Digital Bootstraps for Analog Problems -- A Reply to Gene Marks' "If I Were A Poor Black Kid"

A truly clueless if well-intentioned column by Gene Marks titled “If I Were A Poor Black Kid” in Forbes magazine is getting righteously ripped from journalists all around the web. They’re correctly pointing out how bereft Marks’ column is of history, research, practical awareness, racial sensitivity, or the sheer realities of hunger or even homelessness that low-income children face. Marks seems to suggest that kids from impoverished backgrounds – all too many of whom are African American – can simply access computers and lift themselves up by their digital bootstraps to use free websites and enter elite prep schools or colleges. Maybe a handful of motivated kids will manage a heroic feat like that despite all the odds, but is this going to work for the majority of poor kids?

--> Read the rest of this post here, at K12NewsNetwork.com.

Cynthia Liu is founder of the grassroots education news site K12NewsNetwork.com, which empowers parents, educators, and students to report on important events at their local neighborhood schools and provides tools for maximum civic engagement in support of public education. This piece originally appeared in Technorati.

APEC Summit on Women & the Economy

Recently, I was privileged to be able to attend a part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Women & the Economy Summit in San Francisco. The conference brought together women leaders, government officials, diplomats, and corporate innovators to discuss actions to improve the lives of women in the Asia-Pacific region, and by doing so, the world's economy. Recognizing that women are a vast, largely untapped resource for change and growth, the group spent a week in San Francisco working on plans for change.  This was one of several meetings around the Pacific Rim leading up to the APEC Summit in Hawaii in November that President Obama will attend.

The Conference Keynote was delivered by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Secretary Clinton has inspired a generation of women to enter political life to try to dismantle the political barriers that keep women from fully participating in economic growth.  Her speech was a call to action, for all nations to tap the power, creativity, and drive of women to help elevate all people, across all regions.

Although characterized by some in the media as a "call for equal rights," Clinton's vision was much broader than that.  In her speech, she stated,

Now there will be a temptation on the part of those observing or covering this summit, perhaps on the part of those of us attending it as well, to say that our purpose is chiefly to advance the rights of women, to achieve justice and equality on women’s behalf. And that is, of course, a noble cause to be sure and one that is very close to my heart. But at the risk of being somewhat provocative at the outset, I believe our goal is even bolder, one that extends beyond women to all humankind. The big challenge we face in these early years of 21^st century is how to grow our economies and ensure shared prosperity for all nations and all people. We want to give every one of our citizens, men and women alike, young and old alike, greater opportunity to find work, to save and spend money, to pursue happiness ultimately to live up to their own God-given potentials.

Secretary Clinton went on to give specific examples and data illustrating the issues that Summit attendees hoped to offer specific, concrete actions to resolve.  She went on to note that her husband is fond of saying that "we don't have a person to waste" in this effort, and she added, "We certainly don't have a gender to waste."

The full text and video of Secretary Clinton's speech can be found at the US State Department's website.

After the speech, the high-level diplomats and delegates from all the APEC countries convened in a closed-door session to work out the details that would become the San Francisco Declaration. The key elements of the Declaration that are required for economic empowerment of women are:

• Access to capital;
• Access to markets;
• Building capacity and skills; and
• Promoting women in leadership positions.

All twenty-one nations represented at the Summit unanimously adopted the declaration.

I was not able to stay very long at the Summit, but I was able to attend one Plenary Session moderated by Tina Brown of The Daily Beast and Newsweek.  Also on the panel were Ilene Lang, President & CEO of Catalyst, a research and advisory firm that specializes in promoting women in business; Blanca Trevino, CEO of Softtek, a global Information Technololgy firm based in Mexico; Romi Haan, CEO of Haan Corporation, an appliance and beauty products company in South Korea; Susan Fleishman, Executive Vice President of Commincations for Warner Brothers Entertainment; and Cherie Blair, wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and founder of the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women.

The Plenary Session was called "Women at the Top: How Diverse Leadership Benefits Everyone." It featured a candid discussion among these high-powered women of issues surrounding workplace diversity, being a woman leader in male-dominated industries, and work-life balance for women. The panel enthusiastically endorsed nurturing a work-life balance to promote creativity and productivity in the workplace. Romi Haan noted that she didn't want workers who were just successful on the job, but "successful in life" as well.  On the need for work-life balance and the issue of childrearing, Blanca Trevino commented, "Someone can always fill in for you at a meeting, but no other mom can fill in for you to help your daughter get ready for her first date."

