Art this year is by the talented Sylvie Sovina.  You can see more of her paintings at warmasyellow.com.

Mama Care Fair is just around the corner – Monday, May 6^th.  POWER is seeking single individuals willing and able to give mamas a break for the evening to enjoy a hot meal, relaxation, and tlc.  In addition, we are seeking in-kind donations and services for the busy mamas to feel special.  Please call Patricia at 360-352-9716 if you are available to volunteer, shell out a few bucks for a gift certificate, cook, clean-up or provide a service to these lovely mamas or email at advocate@mamapower.org. 

We look forward to hearing from you.  Thank you for all that you do! 

Well there is a kind of a gold standard on human rights.  It’s the Universal Declaration in 1948.  Its important for American’s to understand the status of that declaration.  It was not a Western imposition.  It was arrived at by consensus over a very broad range, including input from elsewhere.  In fact, much of the initiative came from elsewhere.  Some from here, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular.  But it was agreed upon and affirmed by congress.  It has the highest legal status you can say. 

 It’s got three parts, all of equal status.  The first part is political and civil rights, so the right to vote and so on.  The second part is social and economic rights, and that includes the right to housing, the right to healthcare, the right to education.  All fundamental rights, and by world standards are easily as significant as voting rights.  Maybe more so.  The third section is cultural rights.  The right to preserve your culture, to protect it and so on. 

Well the U.S. attitude from the beginning has been to dismiss the third component, not even talk about it.  It’s never discussed.  And to reject the second component.  So U.S. officials have disparaged and dismissed the social and economic provisions.  That’s true especially under the Reagan and Bush One administrations. 

Jeane Kirkpatrick, the U.N. Ambassador under Reagan(1), just dismissed the socio-economic provisions with ridicule.  It’s a letter from Santa Clause.  That’s exactly the same as throwing out the civil and political rights and saying their nothing, just a lot of words. 

Paula Dobriansky(2) in the first Bush administration, she described social and economic rights as ‘a myth.’  That there are no such rights.  The only rights are civil and political rights, and it’s just a myth to think that these are rights. 

Morris Abram, who was the delegate to the international U.N. human rights group(3), they were debating something called the ‘right to development,’ which basically paraphrased the Universal Declaration.  He voted against it; I think the U.S. was the only country to vote against it, with, again, very disparaging remarks.  Saying it’s preposterous.  Incitement.  You can’t talk about social and economic rights.  They don’t exist.

So the U.S. has been one of the strongest opponents of social and economic rights, which is a core part, one-third, of the Universal Declaration.  Actually the U.S. is opposed to two-thirds since it doesn’t discuss the cultural rights.  We should know that our country is in the lead in undermining human rights.  That’s important, especially given the standard rhetoric from political leaders, intellectuals, media, and so on about how we defend human rights all over the world.  We don’t defend them at all in principle.  We defend them against enemies.  So we are all in favor of human rights in Easter Europe or Iran, and say that’s fine.  But not in our domain.  Not here.

Foreclosure is one case in point.  The right to housing is a core part of the Universal Declaration.  Its particularly obscene her, because in the foreclosure case these people were cheated.  They were cheated by the big banks, who created the crisis on the verge of criminality, some of them actually criminal.  They created the crisis; induced people to undertake obligations they couldn’t possibly fulfill, and are now throwing them out in the streets, even though congress legislated there should be assistance to the victims.

Notes:

1.    Jean Kirkpatrick was nominated by Reagan as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

2.    Paula Dobriansky has worked as a foreign policy expert in the administrations of five presidents in total, with her position ranging.  Her statements were made when acting as Secretary of State for Human Rights and Human Affairs, which she did for both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

3.    The official title for Morris Abram that is being referenced is Representative of the United States to the European Office of the United Nations, which he was appointed to be George H. W. Bush.  He served from 1989-1993.

4.    The date of this interview was 10/26/12.

This interview was a part of the larger documentary Expect Resistance, which chronicles the Take Back the Land and Occupy movements in the context of Rochester, NY.

