Using Pen Power for Working People by Julianne Malveaux

March 16, 2014

Using Pen Power for Working People

By Julianne Malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - During his State of the Union address, President promised to use the power of his pen to achieve the policy objectives that Congress continues to block. After advocating fairness and being rebuffed by Congress, the President chose to use the power of his pen to require federal contractors to pay workers at least $10.10 per hour, or $21.800 per year. That puts a single parent with two children below the poverty line.

Now the President is using the power of his pen to ensure that workers receive overtime pay. Currently the only workers required to receive overtime pay are those who earn $445 a week, about $11 an hour or $23,000 per year. The President has proposed that that amount be raised to somewhere between $550 and $970 a year. Splitting the difference means that those who earn about $760 a week or $39,500 a year would be entitled to overtime.

Already the business lobby has said that both a higher minimum wage and mandatory overtime cuts into their profits. Already they have talked about cutting the number of workers they will employ, and the number of hours they will employ people. These greedy corporate giants fail to note that while wages and salaries for the top one percent soared by nearly a third in the past three tears, the wages of those in the remaining 99 percent rose by a fraction of one percent in three years. A worker earning $30,000 a year saw her wages rise to $30,300; someone earning $300,000 a year saw his wages rise to $396,000.

Clearly, those who earn $30,300, if not poor, are a stone’s throw away from poverty. These are the folks who struggle from paycheck to paycheck, who make decisions about whether to buy their children new shoes or pay the cable bill. These folks aren’t trying to purchase luxuries, and they aren’t looking for handouts. They just want to live decently, with enough food on the table, with bills paid, and with a little breathing room. These are folks who don’t take vacations. Luxury for them may mean a couple of days off to visit neighborhood parks. Summertime, when the living is easy for children, may be a burden to those parents who can’t afford childcare.

With his effort to reduce income inequality and improve the lives of those at least the President is moving in the right direction. Unfortunately he can’t get enough members of congress to follow, because they are committed to obstructionism. Aren’t there poor people in these republican districts? Are they willing to sacrifice the well being of their constituents to hold fast to party principles? Researchers should look at the levels of poverty in each Congressional district and shame these miscreants into doing the right thing.

Republicans forget, and some Democrats fail to argue, that increasing the economic well being of those at the bottom improves the nation’s economic status. Those at the bottom will use added wages to pay bills, to buy some of the things they've put off purchasing, to pump money into the economy. In contrast, those at the top are likely to save their money or invest it, failing to spend enough to trickle down their spending to benefit those at the bottom.

It is said that a rising tide lifts all boats. But some folks are riding a luxury yacht, while others are struggling to survive on a raft. The rising tides argument only works for those at those at the top who have seen their wages grow dramatically. Those at the bottom are barely floating on a tottering raft that has dozens of holes, as evidenced by their small pay increases, low wages, and lack of overtime.

To the extent that President Obama has the power of the pen he can both improve the lives of those at the bottom, but also remind us of the meaning go fair labor standards. This is a conversation our nation has not had in awhile. We have been content to let the wages of those at the bottom continue to drift downward, while using tax policy and fiction (rising tide) to enrich those at the top. What does it take to sensitize those at the top to the plight of those at the bottom? The Occupy movement looks better by the day.

Julianne Malveaux is an economist and author.

What Do You Expect? by Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq.

March 16, 2014

What Do You Expect?
By Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq.

williams2

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – Although I am selective about the movies I watch, I have always appreciated a good motion picture. Among my favorite movies are the biblical epics of my youth. When combined with the, then, newly developed CinemaScope projection process, with the exception of all white casts, these biblical movies gave new meaning and brought stories of the Bible to life. Like the Bible, these movies told ancient stories, but also brought a practical understanding of events in everyday life.

“The Robe,” “Samson and Delilah,” “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” and “Ben Hur” were some of the movies that I really enjoyed. If I had to narrow my choice to one favorite of these biblical movies, I would probably choose “The Ten Commandments.” This choice is not based on Charlton Heston being a favorite actor. Instead, the depiction of the emergence of a downtrodden race from slavery through the challenges of learning to be free had a deep and intrinsic personal appeal.

