By Hazel Trice Edney

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – An organization that is escalating its call for the end to America’s so-called ‘war on drugs’ is organizing a ‘Day of Direct Action’ with a goal of pressuring President Barack Obama to address ways to repair the havoc the ‘war’ has wreaked in the Black community.

“Against the back drop of what the Institute of the Black World 21^st Century believes is a state of emergency in urban, inner city neighborhoods, which we are calling dark ghettos, we come today to announce a day of direct action, Monday, June 17, to call upon President Barack Obama to end the war on drugs and mass incarceration and to invest in America’s dark ghettos,” said IBW President Ron Daniels at a press conference held April 4 at the National Press Club.

Daniels has established a coalition of like-minded groups called a “justice collaborative” in order to tackle the problems from several directions. The “Day of Action” will encompass a rally of sorts outside the White House.

Courtney Stewart, chairman of the D.C.-based Re-entry Network for Returning Citizens described how he has experiences injustices first hand.

“A lot of us when we come home we’re confused because we have to go from pillar to post to get papers signed and people shuffling us here and promising us jobs and referring us to this place and referring us to that place. We can’t go back – in many cases - to our communities; so therefore there’s a housing issue. Fifty percent of those who return to the district report to a shelter. That’s just like leaving Prison A and going to prison B. The only difference is the shelter has no supervision. You have rape, drugs and all the other things that you can get caught up in that sends you right back through the system.”

He said it takes an inmate nine months to two years to find a job after getting out of prison, causing hardships - for even non-violent offenders - that could land him or her back in prison, he said.

A former inmate at the Lorton Reformatory, who was released in 1985, Stewart quoted Dr. King’s letter from the Birmingham Jail in order to make his point: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

It was 42 years ago that President Richard M. Nixon started the “War on Drugs”. It was said to be aimed at illegal importation as well as the street-level demand for illegal drugs. But, more than four decades later, the most visible and dominant results has been intensified police focus in Black communities, resulting in astronomical rates of Black males in prisons; hundreds of thousands of Blacks and Latinos dead from gun violence; and police corruption, including profiling, brutality, and abuse of power.

“We’ve come today to claim that we’ve suffered enough and suffered is the operative word. It’s time to bring an end to an ill-conceived and destructive policy and strategy,” Daniels said. Referencing a poster on the wall behind him, he said the logo for the initiative “graphically illustrates and depicts what millions of Black people know to be the truth. The war on drugs is a war on us.”

IBW actually first announced its initiative two years ago upon the 40^th anniversary of Nixon’s initiative. At that 2011 forum, dozens of social and political activists – including the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., then CBCF President Dr. Elsie Scott, and U. S. Rep. John Conyers - gathered to discuss the extreme social ramifications of the anti-drug measures. Since then, not much has changed about the following statistics:

• Black men are sent to state prisons on drug charges at 13 times the rate of White men.
• Drug transactions among Blacks are easier for police to target because they more often happen in public than do drug transactions between Whites.
• The disparities are particularly tragic in individual states where Black men are sent to federal prison on drug charges at a rate 57 times greater than White men, according to Human Rights Watch.
• More than 25.4 million Americans have been arrested on drug charges since 1980; about one-third of them were Black.
• The Black populations in state prisons are majorly disproportionate: For example, in Georgia, the Black population is 29 percent, the Black prison population is 54 percent; Arkansas 16 percent to 52 percent; Louisiana 33 percent to 76 percent; Mississippi 36 percent to 75 percent; Alabama 26 percent to 65 percent; Tennessee 16 percent to 63 percent; Kentucky 7 percent to 36 percent; South Carolina 30 percent to 69 percent; North Carolina 22 percent to 64 percent; and Virginia 20 percent to 68 percent.
• According to the Global Commission on Drug Policy arresting and incarcerating people fills prisons and destroys lives but does not reduce the availability of illicit drugs or the power of criminal organizations.
• States are spending approximately $17 million per day to imprison drug offenders or more than $6.2 billion per year.

These statistics reveal the need to take a holistic to dealing with low income and impoverished communities, which means just ending the war on drugs is not enough, Daniels says.

“For far too long, this nation has ignored the myriad crises in urban inner-city neighborhoods, choosing instead to substitute paramilitary policing tactics like stop-and-frisk, tougher sentencing, and mass incarceration for social, economic and racial justice,” Daniels said. “The levels of joblessness, underemployment, inferior education, crime, violence and fratricide in America’s dark ghettos is unacceptable, a moral and political crisis which cries out for presidential leadership to promote the development of wholesome, sustainable communities.”