Learn more about the film here.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Expect-Resistance-A-Documentary-on-Housing-Defense-and-Liberation/131551616928675

Click here to send a note to your state legislators urging them to act quickly to support HB 1457 - the FMLI bill - and move it to the House floor for a vote!

http://action.momsrising.org/go/2715?t=5&akid=3947.2021117.Z_jXNZ

Together we’ve made some great progress on HB 1457 - the FMLI bill - this session. We’ve had several MomsRising members testify about the need for FMLI, we delivered stuffed storks and story books about FMLI to legislators and we’ve sent hundreds of emails in support of this common sense, family-friendly policy.  Thanks to all of your work, we got the bill passed out of the House Labor and Workforce Development Committee.

Now we’ve got to get across the next hurdle – out of committees and headed to the House floor for a vote – by the end of the week!

Urge your legislators to act quickly to support FMLI and schedule it for a full House vote! 

http://action.momsrising.org/go/2715?t=7&akid=3947.2021117.Z_jXNZ

Why is FMLI so important?

Paid family leave gives kids a healthier start. It gives families the economic security they need to stay out of poverty at a critical time. It can even benefit businesses’ bottom line.  This saves everyone--from parents to taxpayers to businesses--money in the long-run. 

That's right.  Studies show that paid family leave after the birth of a child combats poverty, gives children a healthy start, lowers infant mortality by more than 20% [2] and helps lower the wage gap between women and men. [3] 

Yet, in the United States, only 49% of mothers are able to cobble together paid leave following childbirth by using sick days, vacation days, disability leave, and maternity leave. And 51% of new mothers lack any paid leave -- so some take unpaid leave, some quit, some even lose their jobs just when they need them most. [4] No wonder having a baby is a leading cause of "poverty spells" in our nation! 

In addition, a number of studies have shown that maternity leave has a positive impact on how long women breastfeed and thus on the long-term health of the child and mother.  This is important because major medical authorities recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for their first six months because of significant health benefits for both mother and child. Despite the government's Healthy People 2010 breastfeeding goals, only 13.6% of U.S. infants are exclusively breastfeeding and only 43% are breastfeeding at all at six months of age. [5] Recently the U.S. Surgeon General called paid family leave policies important for families and babies’ health – linking the ability of new moms to take paid leave to increased rates of breastfeeding.  [6]   

Paid family leave isn’t just good for families – it also benefits employers.  A recent study of the California Paid Leave program showed that most employers found that the Paid Family Leave had a positive effect on productivity, profitability/performance, turnover and employee morale. [7] In addition, paid family leave helps level the playing field for many small businesses which wouldn't normally be able to afford leave since the majority of legislative proposals for paid family are paid for by small employee paycheck deductions and NOT by businesses.  It's a win-win. 

But while 177 other countries have some form of paid leave for new moms after the birth of a child, the U.S. isn't one of them, an omission that sets up our families for failure. [8] 

*Send a quick note – right now – to your state legislators and urge them to bring the FMLI bill forward for a full House Vote!

http://action.momsrising.org/go/2715?t=9&akid=3947.2021117.Z_jXNZ

*And please forward this email to at least three friends in Washington State who you think might take action too.

Together we’re a more powerful voice for women and families.

-Kristin, Ruth, Sarah, and the while MomsRising team

P.S. Can you take a moment to share your experiences with family leave (or your experiences with a lack of family leave)? What did you--or your friends or family members--do when a new child arrived? http://action.momsrising.org/go/662?t=11&akid=3947.2021117.Z_jXNZ

Each month the Heartsparkle Players invite a guest artist, community organization, arts program or social service agency to be a part of their performance.  Through this collaboration they acknowledge and honor the work individuals and organizations do in our community.  The Olympia FOR is delighted to collaborate with Heartsparkle Players for March.  Playback Theatre is a spontaneous collaboration between performers and audience.  People tell moments from their lives, then watch them re-created with movement, music and dialogue.  Tonight, in addition to the regular interactive performance, the Olympia FOR also honors Ruth Lipow, Ramona Hinkle, Cindy Corrie, and Jody Mackey.  7:30 pm at Traditions Café, 300-5^th Ave SW (& Water Street), in downtown Olympia).  A $5-$10 donation is requested, but Heartsparkle never turns anyone away for not donating.  Info:  www.heartsparkle.org  and Debe 943-6772  Info about Olympia FOR:  Glen(360) 491-9093 info@olympiafor.org  www.olympiafor.org

Greg Kaufmann on February 19, 2013

The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program was created by what is commonly referred to as “welfare reform” in 1996. It replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as the program through which some low-income families are able to receive cash assistance.