In the Ten Commandments movie, the late Edward G. Robinson, was cast as the villainous Dathan. Like Moses and the rest of the slaves, Dathan was a Hebrew who, along with his brother, Abiram belonged to a group in Egypt and in the wilderness who were purposed to impose obstacles to the goals of God and Moses. Wikipedia describes their activities thusly: “they did not cease their hostility to Moses, and opposed his first endeavor to deliver Israel. It was Abiram and Dathan who were the immediate cause of the bitter reproaches made to Moses and Aaron…Dathan and Abiram tried to induce the people at the Red Sea to return; and in the failure of this attempt, they made an effort, through disregard of Moses' commands, to incite the people against their leader… they were impertinent and insulting in their speech to Moses, who, in his modesty and love of peace, went to them himself in order to dissuade them from their pernicious designs.”

Upon reflection, the well-acted movie depiction of Dathan and the well-written Wikipedia description of his activities led to the realization that the same seditious behaviors run rampant and viciously among the current crop of national Republican leaders. Since the beginning of his first term in office, Republicans have been purposed to thwart any goal of President Obama, even if it mirrored Republican objectives.

“Our principle goal is to make him a one-term President!” “You lie!” “He was born in Kenya!” “His birth certificate is a forgery!” “He’s just a community organizer!” “He’s not a legitimate President!” “He’s anti-American!” “He’s a communist!” “He’s a socialist!” “He hates white people!” These are just a miniscule number of insults that President Obama has had to endure during his five years in office. And “they were impertinent and insulting in their speech.”

The latest tirade of insults comes on the heels of Russia’s invasion of the Crimean region of the Ukraine. In my entire life, I have not heard the words “weak and feckless” uttered as many times in the same breath as in the last week. Although Russia made a similar illegal incursion into the European country of Georgia during the Bush years, Republicans now declare that the policies of the Obama Administration have led to this style of adventurism. According to them, because of President Obama’s diminished persona, the US is no longer respected in the world community.

I am not the wisest person in the world, but I do know that if Republican opponents place political one-upmanship above national security and choose to degrade the twice-elected President in the public domain, it is impossible to expect his natural adversaries to respect him anymore than is demonstrated here at home. Unapologetically, I ask: “What do you expect?!?”

(Dr. E. Faye Williams, is Chair of the National Congress of Black Women, Inc. (202) 678-6788. www.nationalcongressbw.org)

African Hearts Swell at Lupita Nyong'O's Oscar Prize

March 10, 2014

African Hearts Swell at Lupita Nyong'O's Oscar Prize

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from Global Informational News

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – The chatter on social media sites was off the charts as the Oscar choice for best supporting actress was named – the luminescent Lupita Nyong’o - for her role in the Hollywood feature “12 Years a Slave.”

Nigerian journalist Bim Adewunmi, writing in The Guardian, was one of many Africans covering the long night of prizes and accolades and who would witness Nyong’o at the moment of her victory and feel the chills of the much-deserved award.

Adewunmi recalled the moment: “She never had that look of being cowed or over-awed by all the pomp and pageantry. Dazzled, sure (who wouldn't be?), but never looking out of place with it. There was always a confidence, borne out by her wonderful and gracious acceptance speeches and interviews.

“It helps that she looks beautiful too, with her super-short hair (a fade! On a black woman! On the red carpet!) and dark brown skin, but even that beauty seems independent of the circus around her.”

At an earlier event - the Essence Black Women In Hollywood luncheon – Nyong’o had said: "I remember a time when I too felt unbeautiful. I put on the TV and only saw pale skin, I got teased and taunted about my night-shaded skin. And my one prayer to God, the miracle worker, was that I would wake up lighter-skinned."