Among the solutions that IBW is pushing:

• Intensify efforts to eliminate the disparity in sentencing  between powdered and crack cocaine.
• Issue an Executive Order terminating the War on Drugs and replacing it with a national initiative that treats drugs and drug addiction as a public health issue.
• Issue an Executive Order ending the practice of using incarcerated persons as prison labor.
• Publicly support decriminalization of the possession of small quantities of Marijuana.
• Allocate more federal funds for drug education, counseling and treatment.
• Form a Presidential Commission to initiate a National Dialogue on the regulation and taxation of drugs.
• Mobilize moral and political support for direct public sector jobs and sustainable economic development programs with priority inclusion of formerly incarcerated persons targeted to transform distressed Black communities.

Daniel’s concluded in his statement, “Black people marched on ballot boxes in overwhelming numbers to ensure the re-election of President Obama. Now it is time for the President to directly respond to the State of Emergency in America’s dark ghettos…Thus far, the response from the White House on these vital issues has been grossly insufficient. Therefore, those who marched on ballot boxes in the presidential election must march/assemble at the gates of the White House as “drum majors” for justice to underscore the urgent need for the President to decisively act on this issue.”

By Michael Linden

President Barack Obama talks with Jeffrey Zients, Acting Director of Office of Management and Budget, in the Oval Office, April 10, 2013. PHOTO: Pete Souza/The White House

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Center for American Progress

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2014 budget is unlike any previous presidential budget request in recent history. It is not a statement of the president’s vision for the federal budget. It does not represent what he thinks is the best course of action for spending, taxation, and broader federal fiscal policy. It is not, in short, his preferred budget plan. Rather, for the first time ever, it is a preemptive compromise budget.

It includes more than $1 trillion in additional spending cuts, on top of the $1.9 trillion that the president has already accepted and signed into law. It includes significant changes to entitlement programs, as well as further cuts to a portion of the budget that was already cut down to historic lows. And it includes far less new revenue than the president has called for in the past. All told, President Obama’s compromise budget would raise less revenue and set government spending at approximately the same levels as the much-ballyhooed bipartisan plan proposed by former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles in 2010. By that standard, the president’s compromise budget is to the right of Simpson-Bowles.

And yet, for all the president’s willingness to make major concessions, conservative leaders in Congress already appear to have rejected the compromise out of hand. Last Friday before the full budget was even released, House Speaker John Boehner characterized it as "no way to lead and move the country forward." 

This immediate refusal to even consider the president’s generous offer is remarkable and indefensible when you consider the full scope of the deficit reduction it contains. Since the start of fiscal year 2010, Congress has already passed and the president has signed into law about $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction. Of that amount, nearly three-quarters were spending reductions, while only one-quarter was revenue increases. When you add to that the additional spending cuts that the president is willing to accept in return for some additional revenue, the totals swell to approximately $3 trillion in spending cuts and to about $1.3 trillion in revenue. This is a ratio of well over $2 in cuts to every $1 in revenue. Considering that the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases in the Simpson-Bowles proposal was only about 1.4-to-1, the president’s proposal goes well past halfway to try to meet his political opponents on common ground.

Indeed, in nearly every portion of the federal budget, the president signaled his willingness to accept policies that fall far short of what he considered optimal in the past. To start with, his new compromise budget includes additional cuts to a category of spending known as “non-defense discretionary.” This blandly titled category actually includes most of the critical, foundational public services and economic investments that make up the day-to-day operations of the federal government. Despite this, it has already absorbed enormous spending cuts as the lion’s share of the programmatic spending cuts that Congress already passed was directed at this one category of spending. As a result, funding for everything from education to highways to food safety is now—even without additional cuts—projected to decline to its lowest levels on record. Yet the president is willing to accept even further cuts in this area.

The president’s compromise budget also again signals his willingness to make significant changes to entitlement programs. “Again” is an important descriptor here. Proposing reforms in health care programs to save the government money is nothing new for the president. In each of his previous budget plans, President Obama put forward policies to improve efficiency in Medicare and to reduce spending. In this new compromise budget, the president upped his offer to $400 billion in reforms to federal health care programs. In fact, the president’s compromise offer includes more Medicare savings than does the House Republican budget.

On top of the $400 billion in health care reforms, the president also proposed $200 billion in changes to other mandatory programs. He also included a change to the way that inflation, commonly called “chained CPI,” is calculated. These changes would reduce Social Security benefits compared to what is scheduled in current law, producing another $130 billion in reduced spending.

This proposal to change the indexing formula for Social Security is an especially large concession. This is especially given that conservatives in Congress have given no reciprocal movement on revenues, and given that they may not accept this proposal as the final parameters of a large-scale budget deal.

And while a few progressive groups, including the Center for American Progress, in the past called for the switch to chained CPI in policy proposals, it was always done in the context of a comprehensive plan to resolve the long-run shortfall in Social Security. Additionally, it was always paired with progressive reforms to the payroll tax and always included protections for low-income families and the elderly—populations for whom the chained index likely understates inflation. To the president’s credit, he does include the latter protections, but his compromise offer does not include a comprehensive strengthening of the Social Security system, nor any reforms whatsoever to the payroll tax. Even the Simpson-Bowles plan, which also proposed switching to the alternative measure of inflation, included revenue-raising reforms to the payroll tax as well.