With TANF authorization expiring at the end of March and needing to be renewed (and hopefully improved)—and over 46 million people still living below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four—here are ten things you should know about the program:

1) There is no cash entitlement program for people living in poverty in the United States. States (including Washington, DC), the tribes and the territories have wide discretion, so there are more than fifty different TANF systems in the country.

2) Most people in poverty do not receive cash assistance. In 1996, for every 100 families with children in poverty, there were 68 families who accessed cash assistance. In 2011, for every 100 families with children in poverty, 27 accessed cash assistance.

3) Over the last sixteen years, the number of people receiving TANF cash assistance has declined by 60 percent, even as poverty and deep poverty—people living below half the poverty line—have increased.

4) TANF is reaching fewer children. In 1995, AFDC kept more than 2.2 million poor children—over 62 percent of all poor children—out of deep poverty. In 2005, TANF lifted just 21 percent of children who would otherwise be in deep poverty, or just 650,000 kids.

5) The cash benefit is less than 50 percent of the poverty line in every state—so less than $9,000 for a family of three—and less than 30 percent of the poverty line in most states, or less than $5,500 annually for a family of three.

6) The TANF block grant has been frozen since 1996 so its value in real terms has declined by over 30 percent. Congress also recently failed to fund the Supplemental Grants for seventeen poorer states that had received them since 1996, reducing the overall funding of these high-poverty states by as much as 10 percent.

7) The “work participation rate” is a failed measure that stifles effective career pathways. The federal government rewards or penalizes states based on whether TANF recipients are doing “countable activities,” with no assessment as to whether those activities lead to employment entry, job retention, advancement or poverty reduction. So sweeping a county garage might be an approved activity, while post-secondary education leading to a wage that supports a family may not be permitted at all, or only for a limited number of recipients.

8) The work participation rate discourages states from serving the most “needy” families that have multiple barriers to employment—such as physical or mental health limitations, a child with a health problem or an experience with domestic violence—even though these are the people with the most to gain from employment assistance. The priority is serving people who are able to meet the work requirements with little or no assistance.

9) The TANF Emergency Fund placed more than 260,000 low-income adults and youth in paid jobs at the height of the recession. Thirty-seven states participated in this public-private partnership, and it earned bipartisan support from governors. But Congress allowed it to expire in September 2010.

10) A weak TANF has contributed to a rise in deep poverty. The number of people living in deep poverty has risen from 12.6 million in 2000 to 20.4 million people today. This includes over 15 million women and children—9.8 percent of all children.

New York, NY—February 13, 2013

In yesterday’s State of the Union address, President Obama called for an increase in the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour and for making high quality early education available to every child.  If enacted, these proposals could significantly improve economic security for workers and families who struggle to get by on low wages, and help young children along the pathway to higher school achievement and a more productive adult life.

Low-wage work has grown much more common in the U.S. than in peer high-income countries.  Within the U.S., low-wage work is more common for women than for men, and is especially common for single mothers.  Women, who have much higher poverty rates than men, are the majority of those who would potentially benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage, now $7.25 an hour.  A $9.00 an hour minimum wage would lead to higher wages for millions of workers and their families.

High quality early childhood education improves children’s school performance, raises graduation rates, and puts children on the path to good adult jobs.  Publicly-funded early education also makes it easier for parents to hold a job without paying exorbitant child care costs.  In peer countries, publicly-funded early education is now typically available to all children ages 3 and 4.  However, in the U.S., only about 40% of 4 year-olds and 20% of 3 year-olds are now enrolled in an early education
program.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama also praised the Senate’s passage earlier in the day of a bipartisan Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill, and urged the House to also pass a VAWA reauthorization bill. The Senate reauthorization bill aims to reduce domestic violence homicides and to extend public housing protections to survivors of sexual assault, while reaffirming and deepening VAWA's longstanding commitment to protecting all survivors, including those who are LGBT, Native American or immigrants.  Legal Momentum applauds the Senate's action and the President's call for the House to pass a reauthorization bill.