On the Kenyan blogs, the chatter took a turn to the personal. “Dear African women and your daughters, LOOK! No weave on Lupita’s head,” penned noted Kenyan writer Binyavanga Wainaina.

He exulted: “African women in spotlight today forgot chemical burns, fake hair,” adding for good measure: “Millions of African women today pulled weaves out with bare hands!”

The Kenyan actress and Yale School of Drama graduate, who turned 31 on Saturday, won plaudits for both her efforts on screen and her impeccable fashion sense.

Meanwhile, on the blog site bellanaija.com, breathless accolades poured out: “I am sooooo proud, u ve given us hope”… “Dreams come true… wish her all the best in her future endeavors” … “I usually don’t care for things like these but dang Lupita’s speech brought tears to my eyes!! She’s all types of adorable!! More grease to her elbows and I hope she stays grounded too!

“Lupita Nyong’o has arrived,” declared Adewunmi. “And while most of us seem glad of it, some of us are inevitably more glad than others

Senate Refuses to Confirm Obama Justice Department Nominee by Frederick Lowe

March 10, 2014

Senate Refuses to Confirm Obama Justice Department Nominee
By Frederick Lowe

Debo Adegbile

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from TheNorthStarNews.com

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - The United States Senate on Wednesday voted not to confirm Debo Adegbile as head of the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division because as part of his job he defended Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of the 1981 slaying of Daniel Faulkner, a Philadelphia police officer.

Republicans joined by seven Democrats voted down Adegbile's nomination 51 to 48 under pressure from police unions.

President Barack Obama, who nominated Adegbile for the job, called his defeat a "travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified candidate."

Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, charged that Senate Republicans orchestrated a smear campaign against Adegible, who at one time was the organization's director of litigation, acting president and director-counsel and special counsel.

"Adegbile was attacked because the NAACP Legal Defense Fund became counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal during Adegbile's tenure," Ifill said. "The NAACP Legal Defense Fund's involvement in Mumia Abu-Jamal's case reflects its institutional commitment to ensuring that the criminal justice system is administered fairly and in compliance with the U.S. Constitution for all Americans, no matter how controversial."

Jamal, a former Philadelphia radio reporter, is serving a life sentence for his murder conviction.

Adegbile was only a child when Abu-Jamal was convicted, but during Adegbile's 12 years with NAACP LDF, he represented Adu-Jamal's during his appeals process. Adegbile helped research and write a legal brief asserting that the jury instructions during Abu-Jamal's sentencing were improper. A federal court agreed.

Republicans, however, argued that Adegbile was unfit to run the civil rights division.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate's minority leader, accused Adegbile of "seeking to glorify an unrepentant cop killer." U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) wanted to know if Adegbile could apply the law in an even-handed manner.

Ifill noted that many public servants, including U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, have provided pro bono time to represent a death-row inmate. Roberts represented John Ferguson, who was convicted of killing eight people.

John Adams represented in the 1770s a British soldier involved in the Boston Massacre. Adams was later elected president.

"Mr. Adegbile and the American people deserve better than the Senate delivered today," said Marcia Fudge, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. "I am extremely disappointed in today's Senate vote that denied this country
a public servant who has a personal and professional commitment to protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans."

An angry President Obama lashed out at the Senate.
"As a lawyer, Mr. Adegbile has played by the rules. And now Washington politics have used the rules against him. The fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice--and those who voted against his nomination denied the American people an outstanding public servant," President Obama said.

Adegbile, who is half Nigerian and Irish, was raised by a single mother in New York City. The family was nearly homeless at one time.

Cummings Discusses Colleague's Rude Actions at Hearing

March 10, 2014

Cummings Discusses Colleague's Rude Actions at Hearing

By Zenitha Prince

elijahcummings3

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) (Courtesy Photo)

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - In an exclusive interview with the AFRO, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), discussed the events of a March 5 hearing held by House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of which Cummings is the ranking member. During the hearing, former IRS employee Lois Lerner was questioned on the agency’s alleged targeting of conservative political groups. Chairman Darrell E. Issa (R-Calif.) posed questions for approximately 15 minutes, though Lerner had already invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to speak. When Cummings tried to take his turn, Issa adjourned the meeting, turned off Cummings’ microphone, and he and other Republicans filed out.

