When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, the devastation took a disproportionate toll on renters. According to a study (pdf) by Brown University sociologist John Logan, 45.7 percent of homes in storm-wrecked areas were occupied by renters, compared to 30.9 percent of homes in undamaged communities. But when Louisiana, where most of the damage occurred, launched its $7.5 billion Road Home rebuilding program last year, it focused solely on owner-occupied housing.

Seventeen months after the storm, that's finally about to change. Yesterday the state rolled out its Road Home program for small rental properties, with plans to distribute a total of $869 million to finance the repair and reconstruction of about 18,000 rental properties out of the 82,000 damaged or destroyed by Katrina and Rita. The program, though modest, will rightly focus on providing affordable rents to working families, according to an announcement on the program's Web site:

Participating property owners will be required to accept limits on the rents they charge and the incomes of the tenants they select. The amount of financing will be provided in three tiers based on the income level of the tenants to be served. The highest amount of funding per unit will be available to property owners who agree to offer the lowest rents. Awards are offered as no interest, no payment, forgivable loans, due only upon resale of the property or failure to comply with the rent restrictions and household incomes.

The funds available through the Rental program will not be able to provide every small-scale property owner with enough money for the repair or reconstruction of their rental properties, but it will spur development of quality rental units in the most heavily damaged areas.

In New Orleans, for example, landlords will be able to get as much as $47,000 to repair a two-bedroom property and charge $590 in rent if the occupant makes less than $26,125, about half the local median income. But if the renter makes $41,800 or 80 percent of the median, the landlord can borrow only up to $16,500 for repairs and charge $940 a month in rent.

Sounds good, right? But there's a catch: The same private contractor widely criticized for the glacial pace of its assistance to homeowners will also be in charge of disbursing the rental rebuilding funds.

ICF International of Fairfax, Va. will collect $756 million to manage the program, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports. But the company has already come under fire for its failure to deliver financial assistance to homeowners promptly. Though it began distributing aid in August of last year (a month before issuing its initial public stock offering) and has received more than 103,000 applications, it has scheduled or held only 391 loan closings to date, according to its own program statistics. The loans on average have been about $80,000, but some have been as low as $10,000.

The company has been understaffed and has consistently underestimated the magnitude of the job it's taken on, according to a recent Times-Picayune investigation:

One homeowner griped that he showed up for his appointment with a housing adviser in New Orleans only to be told he wasn't on the list, and neither were nine other people who came that day -- including two families who had flown in from other states. He said he and several other applicants got in only after complaining to the media.

An elderly man and his wife claimed that in the middle of their appointment, a security guard evicted them from the Baton Rouge service center telling them their application was terminated and they should never return. The homeowner told a state legislator that he and his wife were "humiliated" at being treated like "common criminals."

Extravagant spending on the company's part has been another concern. Under the contract, ICF's lawyers make $375 an hour, which is much more than private attorneys working on a state contract earn, the Washington Post reports. The contract also allocates $19 million for travel expenses without requiring the firm to account for it.

In December, the Louisiana legislature approved a non-binding resolution calling on Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) to terminate ICF's contract. But in a response statement (Word) issued by ICF, Blanco said the remedy was "to move faster, not start over from scratch." In fact, under the terms of the ICF contract, the state is pretty much stuck with the deal, with no significant penalties available for poor performance.

And there are already some signs of trouble brewing with the rental program. Earlier this month, ICF pledged to adequately staff the program with 170 employees, but it has already knocked that number down by 50, according to the Times-Picayune. Given that the Road Home contract is expected to make up about 40 percent of the company's total revenue, ICF has an obvious motivation to keep its program administration costs low.

Earlier this month, the Baton Rouge Advocate reported that Blanco was considering taking the small rental repair program away from ICF. Obviously, that didn't happen. The governor's inability to force the company to do right by the people of her state or face meaningful consequences illustrates clearly how the privatization of disaster reconstruction is enriching corporations while failing to hold them accountable to the taxpayers who foot the bills.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch

Newly-elected members of Congress may still be learning the ropes about etiquette on Capitol Hill, but they're learning fast about the role of money in politics.

Capitol Eye -- website of the Center for Responsive Politics -- reports today that, since the 2006 mid-terms, "at least seven Democratic lawmakers and one Republican have already established leadership committees to raise money for their colleagues."

Among the pols that have rushed to set up PACs to raise and dispense money to their colleagues:

Both Virginia Sen. James Webb and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill developed leadership committees within weeks of the elections. Neither Democrat has reported any activity yet, according to information available Jan. 29. [...]

Although they have been in office since before 2007, Democratic Reps. David Scott of Georgia, Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan, Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, Gwen Moore of Wisconsin and Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky have also created leadership committees since the 2006 midterm elections. [...]

Several freshmen members of Congress have formed a single committee together.

In the election fundraising arms race, "leadership" PACs have become a fixture on the political scene. Disgraced Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) pioneered their use as a vehicle to funnel special-interest money, spread good will (or fear) among one's colleagues, and build political clout. Republicans have benefited the most:

About 215 returning lawmakers reported having leadership PACs in the 2006 election cycle. The 298 leadership PACs that were active in 2006 raised about $156 million and doled out roughly $53 million to other federal candidates, two thirds of which went to Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor’s "Every Republican is Crucial" (or ERIC) PAC contributed the most to other lawmakers that cycle, giving about $1.2 million.

Apparently, the pressure on new lawmakers to raise vast sums of money is so intense that many are immediately leaping into the PAC game:

The reason for establishing a leadership PAC so early on may not be any more complicated than politicians trying to meet their party’s demands for money, said Bill Frenzel, guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank. “Your caucus assigns you quotas depending on the status of your big-shotness, and members have to start raising it right away to meet that quota,” he said. “Nobody knows what happens if you don’t meet the quota assigned to them, but they don’t want to find out.”

As part of its First 100 Hours Agenda, a bill to increase the federal minimum wage by $2.10 sailed through the U.S. House of Representatives. The a "no-strings-attached" bill (H.R. 2) passed overwhelmingly, 315 to 116 with 82 Republicans voting for the measure.

As expected, it met resistance in the Senate. Republicans (including the President) want to add tax breaks and other benefits for small businesses they say will be affected by the bill. Last week, Senate Republicans filibustered the bill. A motion to force cloture and put it to a vote failed to reach the required 3/5 majority, 54 to 43 with 3 not voting.

Senators from around the South who voted to end the filibuster were Byrd (D-WV), Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-FL), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Warner (R-VA).

(Sen. Warner was joined by four other Republicans: Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME), and Specter (R-PA).)

Senators from around the South who voted against ending the filibuster were Alexander (R-TN), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), DeMint (R-SC), Dole (R-NC), Graham (R-SC), Hutchison (R-TX), Isakson (R-GA), Lott (R-MS), Martinez (R-FL), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Stevens (R-AK), Vitter (R-LA).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005 data), there are 1,882,000 people making minimum wage. Of those, 743,000 (39.4%) are in the South.

The Senate is expected to take up the minimum wage bill again today. Although the bill being considered amends the "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938", Republicans and lobbyists propose to tack on unrelated amendments to offset the increased costs to small business.

The National Federation of Independent Business, a lobbying and trade organization which is said to represent some 600,000 small businesses (they do not publish their membership statistics) has aggressively fought minimum wage increases at the state level, and is now lobbying against it in Congress.