All told, the president is proposing more than $1 trillion in additional spending cuts. And what is he asking for in return? With his oft-stated commitment to a “balanced plan,” one might expect him to propose a similar amount of new revenue. But that is not the case. The president’s budget includes only $580 billion in new revenue, plus another $100 billion in additional tax revenue generated from the switch to chained CPI. And recall that the deficit reduction to date is already significantly tilted toward spending cuts. Even combined with the $600 billion in revenue generated from the American Taxpayer Relief Act, better known as the fiscal cliff deal, that still leaves him well short of the revenue of his previous budgets, which were already lower than the levels proposed by bipartisan experts. Yet another compromise.

Of course, compromise means both sides giving up something to reach an agreement. And certainly the president is hoping and expecting that conservatives will be reasonable and accept his proposal for this eminently moderate amount of additional revenue. Moreover, the president’s specific proposals for how to raise that revenue are equally reasonable. Right now, for example, itemized deductions such as those for mortgage interest and income exclusions such as the one for employer-provided health insurance benefit higher-income households more than middle- and low-income households. President Obama’s budget wouldn’t eliminate these breaks for anyone, but would limit their value for higher income tax payers so that the benefits aren’t quite so skewed. That alone would raise $530 billion.

The president’s compromise proposal also includes numerous other smart offers. It includes $50 billion in immediate job-creating investments—an absolute necessity given the fact that getting our budget in order will be impossible if unemployment remains high. In the realm of health care, the president’s suggested policies focus on improving the efficiency of Medicare without harming beneficiaries. Indeed, his reforms largely mirror those proposed by the Center for American Progress. The president also proposed some additional cuts to military spending, though certainly less than he could have.

But it is outside the confines of his compromise budget offer where one can find the president’s best ideas. The president’s call to expand quality pre-kindergarten to all 4-year-olds, for example, is an important step toward ensuring the country’s future competitiveness in a global economy. He correctly identifies billions of dollars in inefficient, unnecessary, and wasteful business tax breaks that are ripe for reform. And we sorely need to reinvest in transportation infrastructure, as the president suggests.

Unfortunately, most of these good ideas are relegated to a kind of second-class status. They are not part of the president’s compromise budget offer, despite the fact that each and every one of them is fully paid for and would not add to the deficit or debt. As a result, the president’s compromise budget is fundamentally constrained despite the presence of many good ideas. It is constrained not by actual fiscal limits, but by perceived political limits. And those constraints have produced a budget offer that looks decidedly compromised when compared to the president’s previous budget plans, when compared to other progressive budget plans, and even when compared to bipartisan budget plans.

Michael Linden is the Managing Director for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress.

By Hazel Trice Edney

President Barack Obama talks on the phone with FBI Director Robert Mueller to receive an update on the explosions that occurred in Boston, in the Oval Office, April 15, 2013. Seated with the President are Lisa Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough. PHOTO: Pete Souza/The White House

(TriceEdneyWire.com)  - President Barack Obama has promised justice for whoever detonated as many as three bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, wounding 176 people and killing three, including an 8-year-old boy waiting for his father at the finish line.

In his first press conference immediately after the three blasts, he stopped short of calling the blasts terrorism. Instead, he chose to ask Americans to “say a prayer for Boston tonight” and promised “the full weight of justice” for the perpetrators. “We still do not know who did this or why...We will find out who did this; we'll find out why they did this.  Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice.”

On Tuesday, the rapidly developing events prompted the President to update his earlier statements, describing the blasts as indeed terrorism.

"Given what we now know about what took place, the FBI is investigating it as an act of terrorism," he said in a statement. "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror.  What we don’t yet know, however, is who carried out this attack, or why; whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, or was the act of a malevolent individual.  That's what we don't yet know.  And clearly, we’re at the beginning of our investigation.

The FBI and Homeland Security are working with Boston authorities to find evidence, including footage from personal cameras and cell phones. At press time Tuesday, the names of two of the deceased had not been officially released.The 8-year-old's name is reportedly Martin Richard, whose parents were also injured. Seventeen of the 144 injuries were reportedly critical. The bombs that exploded at the finish line of the marathon were reportedly homemade. Several other devices were found unexploded.  The FBI is asking anyone with information about the bombing to call 1-800-CALLFBI (1-800-225-5324).

As usual in crisis such as this, stories of heroism and people helping each other – even complete strangers – had started to emerge.  President Obama said he had spoken to congressional leaders and even politics are out the window.

“I’ve updated leaders of Congress in both parties, and we reaffirmed that on days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats - we are Americans, united in concern for our fellow citizens.”