Cherie Blair's foundation is leading the way in impoverished nations in encouraging women-owned businesses and entrepreneurship.  Their approach is to offer women in developing nations the tools needed to start and maintain their own businesses through "confidence, capacity and capital".  One of the innovations her foundation has initiated is a Skype-based mentoring program for women in developing nations to be paired with successful women around the globe, so they are not limited to the resources available locally.

The week-long Summit featured a number of other plenary sessions and workshops with equally impressive leaders in discussions on how to solve some of the most pressing problems and opportunities of our time.  The message of the Summit was that in a time of global economic crisis and concern, women may be the key to unlocking a new era of prosperity. The underlying message was "when women are successful, the world benefits."

--Glennia

Photos by Glennia Campbell.  All Rights Reserved.

President Obama on Jobs (TODAY)

This is a long-overdue speech, one we've been waiting to hear.

We'll be watching online at the White House's enhanced "charts & stats" site.

Join us at 7pm ET, 4 pm PT.

Too Little Too Late (about Too Much Too Soon)

While the entire eastern seaboard was obsessed with Irene, Gretchen Morgenson wrote in the New York Times this weekend about the Federal Reserve efforts to save the financial sector during the Great Recession, at enormous cost to the taxpayers and little benefit to Main Street.  Talk about burying the lede!

Based on information generated by Freedom of Information Act requests and its longstanding lawsuit against the Federal Reserve board, Bloomberg reported that the Fed had provided a stunning $1.2 trillion to large global financial institutions at the peak of its crisis lending in December 2008.

The money has been repaid and the Fed has said its lending programs generated no losses. But with the United States economy weakening, European banks in trouble and some large American financial institutions once again on shaky ground, the Fed may feel compelled to open up its money spigots again. (emphasis added)

This is NOT the TARP money bailout that was publicly debated and ultimately Congressionally approved, but additional amounts of money that were lent by the Federal Reserve to large banks (including foreign banks) largely in secret and at minimal interest rates in order to make sure that these banks could meet their minimum liquidity requirements so as to avoid bankruptcy. 

2008 Redux?

Following Standard & Poor’s cutting its rating on US long-term debt late Friday from AAA to AA+, the US stock market fell significantly today: the Dow Jones industrial average had a one-day decline of more than 600 points (over 5 percent) and the Nasdaq dropped close to 200 points (nearly 7 percent).

Let's take a deep breath.  Some refreshers:

• S&P is only one of the three big credit ratings agencies.  The other two, Moody's and Fitch, did not downgrade US debt (though they did change their outlooks to "negative").  However, remember that the ratings agencies played a significant role in their overly optimistic ratings of structured debt securities which were instrumental in the 2008 crash.  It's arguable that having been caught with their pants down, S&P is reacting rashly in the opposite direction, seeing danger where there is none.  But ratings are as much a dart game as they are a science and have been called, among other things, "substandard and porous."
• However, because of the interconnectedness of the US financial sector, the downgrade of US debt will have (and has had) direct follow-on effects: specifically, the downgrade today of the debt of Fannie and Freddie Mac, and of DTCC, the central depository for United States securities, all of which rely significantly on the US government. 
• Downgrades are significant because many "safe" investment vehicles (such as money market funds and low risk pension funds) have mandated investment rules, which may include, for example, a rule that such funds invest only in AAA rated securities.  The downgrade of US debt (and subsequent downgrade of other US backed securities as well as the as-yet-unseen ancillary effects of the downgrade) may lead to massive sell-offs by these funds, fueled by nothing but their mandates.
• Despite all of the above, IF investors are genuinely worried about default by the US government (which is what a downgrade signals), then the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds should be soaring (because the likelihood that the US government will continue to honor its debt in 10 years should have just deteriorated significantly).  Instead, that interest rate has actually edged down today. 
• What happened today is generally being seen as a flight from securities to "safe havens" (which includes US Treasuries and gold, which broke all-time highs again today).
• The fear is most likely driven by a renewed sense that the global economic outlook is bleak.  Most are speculating that the continued deterioration of Eurozone sovereign debt is the main driver of this fear, but the botched debt deal (see below) and the S&P downgrade are likely contributing to an overall sense that a double dip is imminent.
• There is definitely an element of psychological fear in today's market gyrations.  Volatility, measured via the VIX (or fear index) was off the chart today.
• But in the end, it may be helpful to remember that the stock market is not the economy.