Among their "talking points", the NFIB proposes to keep the increased Section 179 accelerated depreciation limit (the so-called "SUV loophole") which is set to expire in 2009, keep the accelerated 15 year depreciation schedule for restaurant construction (instead of the standard 39 years), increase the number of small businesses who can qualify for the cash v. accrual method of accounting, and eliminate the Federal Unemployment Insurance surtax.

The Senate is considering the Section 179 and restaurant depreciation tax breaks, and extending tax credits to businesses who hire disadvantaged or low-income workers. To offset the tax breaks and make them revenue neutral, they propose to tack on amendments for a $1 million cap on tax-deferred income for corporate executives and ending business deduction for court settlements, jury verdicts and fines.

What all of this has to do with the "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938" isn't exactly clear, which is probably what prompted Sen. Ted Kennedy's widely blogged outburst from the Senate floor.

According to the AP article cited above:

In the Senate, Republican critics of the legislation have argued that raising the minimum wage might force some businesses to stop hiring entry level employees. They also contend that beneficiaries of a higher minimum wage likely will be teenagers working part-time jobs, not the working poor. But few if any Republicans have protested the revenue provisions in the tax package.

In addition to the "teenagers" argument, other arguments around the conservative blogs include "they all work in the restaurant business as waiters or waitresses and they make good tips," or "many of them are housewives working part-time whose husbands make a good living," or "they just need to get an education to better themselves."

But here are some facts (again from the Bureau of Labor Statistics):

• 46.7% of minimum wage earners are 25 or older.



• Twice as many women as men make minimum wage.



• There are 922,000 single or divorced women making minimum wage.



• 634,000 minimum wage earners work 35 hours or more per week.



• 448,000 minimum wage earners work full time (40 or more hours per week).



• There are 772,000 people with post-secondary education (some college, an associates degree, or a college degree) making minimum wage.



• Only 8.6% of hourly workers work in food prep/serving jobs.



• 72,000 minimum wage workers are in management/professional jobs.



• 240,000 minimum wage workers are in sales/office jobs.



• 128,000 minimum wage workers are in production/transportation/materials handling jobs.

Regarding the impact on small business, there will no doubt be an effect but how big is it really?

According to the Small Business Administration (and assuming I am reading all of this correctly), there are approx. 25 million small businesses in the United States. Those with employees have 115 million workers, meaning that only 1.6% of small business employees would be affected by an increase in the federal minimum wage.

According to the SBA, the annual payroll for small businesses totals $4.2 trillion. Assuming all 1.8 million workers making minimum wage work a full 40 hours per week, the total impact of a $2.10 per hour increase would be $8.2 billion annually, which is less than 1% (0.19%) of the current total payroll.

And while it's true that a majority of those making minimum wage work in restaurant food prep/serving jobs (60.1%), Total receipts in the "accommodation & food services" industry are approx. $447 billion according to the SBA. Assuming all food prep/serving employees work full time, the impact would only be 1.1% of receipts. This translates to a five cent increase in the cost of a Big Mac Value Meal.

The Clinton administration learned that in dealing with an opposing majority in Congress he had to give something to get something. It's not clear in this case, though, how giving tax breaks to 25 million small businesses in return for a $2.10 per hour wage increase that affects only 1.8 million workers is such a great deal.

And contrary to what the NFIB would have you believe, not all business people oppose increasing the minimum wage. The Business for a Fair Minimum Wage coalition says:

While the Congress debates the issue, states that have led the way by raising their minimum wages above the current $5.15 minimum wage have had better employment and small business trends than states that have not.

"Congress should know the facts are very clear versus the misinformation that's been spread over the years," said Adnan Durrani, President of Condor Ventures, an investment banking firm that specializes in technology and consumer product companies. "It is a sound business decision to increase the minimum wage." Higher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation.

Jim Sinegal, CEO of Costco, the nation's largest wholesale club operator with 49 million cardholders, has signed the statement in support of raising the minimum wage. Sinegal said, "The increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. I hope Congress and the President will move swiftly to enact sensible legislation that will demonstrate our nation's commitment to reward hard work."

Margot Dorfman, CEO of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, said, "We all lose when American workers are underpaid. Whether as business owners or employees, women have a significant stake in providing for their families and their communities. More than a quarter of all working women hold service, production, transportation and material moving occupations, which are often subject to low pay, minimum wage earnings. The majority of women are living without a spouse. By not paying workers a living wage, we assure that a mother working hard to support her family will not be able to make ends meet."

Raising the minimum wage clearly won't solve the problem of poverty in America, but it is one small step among many and could help hundreds of thousands struggling to get by. Isn't that worth paying a nickel more for a Big Mac Value Meal?

UPDATE: As I was writing this, the Senate voted 87 to 10 to end the filibuster and put the minimum wage bill to a vote later in the week, with the aforementioned amendments. Some Democrats still want a "no-strings-attached" bill, citing a Constitutional requirement that tax related measures must originate in the House.

Anyone interested in the future of Southern politics should take a long look at Bob Moser's excellent cover piece in this week's issue of The Nation.

Moser's story begins with an entertaining personal look back at the year the "solid South" -- which he makes clear has always been a misnomer -- in 1972, and then moves into a lucid and compelling account about prospects for Democrats in the South.

Definitely read the whole thing, it's worth it. I'll be writing more about Moser's analysis and the issues he skillfully nagivates. For now, I'll focus on one of the most basic and important insights of the piece: that the decline of progressive politics in the South hasn't been due to any natural antipathy towards the Democratic Party among Southerners -- as so many pundits writing about the South today imply -- but because the Democratic Party, at a critical moment 30 years ago, let itself get out-mobilized in the region, and silently ceded the South to the Republicans.

As Moser recounts:

[In the late 1970s] national Democrats began to beat a retreat from Dixie. Democratic state parties in the South, which had never had to mount full-scale general-election campaigns in the past, were woefully unprepared to counter the Republican surge--and were largely left high and dry. "We'd had it so easy for so long that when Republicans started to crest, we had no idea what to do or how to do it," says Maxie Duke, a longtime Democratic activist in Oconee County, South Carolina. National Democrats, she says, "just didn't care."

Worse, the Democrats failed to take the opening left them by the Republicans' Southern strategy: Adapt the South's economic populist tradition into a fresh, class-based politics with broad appeal to blacks and whites alike, directly challenging the politics of cultural fear and racial unity. "The party abandoned its New Deal legacy as a positive force for change and hunkered down behind a defensive shield," writes John Egerton, author of The Americanization of Dixie. "The leaders failed to comprehend that Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson died for their sins, and in so doing freed the Democrats to reclaim their heritage as the fountainhead of egalitarian opportunity."

In other words, it was a growing "forget the South" mentality among Democrats -- and the party's failure to articulate an authentic progressive Southern strategy -- that guaranteed the ascent of a competitive Southern region in which Republicans could make headway.

How would the South be different today, if the Democrats had adopted a "50 state strategy" and invested in policy and media infrastructure in the South that could identify the issues and constituencies for progressive success?

It's impossible to say, but the answer to that question has enormous relevance today, as Democratic leaders debate about whether to "forget the South" or "move to the right in the South." Perhaps history points to a third option: investing in the creation of a new progressive majority in the region.

We don't usually think of New Orleans as a remote place. After all, it's one of the world's most visited cities, a renowned center of art, culture, music, cuisine.

How a natural disaster -- compounded by official neglect -- can change things.