AFRO: How would you characterize Chairman Issa’s actions or behavior at the hearing on Wednesday?

CUMMINGS: They were disrespectful and counterproductive. There’s a rule that when—the majority in this instance—has an opportunity to ask questions, the other side is entitled to at least five minutes to talk about anything they want to talk about.

Chairman Issa had called Ms. Lerner in, knowing that she would assert the Fifth. He then proceeded to ask her 10 questions knowing she was going to answer each question by saying that I cannot answer at advice of counsel. He knew that, and she did just that—10 times. He then closed the hearing without Democrats having a chance to say one syllable; he would not allow us to say anything. And that is not the way you run a hearing in Washington, nor in any democracy.

AFRO: What do you think prompted Chairman Issa’s actions?

CUMMINGS: Mr. Issa had been involved in a discussion with Ms. Lerner’s attorney a week or so before the hearing. And they had been talking about something called a proffer, that is, the attorney was willing to say what Ms. Lerner would have said if she were to testify. So we would have at least have come out of the hearing knowing that. Democrats were not included in these private meetings with the attorney, so the only place I could ask about it was in the hearing. But, for some reason, Issa cut me off.

Although he claims he wants to hear what Ms. Lerner has to say, I don’t think he really does because he realizes that what she’s going to say is that the president has nothing to do with this so-called targeting of Tea Party groups; she would have said there was no White House involvement and that it was not about political reasons, period…. But the Republicans want to keep pushing, trying to prove something that is simply not true.

AFRO: Was this unprecedented behavior on Rep. Issa’s part?

CUMMINGS: About two or three weeks ago he did it to one of our members, Congressman [John] Tierney, he set his mike off. Now Tierney is White, and he did it to him, and there was protest from the committee. So this is the second time within the last month that he’s done this. But you don’t see this on other committees.

AFRO: As a congressman who has been on the Hill for a while, has this ever happened to you before, and if not, how did it feel?

CUMMINGS: I felt such a disappointment that, in 2014, that this member of Congress, who has a tremendous amount of power, would abuse that power by cutting off debate and trying to silence the members of the Democratic Party. There are countries where their democracy is not as strong as ours or where they have not been a democracy for as long as we have where this would never happen. And so I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

AFRO: What, if any, discussion have you had with Rep. Issa since the hearing on Wednesday?

CUMMINGS: He called me yesterday evening [March 6] to discuss some matters that are coming up next week, and some voting we had to do in the committee, and at the very end of the conversation he said, ‘I just wanted you to know I’m sorry.’

AFRO: Did you think it was a genuine apology?

CUMMINGS: Yes, I do, but I don’t know how long it’s going to last. That’s the problem. But we’ll see.

AFRO: Despite that apology do you think—as some Democrats have called for—that Chairman Issa should lose his chairmanship?

CUMMINGS: I don’t want to get into that because I think that’s up to the Republicans; they have to make that determination. But I don’t think we should have people sitting in chairmanships who do not know how to respect members on both sides of the aisle. If I could not respect my Republican colleagues I would not want to be chairman, because I realize if I’m the chairman, I’m chairman of the entire committee. And, the integrity of that committee would depend on me trying to work with my colleagues and respecting them so that we can come up with the best products.

AFRO: What are the broader implications of Rep. Issa’s actions as it regards protocol and civility in Congress?

CUMMINGS: I’m hoping that all of the Congress would look at this and understand that this is bigger than Elijah Cummings, this is about the way our democracy should function. This is about the way the minority party should have a voice. This is about the way that every member of our Congress, each of whom serves 700,000 people, should be respected. We just cannot go forward and continue to be a Congress where the minority is totally disrespected and basically told, ‘You can be present, but we don’t want you to say anything.’ That’s ridiculous.