Sept. 29, 2014

Blackonomics
The Black Power Conundrum
By James Clingman

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did and never will.”  I often wonder what Black people do not understand about that statement.  We love to quote it, but when it comes to putting it into practice we fall far short of the spirit of Douglass’ words.  Maybe Douglass should have added this caveat: A demand is nothing without power to back it up.

In response to incidents of injustice we are quick to resort to the same old tactics directed by leaders who sell us out.  They tell us, as our President told the Congressional Black Caucus a few years ago: "Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes," and hit the streets chanting and singing in an effort to show our discontent.

We gather in churches and listen to fiery speeches; we hold press conferences and show our disdain for the system and its oppressive behavior toward Black people.  We offer milquetoast solutions to the worst of crimes against us.  For instance, in Ferguson, Missouri, Al Sharpton advised us to stop having “ghetto pity parties.”  John Lewis called for martial law in Ferguson. (I am still trying to figure how he thinks implementing martial law, which has the power to suspend civil rights, is the answer to a problem he and others consider to be a suppression of civil rights.)  Other iconic leaders say the problems in Ferguson can be solved simply by “voting.”

Tepid solutions offered by our “leaders” do absolutely nothing to change our situation, because there is no power behind them.  Demands sound great and make for good photo opportunities and press conferences, but they fall on deaf ears because they have no power backing them up.  Thus, the conundrum of so-called Black power.  We know that power concedes nothing without a demand, but a demand not backed by real power gets no concessions.

In their quest to be important, many of our leaders are, as a comedian once said, “Impotent,” which only exacerbates our collective situation and keeps us running like a hamster inside a wheel—going nowhere.

What we hear and see from some of our leaders is shameful and insulting to Black people.  Instead of, or even in addition to, putting forth their weak responses to killings on all levels, they should also offer strategies based on economic power.  That’s where the issue will be solved, but we are woefully inadequate when it comes to implementing economic sanctions that will bring real change.

Some of the local leaders in Ferguson understand the power of economics and have been promoting solutions thereof, but they had to take a backseat to the fly-in crowd, toward whom the media gravitated.  Now that things have calmed down and the opportunists have left Ferguson, the folks who live there, along with continued collaboration with young advocates for economic solutions, can work together.

It is sad to see Black “powerbrokers” strut to the microphones and threaten folks, only to walk away with their proverbial tails between their legs, having received absolutely no concessions from the establishment.   Rather than contenders, these folks are pretenders; and rather than powerbrokers, they are really “power-broke.”   The conundrum of today’s notion of Black power resides in false bravado and impotence.

Anheuser Busch (A-B), Radisson, and Nike withdrew their economic support from the NFL.  They know exactly where power resides: in dollar bills, y’all.  They wielded their power immediately to show their “outrage” about domestic and child abuse.

A-B, domiciled in St. Louis, said, “We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code.”  A-B took serious action against child abuse in Adrian Peterson’s case, but did nothing in response to Michael Brown’s abuse that occurred in their back yard.  Did that go against their “moral code”?

Apparently Nike was not outraged by Eric Garner, Ezell Ford, and John Crawford, being “abused.”  Pardon me, but isn’t abuse—no matter the form—still abuse?   Pepsi Cola CEO, Indra Nooyi, spoke against the NFL but voiced no indignation about Marlene Pinnock’s abuse on a California highway?  Hypocrisy abounds in reactions to Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, as with Michael Vick and his abuse of dogs, for heaven’s sake.  Dogs!  But those company execs and others fail to speak out and use their economic clout to put a stop to the abuse of their Black consumers by police officers because we have no power behind our demands.

Folks with power are not reluctant to use it to punish those who do not operate in their best interests.  Black power has been reduced to calling for and falling for voting rallies and worn out speeches laced with demands not backed up by any real power at all.

Sept.  28, 2014

Reality Check

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Once again the American press is allowing chicken hawks and armchair warriors to rant about the U.S. going to war in the Middle East without asking them one very basic question. That question is whether a single son, grandson, brother, sister, niece, or nephew of the trash-talking warmongers will actually fight to defend the national security of the U.S., which they insist is under imminent threat from evildoers.