Two charitable medical organizations that usually provide care to remote communities from Africa to Appalachia opened a week-long free clinic in New Orleans yesterday and were overwhelmed with people seeking treatment. On the first day alone, volunteer doctors and nurses with Remote Area Medical and Operation Blessing International saw at least 500 patients, and they hope to treat as many as 10,000 before the week is through.

"We have put up approximately 20,000 square feet of tents, which are serving as vision, dental and medical exam rooms," says Jody Herrington, U.S. director of disaster relief for Operation Blessing, an organization founded in 1978 by controversial televangelist Pat Robertson.

This is the second year the groups have teamed up with the state and local health departments to offer care to residents of the New Orleans area, where the medical infrastructure remains severely crippled from Hurricane Katrina. Last year's Medical Recovery Week treated more than 9,600 patients and dispensed an average of 650 prescriptions each day.


Politicians also descended on New Orleans this week, and it didn't take them long to diagnose residents' growing frustration.

The U.S. Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee convened a hearing today at Louisiana's Supreme Court building to take testimony from federal, state and local officials. Scheduled witnesses include federal Gulf Coast Rebuilding Coordinator Donald Powell, Mayor Ray Nagin, and representatives of the Small Business Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FEMA, U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Louisiana Recovery and Greater New Orleans Inc.

Soon after Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) opened the hearing, he was interrupted by a protestor, the Associated Press reports:

The man yelled, "Stand up for justice! We want somebody to stand up for justice!" before a law enforcement officer led him out of the hearing room at Louisiana's Supreme Court building.

Lieberman acknowledged that it's "hard to come back here more than a year after Katrina ... without feeling that emotion," according to the AP. He also said that his colleagues "understand the work is not done, to put it mildly."

However, Lieberman himself is a source of frustration for some Gulf Coast residents seeking justice for the feds' bungled -- and allegedly political -- storm response. Though Lieberman had promised during his recent campaign to hold the Bush administration accountable for its mishandling of the disaster, he has since backed away from that pledge.

The fact that today's hearing was completely dominated by public officials was another sore spot for some. In an e-mail message sent prior to the hearing, Elizabeth Cook of New Orleans' United Front for Affordable Housing wrote:

Notice that the "menu" for the senate hearing, to be chaired by our favorite Senator Joe Lieberman, to be held in New Orleans this Monday does not include any citizens and/or activists for housing and human rights. HUD will be there. The LRA will be there. Nagin will be there ... all purveyors of the agenda to keep the working poor from returning to the city. We aren't invited.

Let's invite ourselves and crash this party.

Our sources on the ground in D.C. say that the mood of today's March on Washington against the war is more upbeat than in recent years. Grim determination has been replaced by a real hope that now, with opposition to the war skyrocketing at home and abroad -- and new leadership in Congress -- a change of course is possible.

Just like Vietnam, some of the most powerful voices denouncing President Bush's plans to escalate the Iraq conflict are soldiers from Iraq Veterans Against the War and Appeal for Redress. One of those speaking today is Navy Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto of Appeal to Redress, who before the march said this:

"The occupation hasn't benefited the Iraqi people at all. It doesn't benefit the American people and certainly doesn't benefit American service members," he said. Hutto, 29, originally from Atlanta, said active-duty personnel he speaks with "see a separation between the global war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. They don't see the connection."

"When we're sitting having chow, and CNN is saying so many more were killed, the look on people's faces is, 'How much longer?'"

Only a handful of Congressional leaders have come forward to join the event, so the movement's power to actually change Iraq policy will be revealed on Monday during the Congressional Advocacy Day. Organizers are trying to get representatives from every Congressional district to Capitol Hill on Monday. For a schedule of lobby day events and contacts from your state, visit here.

Pictured to the left: Members of Veterans for Peace marching against war (New York Times)

This week brought two big pieces of news at the embattled Smithfield Foods plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina -- the largest hog processing plant in the world.

On Wednesday, Smithfield announced it had cooperated with Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officers in a raid that snagged 21 undocumented workers, as part of a plan to fire up to 600 workers at the massive facility. About 48% of the workers are Latino, and 37% African-American.

The company's sudden interest in immigration reform comes after a massive walk-out at the plant last November, and 300 workers taking Martin Luther King, Jr. day off this year against company wishes. Organizers for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union don't think this is accidental:

Gene Bruskin, an organizer for the union, said the company had started to cooperate closely with immigration authorities after a walkout by immigrant workers last summer. “My concern is the company is using the immigration issue to manipulate this long fight over workers’ rights,” Mr. Bruskin said ... Mr. Bruskin said Smithfield had a history of threatening immigrants with deportation if they tried to unionize.

In an official statement, the UFCW reported the consequences of the raid:

This is yet another attempt on the part of Smithfield to terrorize the workers who have been struggling for a collective voice on the job for over a decade. As we speak, families are torn apart; children coming home from school do not know where their parents are and workers are afraid to show up to work. Today, the day after the arrests, Smithfield's production was cut in half as workers did not report to work, fearing they would be next.

The very next day, Smithfield found a way to salvage its public image. In a move hailed by the Humane Society as "the most important moment in animal welfare in the agribusiness sector in 50 years,” Smithfield announced it would phase out confinement of pigs in individual gestation crates over the next decade. The New York Times described the situation:

The Humane Society and others have long criticized the use of gestation crates. The sows spend up to three years continuously reproducing — much of the time confined in stalls where they cannot turn around — before being slaughtered.

Smithfield has been under fire from animal rights advocates and others for years for the miserably cramped quarters the sows are kept in. Why the change now? As the Times notes,

Smithfield had been studying the issue for more than two years and decided to phase out the stalls after customers like McDonald's began asking questions about the confinement practices.

Any chance McDonald's will "ask questions" about whether Smithfield's new-found zeal for deporting immigrants is an effort to punish workers for trying to organize a union?

A federal official has publicly acknowledged that the problem of violent crime in New Orleans is largely the result of a troubled education system and entrenched poverty. Yet he intends to fight the problem not with more teachers or anti-poverty programs, but with more police.

Speaking yesterday at a press conference during which he unveiled plans to double the number of federal agents assisting the New Orleans Police Department, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten made this astute observation about the city's criminals, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports:

"They come from a failed educational system and poverty, and turn to drugs at an early age and settle things with guns," Letten said.

But Letten offered no plans to deal with that failed educational system, which just this week announced that it failed to meet its goal for qualified teachers, and that it had to place 300 students on a waiting list to get into the city’s overcrowded and under-resourced public schools. Letten offered no plans to address poverty, or to offer alternatives to the drug trade, or to teach young people how to settle disputes without weapons. Instead, this is what Letten offered as a solution:

"We need to get these violent offenders in the federal system."

Louisiana already has the highest incarceration rate in the nation, with 797 people imprisoned for every 100,000 residents, according to recent U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. That's more than 60 percent higher than the national rate of 491 per 100,000 residents, which is the highest rate in the world.

If incarceration solved the problem of violent crime, wouldn't it have worked already? How long will we stay this course before we realize we're heading down a dead-end road?

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch

The latest numbers are in from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they paint a grim picture for organized labor in the United States:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Thursday that union membership fell by 326,000 in 2006, to 15.4 million workers, bringing the percentage of employees in unions to 12 percent, down from 12.5 percent in 2005. Those figures are down from 20 percent in 1983 and from 35 percent in the 1950s.