Even if the main driver for the market gyrations these past few days lies squarely in Europe, the US government is far from blameless.  There are real, grown-up ways to deal with the continued economic instability, and real steps that could have been taken to fortify our domestic economic situation while we brace for the inevitable from Europe.  And yet, Congress has consistently shied away from taking such steps over the past 3+ years.  One view, from the Economist:

[The US government's] prescription for a weak economy [through the debt deal] is a large slug of austerity. Thanks to the expiry of a payroll-tax credit and extended jobless benefits in December, the United States is on course for a fiscal contraction of some 2% of GDP next year, the biggest of any large economy—and enough to drag a weak economy into recession.

The debt deal, which implies only modest new spending cuts in the short term, is not directly responsible for this. But Congress could, and should, have stopped this potentially ruinous trajectory. There was a deal to be had: keep up spending in the short term, with a stress on much-needed infrastructure investment, as well as extending the temporary tax cuts, in exchange for a big medium-term reduction in the deficit, centred on entitlements and tax reform. Congress did precisely the opposite, failing to support the economy now and failing to find enough cuts over the next decade to stabilise America’s debt.

Worse, the poisonous politics of the past few weeks have created new sorts of uncertainty. Now that the tea-partiers have used default successfully as a political weapon, it will surely be used again. The refusal to compromise, rapidly becoming a point of honour for both parties, is wreaking damage ... At best, the politicians will have slowed a sputtering expansion; at worst they will have killed off the recovery and inflicted lasting harm on the world’s most impressive prosperity machine. (emphasis added)

Kady is back from a self-imposed sabbatical and may be persuaded to occasionally pop back on her other blog.

Michele Bachmann and Me

Michele Bachmann and I had lunch together. It's true! She even had these lovely Tea Party cookies!

OK, there were about 200 other people in the room, too. But we were both eating in the same place at the same time!

Bachmann was at the National Press Club and, as a member, I was lucky to snag a couple of tickets so Mr. PunditMom and I could see and hear the Tea Party powerhouse up close and personal. No, it's not our usual kind of date, but it is part of our theory on the importance of knowing what those on the other side of the political aisle are up to. So when one of them is in your 'hood, why not go?

Bachmann pretty much took the opportunity to give her standard stump speech -- raising the debt ceiling is bad, President Obama is bad, Ronald Reagan was a saint, Constitution, God, Americans are scared. You've heard it before.

But it was at the National Press Club. So that means questions that aren't planted or scripted. Heh.

Medicaid In Extremis

Three months ago the Republicans opened debate on the FY2012 budget when Rep. Paul Ryan released The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America’s Promise. In that plan, he proposed a remaking of Medicaid that would eviscerate the program’s core purpose: provide health care to the most vulnerable.

Many labor under the misconception that Medicaid is health benefit open to any low-income American. In reality, states are only required to cover impoverished children (including those in foster care), pregnant women, some disabled persons, some adults with dependent children, and the elderly. In fact, more than 2/3 of Medicaid spending pays for services for the disabled and elderly; children consume about 1/5 of the total funds with the rest going to adults.

Childless adults, even those with incomes far below the poverty line are not automatically eligible for Medicaid. Nor are the parents of Medicaid-eligible children automatically eligible for coverage. For example, in Alabama, parents’ incomes cannot exceed 24% of the federal poverty line – less than $5000 a year for a family of three. Eleven other states all have income eligibility well below the FPL.

To President Obama on the Drawdown from Afghanistan: Put Veterans to Work Through 'Troops to Teachers'

Tonight at 8 pm ET, President Obama will outline his plan to begin drawing down troops in Afghanistan.