About Legal Momentum
Legal Momentum is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 1970 to advance the rights of women by using the power of the law and creating innovative public policy in three broad areas: economic justice, freedom from gender-based violence and equality under the law.  For more information visit www.legalmomentum.org

January 22, 2013

A new study looks at the big imbalance between the percentages of income that the rich and poor pay in taxes here.

By John Stang

A new study confirms that Washington's poorest pay a bigger percentage of their incomes in taxes than the state's wealthiest residents.

The state's poorest 20 percent pay 9 percent of their personal incomes in state and local taxes, compared to payments of just 2 percent for the richest 20 percent — 4.5 times greater percentage-wise, said Lorrie Brown, an economist with the Washington Office of Financial Management's forecasting division.

People in the 20 percent above the bottom 20 percent pay 2.5 times more percentage-wise of their annual incomes than the wealthiest 20 percent. A major factor in this disparity is that Washington's lower-income citizens pay a significant portion of the state's "sin taxes" such as for liquor and cigarettes, Brown said.

Brown briefed the Washington House's Finance Committee Monday on her division's recent study on how wealth and taxes are distributed among the state's households.

Twenty percent of the state's households owned 80 percent of Washington's wealth, she said. That includes seven billionaires whom Forbes magazine estimated are collectively worth $111 billion. The  top 5 percent owned about half of the state's wealth. That next 20 percent owned 14 percent of Washington's wealth in 2009, the latest year that numbers are available. The majority of the income in the wealthiest segments came from investments .

By contrast, the poorest 20 percent owned minus 0.6 percent of the state's wealth — which is possible because they have lost assets, Brown said.

Switching to annual income, 20 percent of the people earned 54.8 percent of all of Washington's annual incomes. The poorest 20 percent earned 1.6 percent of the state's annual incomes in 2009.

The OFM report said local property taxes are the biggest tax burden on Washington households, with sales taxes sightly behind. However, the amount of state and local taxes per $1,000 of a person's income has been shrinking since 1997. The 1997 figure was roughly $115 per $1,000 of personal income, while the 2010 figures was roughly $95 in local and state taxes per $1,000 in personal income. Meanwhile, taxes collected per individual Washington resident increased until 2007, when they began to shrink as well.

In the 1990s, state taxes hit an individual taxpayer more than local taxes. Today, that split is somewhat near 50-50.

Washington ranked 42nd out of 50 states in local and state taxes with about 8 percent of the state's gross domestic product collected in taxes.

Also Monday, Kriss Sjoblem, vice president for the business-oriented Washington Research Council, told the committee that businesses paid 56.6 percent of the state and local taxes collected in 2011 for Washington.

Meanwhile, Andrew Nicholas, a senior fiscal analyst for the liberal-leaning Washington State Budget & Policy Center, said capital gains from investments bounce back quickly from recessions. From the dotcom bust of 2001 to the economic peak of 2007, capital gains income grew 21 percent annually, compared to 5 percent yearly growth in retail sales in Washington, he said.

Finance Committee member Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama, pointed out that Nicholas' capital gains figures do not include calculations for the current recession.

Some Democrats have floated a trial balloon of a new capital gains tax to help deal with the state's budget woes, but Republicans and Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee have declared they won't support any new taxes.

John Stang is a longtime Inland Northwest newspaper reporter who recently earned a Masters of Communications in Digital Media degree at the University of Washington. He can be reached by writing editor@crosscut.com.

POWER Members Chose 3 Legislative Priorities This Year

1. Undo 2011 budget cuts to TANF. 

TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) is governmental aid to families with low or no incomes to ensure that children have basic necessities. In 2011 the cash grant was already at 60% below the Federal Poverty Level, $440 a month for a single parent and her child.  After the 15% cut to TANF, a parent and child receive only $385 a month.  This has created tremendous suffering amongst families in Washington State. This is not the way to balance a budget.  Restore the TANF grant to pre-2011 levels.  