Work force experts said the decline in union membership was caused by large-scale layoffs and buyouts in the auto industry and other manufacturing industries, together with the labor movement’s difficulties in organizing nonunion workers fast enough to offset those losses.

As usual, the South comes out at the bottom. Of the 10 states with the lowest union membership, 9 are in the South, with the Carolinas following their familiar pattern of jockeying for the bottom spot (this year they tie for last with only 3.3% of workers in unions).

Changes in the economy -- especially the pounding suffered by heavy manufacturing -- are definitely a big factor. But in a press conference, Stewart Acuff -- Organizing Director for the AFL-CIO and a Georgia native -- notes that employer hostility plays a role, too:

The AFL-CIO pointed to polling results showing that 53 percent of nonunion workers said they would vote to join a union tomorrow if they could.

"Sixty million Americans say they would join a union tomorrow if they could — that’s far more than the 15.4 million now in unions,” said Stewart Acuff, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s organizing director. "What’s stopping them is employer resistance."

This disconnect between what workers want, and what they end up getting, points to the need for the Employee Free Choice Act, which Rep. George Miller (D-CA) described this way when he introduced it last spring:

Along with antiunion firings and discrimination, union-busters use other outrageous tactics to undermine their employees' freedom to unionize. One North Carolina pork-producing company paid employees to spy on co-workers suspected of organizing. Cintas, a uniform-rental and laundry company, had its supervisors follow employees into restrooms to make sure they weren't talking about unions. Wal-Mart, of course, maintains an antiunion SWAT team that bursts into action as soon as it suspects organizing activity.

We don't need employers waging class war in the workplace. That's why I've introduced the Employee Free Choice Act (HR 1696), which has the bipartisan backing of 207 Representatives and forty-one Senators. The bill strengthens organizing rights in three key ways. To begin with, if a majority of employees sign union cards, they get a union. Second, either party in an opening contract negotiation can request mediation or binding arbitration within a reasonable time period. (This is important because often--in about one-third of cases--workers win union representation but remain without a contract after a year of bargaining.) Finally, the act would stiffen penalties for labor-law violations.

UPDATE: The New York Times updated their graph, featured above, which as several readers noted included outdated BLS data in its earlier version.

The residents of Survivors' Village -- a tent city erected in New Orleans last year to protest plans to tear down virtually undamaged public housing complexes despite a severe affordable housing crisis -- are calling on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Inspector General to investigate the proposed demolition. To help make that happen, they're asking concerned citizens to send letters, faxes or e-mails to the IG. For more details on the campaign, visit the group's Web site.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch

Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers made the news this week as part of an unusual coalition of corporate executives and environmental organizations calling on the federal government to impose limits on greenhouse gases. Known as the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the coalition has issued a blueprint titled "A Call for Action" promoting a cap-and-trade approach to controlling carbon dioxide emissions.

"We can and must take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection," the coalition said in a letter to President Bush. Besides North Carolina-based Duke, the coalition's other members are Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, DuPont, Environmental Defense, Florida Power & Light, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E, PNM Resources and the World Resources Institute.

But at the same time Rogers is burnishing his green credentials by calling for limits on carbon emissions, he's pushing a plan for his company to increase such pollution.

Rogers testified last week at a public hearing convened by the N.C. Utilities Commission on Duke's proposal to build two new coal-fired units at its existing Cliffside facility in Rutherford County, N.C. The commission's initial hearings, held last summer, were reopened after Duke realized its original $2 billion cost estimate for the project was too low. It's now estimated that the project -- which employs old-fashioned, heavily polluting technology -- will cost more than $3 billion and as much as $4 billion, with the expense borne by ratepayers.

And though Rogers is calling on the federal government to impose new pollution limits nationally, he has said he wants his existing plants -- as well as the new Cliffside units -- exempted from those limits. He's already successfully lobbied the state to create special loopholes for his company: The N.C. General Assembly last summer agreed to exempt Duke's proposed units from a rule under the state's Clean Smokestacks Act that prevents utilities from getting air pollution credits for improvements paid by consumers.

Rogers' impressive clout apparently got even the USCAP to back away from some of its original statements critical of coal power, the Charlotte Observer reports:

A group of CEOs and environmentalists lobbying Congress to address global warming toned down its proposal Monday because it appeared to target a Duke Energy Corp. coal-fired power project and others around the country.

[...]

[USCAP] initially said last week it would "strongly discourage" future coal-fired power plants that cannot "easily capture" carbon dioxide. That would apply to the two 800-megawatt coal-fired units Duke is planning for its Cliffside facility west of Charlotte and to others around the country.

Rogers spent last week defending Cliffside at hearings before the N.C. Utilities Commission in Raleigh, and the project's apparent contradiction with the mission of the coalition.

In response to the criticism of Duke and other power companies, the coalition added a section to its Web site that says individual projects were never targets of the group.

Among those blasting Rogers' apparent hypocrisy is Jim Warren, executive director of the N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, one of six environmental and consumer organizations opposing Duke's plans. Warren said in a statement issued on last week's hearings:

Rogers' approach seems to be "damn the torpedoes." He talks about small, uncertain concessions to energy efficiency, largely as public-relations cover for new plant construction. If he succeeds, it will jeopardize the state's economy, prevent the infusion of thousands of clean-energy jobs, and continue a sorry record of corporate influence over North Carolina decision-makers. No rational, democratic society should allow such a course, which would also keep us speeding into the abyss of climate change.

The commission plans to make its decision on Duke's proposal by the end of February.

Meanwhile, N.C. Gov. Mike Easley (D) this week took a step that appears to ensure the utility commission will be sympathetic to utilities' interests: He appointed as a new member attorney Ed Finley from the law firm Hunton & Williams, which counts among its clients Progress Energy, North Carolina's other major power company.

The ACLU has released a disturbing report about a secret Pentagon database on peaceful protesters. According to an ACLU press release, their "No Real Threat" report (PDF format, web article here) found that the Defense Department’s Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database had more than 2800 reports on at least 186 anti-war protests.

The TALON reports reviewed by the ACLU targeted anti-war and anti-recruitment activities in fourteen states, six of which are in the South -- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas.

Among the organizations investigated are Veterans for Peace (in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Georgia), Broward Anti-War Coalition (Florida), Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition, Students for Peace and Justice (Texas, Georgia), Iraq Veterans Against the War (Georgia), Military Families Speak Out (Georgia), and Georgia State University Students for Peace and Justice.

According to the ACLU, recent Freedom of Information Requests revealed that "the surveillance of peace groups and anti-war activists was more widespread than previously known."

From their press release:

“It cannot be an accident or coincidence that nearly 200 anti-war protests ended up in a Pentagon threat database,” said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. “This unchecked surveillance is part of a broad pattern of the Bush administration using ‘national security’ as an excuse to run roughshod over the privacy and free speech rights of Americans.”

[..]

The ACLU said the Pentagon’s misuse of the TALON database is just one example of increased government surveillance of innocent Americans. With the help of phone companies, the National Security Agency has been conducting warrantless wiretapping of U.S. phones and reading the e-mails of countless Americans, all without a warrant. The FBI has gathered information about peace activists and recruited confidential informants inside lawful advocacy organizations like Greenpeace and PETA. Less than a month ago, President Bush signed a statement declaring that he is authorized to open the domestic mail of American citizens without a warrant. This weekend, The New York Times revealed that the Pentagon has been using “National Security Letters” to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans.