Not only is this a fulfillment of his promise at his West Point 2010 speech to do so, it's long past time we pivot away from battlefields and commit our precious people-power and national spending priorities to the many economic troubles we have at home. The American people favor, by large margins, a return of our troops and an end to the occupation of Afghanistan: 64% believe that troop levels should be decreased and 73% believe "substantial" numbers of troops should be withdrawn starting this summer.

It's an undeniable fact that our veterans will be coming home to a weakened economy. How will we absorb them into a job market that can barely sustain the people here already searching for work? We've heard nothing but "austerity" talk from the GOP, and both tax cuts and job cuts -- yes, government jobs are also jobs -- from the Republican party. Clearly they have nothing to offer.

Bob Fertik over at the USA Jobs Party has a great suggestion: immediately hire 3 million teacher's aides to help in the classroom, and give 99ers (those who have been out of work longer than the 99 weeks covered by unemployment benefits) and veterans first crack at work as teacher's aides.

Supreme Court Tells Wal-mart Women to Go Home

The Supreme Court has told one and a half million women who work at Wal-mart, in essence, be grateful you have jobs even if you make less money and get promoted less than men. Now, shut up and go home.

That was the practical upshot of the ruling in the highly-watched case Dukes v. Wal-mart.

I used a similar phrase a short time ago when SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of the Texas cheerleader who was dismissed from her high school squad for refusing to cheer for the student who had allegedly raped her. The denial of SCOTUS upheld the message sent by the lower courts -- as a cheerleader, you're a hand-picked mouthpiece for the school's message, so you have to say what they tell you to say (even about your attacker) or get out.

Now, in the most activist judicial move I've seen in a long time, the Supreme Court dismissed the class action suit Dukes v. Wal-mart sending that same message to the women of Wal-mart by ruling that a class of 1.5 million plaintiffs was just too big for evidence of gender discrimination to be "common" to all of them -- one of the basic requirements in a class action lawsuit. Few legal watchers, including this one, were surprised at that outcome. But digging deeper into the 5-4 opinion penned by Antonin "the Constitution doesn't protect women against discrimination" Scalia, you'll find that Scalia turned a procedural case into the latest substantive attack on women.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: "We Need to Get Women Off the Sidelines"

The MOMocrats are unabashed fans of New York's junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. After all, she's one of us: a mother of two who not only understands how challenging it is to balance work and family, but also how policy decisions impact our lives every single day.

She is also understands technology and social media: her staff communicates regularly with progressive female bloggers (including several guest posts she's contributed to this site), and she even met with several of us at last summer's BlogHer conference in New York.

Gillibrand is committed to women's equality, which still does not exist in this country -- not when we still have a pay gap of 78 cents on the dollar. And not as long as women make up just 17% of the US Congress.

"Too many women are sitting on the sidelines today and ...they are not engaged…too many women think that politics doesn’t relate to them," Senator Gillibrand said on a conference call with women political bloggers yesterday, to announce her new online project: Off The Sidelines, a website with information and resources to help women find their political voice and participate -- as voters, as volunteers and as candidates for office.

This is a topic that is near and dear to our MOMocrat hearts, and dovetails nicely with our own mission to inform and provide a forum for mothers to share their stories and network for progressive candidates and causes.

Over the years, we've heard from several women who don't participate in the political process, because they don't feel they have enough information.. or time. And while this is understandable, it is one of the reasons women continue to fight the same battles over and over again.

"My view is that the women’s movement is truly stalled," Senator Gillibrand said. "Too many women don’t understand why we need them to get off the sidelines."

From the Off the Sidelines website: 

More women must get off the sidelines and make a difference in their community. Whether it's in the classroom, the boardroom, Congress or at home, it's crucial that more women adopt this philosophy to affect change in ways both big and small. Because if they don't, decisions will be made without them that they won't like the outcome of.

The Senator said she also feels that more women in Congress are the key to unlocking our current state of partisan gridlock, because females tend to be consensus builders and would be more willing to work in a bipartisan fashion.

Gillibrand pointed out that in the 91 years since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote, full equality won't be realized until women use that right. And she feels it's not only a civic duty -- it's a key to fixing the nation's economic woes.

"We can and will do more because we have to. Women are the solution to our challenges and the key to locking the full potential of our economy," she said.

 Amen.