That should be one of the first questions asked of any politician, think tank or talk show host who clamors for war. Giant-sized chicken hawks sophomoric Sean Hannity, pompous Sen. Lindsey Graham and Vietnam War evader, Dick Cheney, and members of their families, should be among the first to sign up militarily to confront  ferocious enemies of the U.S. if they really believe that national security is at stake.

If they don’t sign up, it’s not being unreasonable to conclude that they don’t believe what they are shouting at every opportunity. If they do believe it, yet are unprepared to put their lives on the line in combat to destroy the haters of “freedom and liberty,” then they are hypocritical cowards who happily advocate war from their comfortable homes and offices while the sons and daughters of working class and low income families are being killed and maimed in wars of choice.

Their refusal to fight in wars they so ardently promote brings to mind an astounding and revealing observation attributed to General William C. Westmoreland in a 1993 issue of The Richmond Times-Dispatch. After reading it, I wrote the following in a column for Ray Boone’s Richmond Free Press:

“At a forum on the Vietnam War at Hampden-Sydney College, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, who commanded troops in the war from 1964 to 1968, was quoted as saying ‘In the scope of history, Vietnam is not going to be a big deal. It won’t float to the top as a major endeavor.’

One wonders how relatives of the nearly 60,000 soldiers killed in Vietnam feel about Gen. Westmoreland’s statement. In the 1960s and 1970s, we were told it was a big deal and a major endeavor.”

One wonders if some 30 years from now one of today’s commanding generals will describe the wars of choice in Iraq, Afghanistan and, now, Syria as being no big deal or major endeavor in the scope of history. Despite the fact that many thousands of people, including American military personnel, have been killed or maimed in them.

One also wonders if any member of the so-called mainstream press will be bold and honest enough to ask one of the rabid warmongers if a member of his or her family is now or ever will be fighting to protect national security that they are consistently squealing about.

Sept. 28, 2014

(TriceEdneyWire) —These past few weeks as our nation is fighting evil forces abroad, we’ve been so consumed by males gone wild, mainly athletes and police, that it’s easy to forget to acknowledge accomplishments of women and how, instead of acting like renegade thugs, women have and are still serving and protecting our country in many ways. The National Congress of Black Women, recently added to the number of things we do to make a difference in our community a committee to advocate for women veterans, with the hope of influencing public policy that will improve the quality of life for Black Women who served.

Recently I spoke for a rally on the Equal Rights Amendment. I heard women veterans speak out about how they’re treated once they leave the military.  We’ve already heard a lot about how they’re treated in the military.  I heard a Black female retiree talk about being homeless for 10 years after serving to keep us safe. Our nation failed her when she came home.

Several ex-military women told stories of the neglect of women in the military and after they leave. I’d heard some of these stories from one of our members, and decided it was time for us to do more. We formed a Veterans Committee to help women and their families.

Our committee acts as a catalyst for positive public policy and civic engagement. Our goal is work with legislators, community leaders and others to affect public policy for the good of Black women who’ve served in our armed forces.  As Black women come to be treated better, so will other women. That’s the way it’s always been. Think about the Civil Rights Movement. Our ancestors fought for our rights, but often others benefit more than we have.

Black females are represented in higher numbers in the military than in the civilian sector. Some see the military as an equal opportunity employer due to the fact that we typically earn less than others with the same level of education in the civilian labor force. Although, there’s been a sharp decline in enlistment over the past 10 years, some Black women have been able to reach powerful ranks that might suggest that structural barriers to the inclusion of Black women in the military are crumbling; modern policies send a different message.

As evidenced by recent military bans on certain hairstyles, there’s an overarching climate of bias that can be harmful to Black women. The stress experienced by Black females in the military may be a function of race, ethnicity, gender, class, rank, and/or varying degrees of resilience to bias against any of these identities. Though Black veterans are less likely to be screened for mental health problems, research has found that 43 percent of Black veterans suffer from PTSD and about 1 in 5 women experience Military Sexual Trauma (MST).

Women of all racial and ethnic groups report experiencing sexual harassment. Women in the military are specifically at risk for PTSD and other mental and physical health disorders.  Black women in the military are routinely exposed to sexualized harassment and exploitation—more than other women.