“Congress should not let this president off the hook for inappropriate surveillance by the Pentagon,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Americans must once again be confident we can exercise our constitutionally protected right to protest without becoming the subject of a secret government file.”

TALON documents obtained by the ACLU and included in the No Real Threat report reveal that activist groups' websites and e-mail communications are closely monitored. The documents include "incident types" such as "Suspicious Incidents/Activities" and "Specific Threats". Information sources include websites, e-mails, and agents/informants.

The reports have a disclaimer stating "This TALON report is not fully evaluated information," and concluding with "This information is being provided only to alert commanders and staff to potential terrorist activity or apprise them of other force protection issues."

Threats of "civil disobedience" and "vandalism" and "threats to DOD personnel" are frequently mentioned, although some reports cite as the basis for concern previous incidents in which individuals went beyond peaceful protest, even when it isn't clear if the individuals were associated with the protest organizers. One report states "It appears this protest will most likely be peaceful, but some type of vandalism is always a possibility."

A "Suspicious Activities/Incidents" report on the Broward (Florida) Anti-War Coalition's plans to stage a protest at a naval and air show says "BAWC plans to counter military recruitment and the 'pro-war' message with 'guerilla theater and other forms of subversive propaganda.'"

In a "Specific Threats" report on college campus protests being organized by the Veterans for Peace around the South, a Military Intelligence officer cites a New Mexico protest in which the group "set up hundreds of white crosses in an open field, representing soldiers killed in Iraq and were handing out anti-war/anti-military literature," noting that the group had "applied for and received permission for their protest the previous day."

The officer's report concludes "Veterans for Peace is a peaceful organization, but there is potential future protest could become violent. It is unknown at this time if Veterans for Peace has applied for or been granted permission to hold protest on the campuses listed in this report."

Having been around long enough to remember the Nixon years, it's like déjà vu all over again. Back then, "subversive propaganda," civil disobedience, handing out literature, failing to get a permit, and unspecified and/or unsubstantiated future potential for vandalism or violence made you a Communist. It appears the only thing that has changed is that now you're a Terrorist. And the government has better technology to keep track of you.

Though President Bush focused on domestic matters in last night's State of the Union address, he failed to make any mention of the ongoing recovery from Hurricane Katrina. There was not a single word about the storm and its aftermath in the 5,600-word speech.

In fact, the only acknowledgment of the biggest disaster ever to face our nation was the presence in Laura Bush's viewing box of Craig Cuccia, co-founder of Café Reconcile, a New Orleans nonprofit that works with at-risk youth and fed first responders and residents after the storm.

In last year's address, Bush devoted 165 words to Katrina.

Bush's omission drew criticism from Louisiana elected officials, including Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Reps. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), William Jefferson (D-La.) and Bobby Jindal (R-La.), who recently announced that he plans to run for governor against incumbent Democrat Kathleen Blanco. As the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports:

"While we are thankful for the support we have received from the federal government to date, I was disappointed the president did not address the rebuilding efforts on the Gulf Coast following our nation's worst natural disasters," Jindal said. "I hope he will continue to remember our plight and provide the needed resources to help rebuild Louisiana and allow our people to move forward."

Katrina did make an appearance at the top of the Democrats' response, delivered by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.):

Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

But if Democratic leaders from Louisiana have their way, the Bush administration won't be able to remain silent on the ongoing disaster in the Gulf. Spurred by former FEMA Director Michael Brown's charges of partisanship in the Bush administration's Hurricane Katrina response, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco has asked Congress to create a bipartisan commission to investigate whether politics played a role in the botched relief effort, according to a statement posted to her Web site.

Blanco wants the commission to examine the role of White House political advisors in the response to Katrina and Rita, to take steps to "buffer" FEMA from partisan political agendas, and to achieve parity in distribution of federal recovery funds through standard criteria based on actual damage and need. Says Blanco:

"As evidenced by comments made by former FEMA director Michael Brown this past weekend, these steps are critical to Louisiana's recovery and the federal government's ability to adequately respond to future emergencies. All of us were sickened to hear that while thousands of our citizens were suffering during Hurricane Katrina, political operatives in the White House were playing party politics. These individuals based key decisions of emergency response on the gender and party affiliation of elected officials rather than on the urgent needs of our people."

Brown says the episode to which he referred in his speech Friday at a New York City college took place aboard Air Force One while it was parked at New Orleans' Louis Armstrong International Airport in the days immediately after the storm, the Times-Picayune reports:

While Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin were meeting with Bush in a conference room, Brown said he and some administration officials he declined to name talked in an adjoining office. He said that White House political adviser Karl Rove was not part of the discussions.

"It became apparent during the conversations that there were political considerations. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out," Brown said. "For someone to come out and say these are false allegations, it ticks me off. I'm willing to stand up and tell the truth, why don't some others?"

Spokespersons for the White House have insisted that Brown's charges are untrue, and that any investigation would detract from the ongoing recovery effort, according to the paper:

"Finger pointing more than a year after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina does not help to rebuild a single home, a single school or a single church," spokesman Blair Jones said while taking a none-too-subtle jab at Blanco's oversight of the recovery. "The federal government has sent over $110 billion dollars to the Gulf Coast for short-term relief and long-term rebuilding. In Louisiana alone, the federal government has secured $7.5 billion for Gov. Blanco's Road Home program and yet only 183 checks have gone from the state-run program to residents to rebuild."

Donald Powell, coordinator of the federal Gulf Coast rebuilding effort, also joined the fray with criticism of Blanco, the Times-Picayune reports:

"After more than a year of my office being a trustworthy and hardworking partner in her efforts, these statements are hurtful and represent an ungrateful attitude towards the American taxpayer," Powell said in a written statement.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told the paper that she supports Blanco's call for a new investigative commission, calling the Republican-controlled House and Senate probes conducted last year "somewhat limited."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (ID-Conn.) had called for a new investigation into the White House Katrina response during his recent campaign but has since backed away from that position, as we reported earlier this month. However, Landrieu is expected to be appointed to lead a new subcommittee overseeing disaster response, which would give her the power to subpoena White House records.

Landrieu has been a vocal critic of Bush administration funding initiatives that have given proportionately more money to Mississippi than Louisiana, which bore the brunt of the storms' devastation. Last week she criticized administration plans to send 45 percent of $160 million in grants for health care relief funding to Louisiana and 38 percent to Mississippi, when Louisiana suffered 70 percent of the damage.

Earlier this month, she also blasted FEMA's decision to give Mississippi four times more housing money for alternative housing programs for hurricane victims than Louisiana, which sustained more than three times the housing damage as its neighbor:

"After FEMA's continued inability to defend its process, we have no option but to encourage Congress to investigate the process in making these unfair and illogical decisions," Sen. Landrieu said. "In response to repeated questioning, they can only defend their process as 'competitive,' but have never accounted for the most important measure of all -- need. A formula that distributes recovery funds with no regard for where they are most needed simply does not make any sense."

Meanwhile, the Lieberman-chaired Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a field hearing in New Orleans on Monday, Jan. 29 to consider Hurricane Katrina and Rita recovery issues. For more details on that event, click here.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch

President Bush, saddled with the lowest presidential job approval rating since Nixon, will deliver his State of the Union address to Congress and the American people tonight. In addition to defending his Iraq strategy, he is expected to speak on domestic issues, most notably health care. He is also expected to speak on energy policy and education, including renewal of No Child Left Behind.