 Another cruel budget cut to TANF was to remove the federally allowed exemptions to the 5-year time limit.  Until 2011, if a family was who doing everything they could to find a job did not lose their cash assistance. Removing those exemptions left over 17,000 children in families with an income of only food stamps.  More families join these ranks each month.  Since 2011, homelessness among children has increased by 2%, 4% for adults.  Foster care placements have increased by 1%.  These cuts to TANF are tearing families apart and hurting children.  Restore federally allowed exemptions to the 5-year TANF time limit.

2. Increase access to college for TANF recipients.  Currently one year of higher education is allowed as part of the welfare to work plan for Washington TANF recipients.  This does not even allow for access to an Associates Degree, which would statistically increases annual incomes by 24%, also increasing tax payments an average of $2,000 per year for each individual attaining an Associates degree.

 A 4-year degree increases annual incomes by 65% and a median return of $5,000 more in annual tax payments.  Removing the one-year limit on higher education for TANF recipients would realize positive benefits for all involved, parents, children and the state.

(Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. New York, NY: College Board.)

3. Cut Corporate Welfare.  The poor, young, old and disabled members or our state are tired of shouldering the burden of our unfair and imbalanced tax system.  Despite corporation’s massive wealth they receive billions of dollars in tax cuts and subsidies, using this extra profit to pour back into lobbying that keeps their financial benefits. We call on Washington State to join other municipal governments in opposing corporate personhood and corporate welfare, as well as closing tax loopholes.

A White House Meeting With Low-Income Americans

Greg Kaufmann on January 8, 2013

Throughout these budget talks, the Obama administration has projected an image that it is open to good ideas from anyone, and interested in the prosperity of everyone.

So Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein had his day at the White House along with thirteen other corporate heads. The same is true for a group of small-business owners as well as some labor leaders and progressive groups. And certainly President Obama has surrounded himself with middle-class families throughout these fiscal negotiations.

But there is an omission from the president’s rounds—one that is all the more glaring since this group of people is arguably more vulnerable than anyone to any final budget decisions: low-income Americans who are struggling to climb up from the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

When is their White House meeting? Where is their place at the table?

Surely, this Administration wants to send a message that this White House is open to all Americans. More importantly, it no doubt recognizes that lower-income Americans are working just as hard at their jobs, trying just as hard to create opportunities for their children, and wanting just as much to improve their communities, as are Americans who have more resources.

It is one thing for the president to meet with advocates—and I have the greatest respect for antipoverty advocates and believe in the depth of their knowledge and the ideas they have to offer. But giving lower-income people the opportunity to tell their own stories—in their own words—can lead to insights and ideas that aren’t necessarily reached through secondhand accounts, and rarely permeate the inside-the-beltway bubble.

As we move into the next phase of fiscal talks, vital programs like Social Security, Medicaid, housing, Head Start, childcare, energy assistance, and nutrition aid for pregnant women and children will all be debated. This is the moment for the president to demonstrate that he is reaching out to all Americans, not just those with political clout.

President Obama and America should be hearing directly, for example, from restaurant workers, janitors and home care workers who are working full-time but still need food stamps or Medicaid.

From single mothers who are working one or two jobs but can’t find decent, affordable childcare or a pathway out of poverty.

From people who have found stability and new opportunities through a housing voucher, or turned their lives around through a job training program.

From parents and children who gain new opportunities through Head Start, and families who recover from domestic violence through transitional programs.

Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, notes that Republican “attacks that disparage or demonize programs for low-income and vulnerable Americans may escalate in the weeks ahead” in an effort to justify deep cuts. I’m sure those attacks won’t be limited to the programs, but will also target the people who participate in them.

One way to break through the stereotypes, the demonization, the noise, is by simply giving people the opportunity to tell their own stories—and by the president making it clear that he won’t stand idly by as people are slandered during a budget debate.

Some will say that a White House meeting with low-income Americans won’t have any effect on a final deal, and they might be right. Or maybe it would have a ripple effect that is impossible to anticipate.

Either way, people having a place at the table matters—especially for people who are regularly treated as less than by the media, their employers, and politicians.

President Obama has a real opportunity to demonstrate to the country and to Congress that in his vision for America, everyone has a voice, and everyone is worth fighting for.