In growing numbers, Black women are entering the armed forces, and putting their lives on the line to serve our country. Some have died. Some have sacrificed their mental health. Of the 150,000 women who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, 23 percent are Black.

PTSD is a severe anxiety disorder that can develop after experiencing an event that results in psychological trauma. Many soldiers, especially Black women, are experiencing PTSD at alarming rates, and worse, our nation is ill-equipped to assist them in their struggle.  This must change, and it behooves us to seek to change this. Talk to your representatives about doing so.

(Dr. E. Faye Williams is President/CEO of the National Congress of Black Women. www.nationalcongressbw.org.)

Sept. 29, 2014

African-Americans Less Ready to Retire
By Julianne Malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - When the Federal Reserve Board issued its Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF), its findings were not surprising.  The report, which is issued every three years, reflected the improved economic conditions since 2010, when the Great Recession was at its peak.  The unemployment rate, though unevenly distributed, has dropped, and income and wealth have increased for some groups, but dropped for those at the bottom.  Median wealth of African Americans and Latinos (grouped together by SCF reporting) fell from $21,000 to $18,100 while white wealth grew from $139,900 to $142,000.   Just under half of all African Americans own homes, compared to nearly 70 percent of whites, and housing value represents the largest portion of net worth for middle income families.   When some of these SCF findings are combined with what we know about pensions and retirement preparedness, the unfortunate conclusion is that African Americans are less ready to retire than whites (but better prepared than Latinos).

Sixty-two percent of African American households and 69 percent of Latino households have not one penny saved for retirement, along 37 percent of whites.  When there are savings, they have been paltry – the average household has just $12,000 saved.  As a result, many predict a “retirement crisis” and increasing poverty among the elderly.  Some say they will avoid poverty by continuing to work, perhaps for all of their lives.  Given the incidence of illness and disability among the elderly, projections for lifetime work may be unrealistic.

Some older people, but increasingly fewer, will receive pensions; with the most steady being employer-funded pensions.  Other forms of retirement savings, including 401-4 or IRA savings are less reliable forms of retirement income.  Because African Americans are more likely than others to work for governments, they will receive pensions that will have cost-of-living adjustments each year, but some states and some cities have put pensions on the chopping block when they experience fiscal crises.  When Detroit faced a manufactured economic crisis, for example, pension cuts were proposed as one of the ways to achieve economic balance.  Tellingly, more that 60 percent of these pensioners were African American.  Even more appallingly, financially troubled municipalities saw Detroit case as a forerunner of their own attempts to reduce their pension obligations.

In any case 81 percent of all public employees have an employer-sponsored pension plan, compared to 52 percent of private employees.  Overall, 62 percent of whites have pensions of any kind, compared to 54 percent of African Americans and 36 percent of Latinos.  Those numbers will drop as fewer employers offer pensions, and as the number of self-employed and part-time workers increases.

This means that African Americans and Latinos will find Social Security income an essential part of retirement income. According to Paul Van de Water of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Social Security represents 90 percent or more of income for 35 percent of Whites, 42 percent of Asian Americans, 49 percent of blacks and 55 percent of Hispanics.

The retirement data is reflective of much of what we know about income, wealth, and economic progress.   Some will suggest that this economist has, in the past year, has written inconclusively about economic data.  That’s because the data has been inconclusive overall, but almost entirely negative for African Americans, especially those on the bottom.  Even the best-off African Americans, those with college degrees and six-figure incomes, experienced wealth disparities, and have lower savings than similarly situated whites.  Unfortunately many at the bottom spend like middle-income people, with incomes so low that such spending contributes to debt.

Meanwhile, Consumer Reports says that based on current economic conditions, consumers are ready to spend.  Nearly one in eight has purchased a home, nearly half plan home improvements, and one in four say they are ready to make life changes by marrying or having children.  More than half plan to purchase small electronics, and many are poised to purchase larger electronics.   When these spenders are African American, the best way they can guarantee a financially stable retirement is to jog past the big box stores and head straight to the bank to set up, or add to, a retirement account.

Julianne Malveaux is an author and economist based in Washington, DC