This seems like a good opportunity for a look at the State of the South, and how President Bush's policy proposals might relate.

The Economy

There has been no indication of what Bush might say about the economy, but recent statements suggest the usual "our economy is strong and getting stronger" message. According to the most recent Federal Reserve Southeastern Economic Indicators Report for the Sixth District (which includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee), the South gets mixed reviews.

Overall, the Fed expects modest growth in the Southeast for 2007:

Just as housing and energy concerns could dampen national economic growth in 2007, these issues are likely to have a similar effect in the Southeast. Regionally, the economic slowdown will probably be most pronounced in Florida because of the state's high concentration of housing-related employment.

Nationally, home construction and sales have been important drivers of economic growth in recent years, but some areas are seeing housing activity shift into a lower gear. So far, declines have been most prevalent in markets where speculation helped drive prices and supply significantly higher. Fortunately, most of the Southeast appears to be at relatively low risk of experiencing a major housing downturn.

In coastal Louisiana and Mississippi, the main problem will remain the shortage of housing caused by the 2005 hurricanes. However, sharply higher insurance costs, which are a drag on housing demand, will continue to confront Florida and other coastal areas of the Southeast in 2007.

A decline in housing demand affects more than just home construction. It also affects housing-related manufacturing industries concentrated in the Southeast. These industries include lumber, wallboard, furniture, home appliances, and flooring. A further pullback in home construction in the United States in 2007 would negatively affect these manufacturers.

Changes in auto manufacturing will also be a factor:

The rapidly changing face of U.S. auto production will continue to affect the region. Ford Motor Co.'s plant in Hapeville, Ga., closed in fall 2006, and the General Motors plant in Doraville, Ga., has begun the shuttering process. These closings will result in several thousand job losses at both the assembly plants and their parts suppliers.

However, Korean automaker Kia Motors began constructing its first U.S. assembly plant in West Point, Ga., in 2006, and foreign-owned auto manufacturers continued to expand their presence in Alabama.

Among the state-by-state highlights for the 4th quarter of 2006:

• Alabama had a 1.5% increase in employment, and unemployment was at 3.6% which is the lowest in 30 years. This is attributed the expansion of foreign auto manufacturing facilities and the computer and electronic products and aerospace industries along with modest growth in the services sector.



• Florida's service and tourism sectors remained strong, with growth of 3% as compared to the national average of 1.5%. Tourism (4%) and professional and business services (5%) led the way.



• Georgia's services sector employment grew by 2%, slightly outpacing the national average. The arts, entertainment, and recreation sector led the way with 7% growth, and the leisure and hospitality industry grew by 3%.



• Mississippi's per capita income grew 3.3 percent in the first half of 2006, slightly higher than the national average. The increase is attributed in part to relief aid including unemployment insurance, federal disaster relief, and insurance payouts. This also boosted consumer spending, resulting in a 16% increase in state tax revenues. While not fully recovered, employment in the leisure and hospitality industry (i.e. casino business) is almost back to pre-Katrina levels.



• Tennessee's economy grew largely in part due to corporate relocations into the state. Overall, employment growth was only 1%, with most gains in the construction, leisure and hospitality, health care, and professional business services industries. Per capita income was also up by 2%, and sales tax revenues increased 6%

There are, however, areas for concern:

• In Alabama, employment in the nondurable goods manufacturing sector declined by 2% overall, with a 10% decline in the apparel sector owing to increased foreign competition and outsourcing.



• Florida's real estate boom has gone bust, with a 34% decline in single-family home sales. Appreciation for single-family homes fell to zero percent, and condominiums lost 3% of their value. Lower demand, higher construction costs, and significant increases in insurance premiums are cited as factors.



• Georgia will feel the effects of GM closing its plant in Doraville and a nationwide decline in residential construction will affect the building materials and flooring products industries.



• Louisiana is still largely an economic disaster area as a result of Katrina. The tourism industry is still struggling to recover, as evidenced by a 40% decline in arrivals at New Orleans International Airport. Office vacancies are high, with many companies leaving or scaling back operations. As thoroughly covered here at Facing South, delays in government funding and insurance settlements, delays in issuing new building regulations, delays in rebuilding infrastructure, labor shortages, and dislocation of large segments of the population are all cited as factors in Louisiana's struggle to recover.



• Tennessee will continue to see a decline in manufacturing jobs due to overseas competition and outsourcing. Lower demand for housing will also affect the state's furniture and wood products manufacturing industry.

One bright spot in the South is unemployment, with a regional rate of 4.1% as compared to the national rate of 4.7% for the third quarter of 2006. Florida and Louisiana (remarkably) tied for the lowest unemployment at 3.3%, followed by Alabama at 3.6%. Mississippi had the highest at 7.4% followed by Tennessee at 5.4%.

Health Insurance

Moving on to specifics of President Bush's expected SOTU policy proposals, his health insurance proposal is perhaps the most interesting and controversial. It isn't clear how taxing employees for employer provided health insurance is going to help. The White House says this will put market pressure on insurance companies and health care providers to control costs. As if employers already reeling from skyrocketing premium increases haven't been doing that already?

It also isn't clear why we would want to punish taxpayers for our broken system of employer provided insurance that leaves out the self-employed, the unemployed, and the underemployed, and introduces privacy, portability, family health, and other issues that are none of an employer's business.

Nor is it clear how providing a tax deduction for private insurance is going to encourage the uninsured to buy insurance as claimed by the White House. Many uninsured either can't get insurance (because they are self employed, unemployed, underemployed, or have preexisting conditions) or they are so poor they can't afford it. And those living in poverty don't pay taxes, much less itemize, in the first place.

A per-family deduction of up to $15,000 isn't going to help a single mom earning minimum wage, which is currently about $11,000 per year, especially if she works for a small business that doesn't provide insurance and is therefore looking at $6000 to $12,000 per year in private insurance premiums. Even if she could afford the premiums and could itemize, her tax savings would be at best $1500 or so, if she even paid taxes which she probably doesn't. (Ed. Note: this is all made up off the top of my head, so feel free to extrapolate your own guesses as to how this is supposed to work.)

At any rate, the number of uninsured in America is a national crisis, and the South is particularly hard hit. According to a Census report (PDF format), as of 2004 Texas had the highest percentage of uninsured at 25.1%. Louisiana (18.8%) and Florida (18.5%) are in the bottom six.

Other Southern states above the national average of 15.5% include Mississippi (17.2%), Arkansas (16.7%), Georgia (16.6%), North Carolina (16.6%), and West Virginia (15.9%).

Comparing the change in two year moving averages, five of the states with increases in the number of uninsured were in the South (Delaware, Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee -- if you count Delaware and Oklahoma as being in the South, which the Census apparently does.) It's not clear if the data includes the 170,000 newly uninsured who were dropped from the rolls when Tennessee dismantled its TennCare/Medicaid program.

Education

President Bush is expected to call for renewal of the No Child Left Behind program, and Congress is expected to call for fully funding it. As discussed here recently, this one-size-fits-all solution does not address all the issues involved. In the South, poverty and racial disparities are at the root of our education problems. Unfunded mandates, standardized tests, punishing teachers, and taking over failing school districts will not overcome these obstacles.

