republicans face far more serious internal divisions over entitlement reforms than do Democrats.  Lower income Republicans are consistently more likely to oppose reductions in benefits -- from Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid -- than are more affluent Republicans. 

On the broad question of whether it is more important to reduce the budget deficit or to maintain current Medicare and Social Security benefits, the public decisively supports maintaining the status quo.  Sixty percent say it is more important to keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are; only about half as many (32%) say it is more important to take steps to reduce the budget deficit.

50% of Republicans say that maintaining benefits is more important than deficit reduction; about as many (42%) say it is more important to reduce the budget deficit.  More independents prioritize maintaining benefits over reducing the deficit (by 53% to 38%).  Democrats overwhelmingly view preserving current Social Security and Medicare benefits as more important (by 72% to 21%).

The public also opposes making Medicare recipients more responsible for their health care costs and allowing states to limit Medicaid eligibility.  Sixty-one percent say people on Medicare already pay enough of their own health care costs, while only 31% think recipients need to be responsible for more of the costs of their health care in order to make the system financially secure.

When it comes to Medicaid, just 37% want to allow states to cut back on who is eligible for Medicaid in order to deal with budget problems, while 58% say low-income people should not have their Medicaid benefits taken away.  And most say it is more important to avoid future cuts in Social Security benefits than future increases in Social Security taxes (56% vs. 33%). 

On Social Security and Medicare, there are substantial differences of opinion by age.  People age 65 and older are the only age group in which majorities say these programs work well; seniors also overwhelmingly say it is more important to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits than to reduce the budget deficit.  Those 50 to 64 also broadly favor keeping benefits as they are.  Younger Americans support maintaining Social Security and Medicare benefits, but by smaller margins than older age groups.

Lower income people are more committed to maintaining benefits across all three major entitlement programs.  This income gap is particularly wide when it comes to allowing states to cut back on Medicaid eligibility: 72% of those with family incomes of less than $30,000 oppose allowing states to limit Medicaid eligibility to deal with budget problems, compared with 53% of those with higher incomes. 

GOP Base Divided over Entitlement Changes 

The GOP's internal divisions over entitlement changes are seen particularly in views of whether it is more important to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits or to take steps to bring down the deficit.

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 63% of those with family incomes of $75,000 or more say it is more important to take steps to reduce the budget deficit; a nearly identical percentage (62%) of Republicans with incomes of $30,000 or less say it is more important to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are.

The income gap among Republicans and Republican leaners is about as large as the difference between GOP supporters of the Tea Party and non-supporters.  Among Republicans and Republican leaners who agree with the Tea Party, 57% view deficit reduction as more important than preserving Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are.  Among Republicans and leaners who do not agree with the Tea Party, just 36% say that reducing the deficit is more important than maintaining benefits.

Democrats face no such internal divisions, as both high- and low-income Democrats prioritize maintaining benefits over deficit reduction; there also are no ideological differences among Democrats over this issue. Notably, the balance of opinion among low-income Republicans is similar to how Democrats view the issue.

You may read the full report including topline findings, charts, and survey methodology at people-press.org.  See also what the Pew Research Center Political Typology report found about partisan attitudes on the budget deficit, taxes, spending and entitlements.