As for whether NCLB has resulted in any progress in the South, the percentage of 4th grade students scoring below the basic achievement level for reading suggests that the program is not addressing regional needs. Southern states scoring below the national average of 38% include Alabama (47% below basic achievement level), Georgia (42%), Louisiana (47%), Mississippi (52%), South Carolina (43%), Tennessee (41%), and West Virginia (39%).

Looking beyond test scores, Education Week's recent Chance for Success Index used a variety of criteria including family income and environment, early development, college enrollment, and employment as indicators of the role education plays throughout a person's lifetime.

In a state by state comparison, the study found that "New Mexico, Louisiana, Arizona, Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama lag significantly behind the national average." Except for Virginia, their overall ranking by state puts Southern states in the bottom tier (Virginia 1st, Florida 31st, North Carolina 35th, Georgia 38th, Arkansas 39th, Kentucky 41st, South Carolina 41st, West Virginia 43rd, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama: tied at 45th, Texas 48th, and Louisiana: 49th).

Energy Policy

President Bush is expected to announce a major push for increased ethanol production. At first glance, it appears this could benefit the South's agricultural economy. As it turns out, though, ethanol and other biofuel production is clustered largely in the upper Midwest. According to this map of production facilities, there are currently only four biofuel refinery operations in the South: two in Kentucky, one in Tennessee, and one in Georgia.

But could the South benefit from federal corn subsidies (which are estimated at about 51 cents per gallon of ethanol produced) to encourage production? Probably not. There are no Southern states in the top ten. Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska top the list with more than $4.2 billion in combined subsidies. Texas comes in twelfth with $167 million in subsidies, followed by Kentucky at thirteenth with $145 million. The rest of the South is at eighteenth or below.

But even if there were economic benefits from expanded refinery operations and more federal subsidies, there are serious doubts as to whether ethanol is even a good idea in the first place according to this 2005 Slate article:

[E]thanol critics have shown that the industry calculations are bogus. David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.

The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.

In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America's total energy consumption, not decrease it.

The article also says that ethanol is unlilkely to ever have a significant impact on reducing oil consumption, noting that a 2005 proposal for 8 billion gallons would only represent about one half of one percent of demand.

In conclusion...

With tax code gimmicks, one-size-fits-all solutions, and expanded programs involving questionable science and lots of subsidies, it appears America is in for another round of out-of-touch, magic-bullet proposals that do not address any real underlying problems. Beyond throwing out some half-baked, soon to be forgotten ideas (remember Mars?), it's almost like they're not even trying.

Good night, and God Bless America and the South. We need all the help we can get!

In a bit of good news on Hurricane Katrina and Rita recovery efforts, FEMA on Friday announced that it was extending housing assistance to storm-displaced Gulf Coast residents for at least another six months. The program was scheduled to expire next month, potentially displacing more than 100,000 families from their FEMA-funded trailers, mobile homes and rental units, as Chris reported here last week.

The news came via an announcement from U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), following a late afternoon briefing by FEMA Director R. David Paulison:

"This is very welcome news for the thousands of Louisianians still struggling with the everyday challenges of recovery and rebuilding," Sen. Landrieu said. "Empowered by the security of a roof over their heads, our people can go about the process of repairing permanent homes, re-establishing children's schools and working side-by-side with neighbors to stand up our great communities yet again.

"In our conversation this afternoon, I thanked Director Paulison for committing to this necessary extension of the housing assistance program, and reminded him that the road to recovery is long and we still have an enormous number of difficult challenges ahead. Foremost among these is transitioning residents from temporary structures back into permanent homes. We will need Director Paulison's partnership and FEMA's willingness to work with us if we are to succeed."

A formal announcement from FEMA is expected some time this week.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch

White House officials sought to federalize the Hurricane Katrina response effort in Louisiana because Gov. Kathleen Blanco was a Democratic woman, but it wanted to leave Gov. Haley Barbour at the helm in Mississippi because he was a Republican man.

So charged former FEMA Director Michael Brown in a lecture on the politics of emergency management that he delivered Friday at a Manhattan college, the Associated Press reports:

Brown, speaking at the Metropolitan College of New York, said he had recommended to President Bush that all 90,000 square miles along the Gulf Coast affected by the devastating hurricane be federalized, a term Brown explained as placing the federal government in charge of all agencies responding to the disaster.

"Unbeknownst to me, certain people in the White House were thinking, 'We had to federalize Louisiana because she's a white, female Democratic governor, and we have a chance to rub her nose in it,'" he said, without naming names. "'We can't do it to Haley [Barbour] because Haley's a white male Republican governor. And we can't do a thing to him. So we're just gonna federalize Louisiana.'"

Brown declined to name names, saying he learned of the discussion through Blanco's office and from federal officials, according to the AP.

The remarks have sparked a firestorm, with Blanco blasting the alleged partisanship as "disgusting," the Baton Rouge Advocate reports:

"This is exactly what we were living but could not bring ourselves to believe. Karl Rove was playing politics while our people were dying," Blanco said late Friday through a spokeswoman, referring to President George W. Bush’s top political strategist.

"The federal effort was delayed," Blanco said, "and now the public knows why. It’s disgusting."

Bush appointed Rove, the former White House deputy chief of staff and Bush's chief political advisor, to take charge of the reconstruction effort, as the New York Times first reported on Sept. 15, 2005. Brown had resigned from FEMA three days earlier, shortly after onsite command of the feds' botched Katrina relief effort was shifted to Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen.

For its part, the White House says there is no truth to Brown's statements, the AP reports:

Eryn Witcher, a White House spokeswoman, denied Brown's claims. "It is unfortunate that Mike Brown is still hurling false statements about the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina," she said. "The only consideration made by the administration at the time of this tragedy and since are those in the best interests of the citizens of the Gulf region."

However, the fact that Rove pressured the Blanco administration to hand control of the storm response to federal authorities was already detailed in a Washington Post article published Dec. 5, 2005:

Shortly after noon on Aug. 31, Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) delivered a message that stunned aides to Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D), who were frantically managing the catastrophe that began two days earlier when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast.

White House senior adviser Karl Rove wanted it conveyed that he understood that Blanco was requesting that President Bush federalize the evacuation of New Orleans. The governor should explore legal options to impose martial law "or as close as we can get," Vitter quoted Rove as saying, according to handwritten notes by Terry Ryder, Blanco's executive counsel.

Thus began what one aide called a "full-court press" to compel the first-term governor to yield control of her state National Guard -- a legal, political and personal campaign by White House staff that failed three days later when Blanco rejected the administration's terms, 10 minutes before Bush was to announce them in a Rose Garden news conference, the governor's aides said.

The revelations come as the president prepares to deliver his State of the Union address tomorrow. Though it's not been reported whether Bush plans to discuss the status of Gulf Coast rebuilding efforts, the Democrat who will deliver his party's formal response to the speech -- Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia -- has said he favors cutting off funding for Iraq reconstruction to pay for storm recovery instead, USA Today reports.

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch

As President Bush scrambles to find support for a "surge" of troops in Iraq, the efforts of Iraq war opponents are gaining steam.

First up is the March on Washington to End the War next weekend, Jan. 27-29. Here in North Carolina, buses to the march are selling out as fast as organizers can rent them. United for Peace and Justice and other groups behind the mobilization are aiming to have at least one person from each of the 435 congressional districts represented, who can be part of a grassroots lobby day on Capitol Hill.

But one doesn't have to go to Washington to be heard. This week, the Progressive States Network, in a bold move, announced a campaign to mobilize state legislators against the war. On a conference call Wednesday (listen to the audio here), Steve Doherty of Progressive States (former minority leader of the Montana Senate), Rep. Garnet Coleman of Texas, and Sen. Nan Grogan Orrock of Georgia spoke of the interest they'd heard from their constituents, and the need for state leaders to speak out.

If you'd like to get your state leaders on board, visit here.

And what's happening in Congress? The House is arguing over the language of a resolution declaring that an Iraq surge is "not in the national interest of the United States."

The Senate unveiled a similar, non-binding resolution on Wednesday, and refused to suggest they would withhold funding for the plan, which prompted this response from former Sen. John Edwards, as quoted in the Orlando Sentinel:

"Why don't we go stand in the corner and stomp our feet like an 8-year-old?"

One of the biggest lingering challenges of Katrina is housing. Nearly 18 months after Katrina, tens of thousands of people displaced by the storm are still in limbo, waiting for housing to be rebuilt in New Orleans and coastal Mississippi.

And FEMA is about to make the situation much worse.

Some 110,000 evacuees are still residing in FEMA-funded trailers, mobile homes or rental units, but FEMA has announced it will cut off housing assistance on February 28. The grassroots group ACORN is mobilizing events in six Southern states this weekend to call on FEMA to extend housing help for 18 months:

"We have to have an extension," said Toni McElroy, ACORN Texas state chair in Houston. "It's the only fair and humanitarian way of dealing with this crisis. The alternative is leaving thousands of families homeless across the south."

As ACORN notes, Federal law provides for 18 months of FEMA housing assistance after a natural disaster, but the federal agency has granted extensions in the past to Florida residents and others.

If Gulf residents think crime is a problem now, just imagine what problems are likely when 110,000 people struggling to survive are kicked into the streets.

Where does FEMA think these people will go? Out of 97,000 homeowners who applied for Louisiana's "Road Home" assistance to rebuild, only 8,300 have received award letters -- and as of December, less than 100 had received checks. Not a dime has gone to rebuild rental housing, although about half of the displaced were renters.

Earlier this week, protesters stormed through New Orleans in opposition to HUD's plan to demolish 7,500 units of public housing -- many hardly scathed by the storm -- in favor of "mixed use" (i.e., more expensive) housing.

And that's not all that's keeping people in trailers. The other problem is infrastructure -- the basics that would make it possible for families to rebuild their lives in the Gulf. Despite some positive signs in housing permits and business recovery, the latest "Katrina Index" [pdf] from the Brookings Institution contains this damning report:

Infrastructure recovery is largely at a standstill with only one new school opened in December, no new hospitals, no new libraries, and only one new child-care center in New Orleans.

So housing is still a key problem -- but it's also a symptom of an overall failed recovery in the Gulf, a federal policy failure that will continue to stop the Gulf's people from being able to rebuild their communities and lives unless action is taken now.

[Photo courtesy of Craig Morse of culture:subculture, who is doing an excellent job documenting the still-unfolding Katrina tragedy]

UPDATE: The New York Times has a powerful editorial today making these exact same points. As one Gulf Coast activist writes to me, "maybe the tide is turning ..." [Thanks LH]

Labels: Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch

As we discussed Tuesday, most Tennessean's aren't willing to raise taxes to fund education. But they are willing to fund education through the purchase of lottery tickets (which some characterize as a tax on the mathematically challenged). According to the Tennessee Lottery Corporation's latest annual report (2005), ticket sales topped $800 million, netting $227 million for education after prize payouts and operating costs.

Launched in 2004, Tennessee's lottery funded scholarship program is by all accounts a success. At U.T. Knoxville, Tennessee's flagship university, there were more than 12,000 applications for 4200 freshmen openings in the Fall of 2006. The incoming class has an average ACT score of 25.8 and a GPA of 3.6, up from an average ACT score of 24.3 and an average GPA of 3.3 in 2001, suggesting there were qualified students who couldn't afford college before the lottery scholarships.

According to the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, there are more than 57,000 students in Tennessee's universities, colleges, and technical schools receiving some form of lottery scholarship.

But the lottery funds pouring into state coffers are creating new problems, the most recent of which is what to do with all that money. The state legislature is now considering how to allocate more than $300 million in surplus that has accumulated.

Some suggest expanding the lottery program by lowering the GPA requirements or by targeting low-income students who otherwise don't qualify. Others want to keep the money in reserve, possibly in an endowment. Others suggest targeting "back to school adults", i.e. adults who attended college but never completed their degrees. The Governor would like to use some of the funds for capital building projects.

All of that sounds great, but there are other problems that aren't being widely reported in media accounts of the lottery program's successes.

Back in the fall, a Tennessee Education Lottery Scholarship Annual Report found some troubling disparities in success rates based on income and race.

The report found that 55 percent of students from families with income less than $36,000 failed to maintain a sufficient GPA to retain their scholarships, while only 42 percent of those from families with income of more than $75,000 failed to retain their scholarships.

The report also found that 63% of African-American students lost their scholarships, as compared to 47% of white students.

There was also an analysis last year suggesting that upper-income families benefit more from the scholarship program than families in lower income brackets:

In Hamilton County, for example, the average student with a lottery scholarship comes from a family that makes $71,980 a year, compared to the $38,930 median household income the U.S. Census Bureau reports for the county.

[..]

In Hancock County, where the median household income is $19,760 a year _ the lowest in the state _ lottery scholarship recipients on average come from families that make $34,146 annually.

Households in Grundy County, the third-poorest county, pull in a median income of $22,959 a year, but lottery recipients from that county on average come from households that make $40,540 annually.

Then there are the findings of a 2005 study by the Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association. In their recommendations to the Tennessee Education Lottery Scholarship program, they cite "lessons learned" from other state lottery programs and some of the unintended consequences.

Regarding enrollment, the study found that in most states lottery scholarships increase enrollment by about 7% overall, except in New Mexico where they shifted enrollment from two-year to four-year institutions.

On outcomes of students staying in school and completing their degrees, the study found mixed results. According to the report, lottery scholarship students in New Mexico were more likely to drop out, while in Georgia lottery scholarship students had higher GPAs and were less likely to drop out.

The report suggest that Georgia's scholarship program resulted in some grade inflation at the high school level to help borderline students qualify for the scholarships. There is also evidence that private colleges in Georgia increased their tuition to get more of the state funding. There was also a finding that the scholarships allowed money from family budgets to be used for other purposes such as purchasing new cars.

According to the report, increased funding for scholarships has not closed the gap between enrollment among lower income families and enrollment among higher income families. While enrollments have increased, the gap remains constant at around 30% more enrollment from higher income families.

The report also found that 93 percent of the Georgia lottery scholarships went to students that would have gone to college anyway, meaning that Georgia spent $9 to get $1 worth of additional college access. The report says "This situation raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the use of state money in Georgia."

In it's summary of "lessons learned", the report says:

- Lottery scholarships have increased higher education participation in states where they have been implemented.

- Lottery scholarships do seem to decrease the out-migration of students.

- There is mixed evidence on the effectiveness of lottery scholarships in increasing student retention and completion.

- There is no evidence one way or the other on the effectiveness of these programs in increasing the educational attainment of the population.

- These programs have some unintended consequences, including grade inflation and alternative consumption.

- The first years of a lottery scholarship program are