Demonizing the Poor: Welfare Myths (and Facts)

¡Hola! Everybody…
Note: I got this from a new friend, Jamie Roads (click here). I definitely appreciate her efforts, especially now, as the right wing sets to reply the same crap they put out there in the 80s and 90s. I haven’t done the research since before Clinton’s Welfare Deform, so I’m grateful for the updates.

* * *

-=[ Don't Believe the Hype ]=-

Or: Beating Up On The Poor

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Average Payment/Benefit: Poverty Guidelines for most of the U.S. (-Alaska, Hawaii) is for 1, $10,830; for 2, $14,570; and for 3, $18,310. The average payment or benefit for Welfare Recipients averages NO MORE THAN 25% of poverty guidelines for a family of 3... That is $4577.50 (Per Year for a family of 3!!!) or approximately $381.46 per month (again, for 3 people!). One state (CA) does better by just under 50% of poverty levels (click here: pgs 9-11 ~ Map on page 11 is best breakdown!).

So this is an attractive, alluring way to survive how? Who is being lazy on this per month?

Can you collect forever? No (45/50 states). There is a 60 month lifetime limitation. Very few exceptions. Some states (8), like Connecticut have set their limitations lower (in their case, 21 months). This is regardless of the dollar amount you received (for example, if you collect $1.00, then that is 1/60 months). Some (12) are intermittent (i.e. 24 months on, then time required before can utilize again). Some states (only 5 -- Massachusetts, Michigan, NY, Oregon, Vermont) have no lifetime limits and move to state plans after federal has ended. Only 12 allow for assistance to children after that 5 year period (after adult has reached 5 year limits)

Would someone CHOOSE to be on welfare: Likely not, when you consider the average monthly payment for a family of 3 is under $400.00 and the average monthly cost of living is $1050.00 For the simple essentials (Based pretty low on $400.00 Rent, $147.00 Utilities, $249.00 Food, and $254.00 Transportation... per link above, pg 15). Most people WITH jobs struggle to maintain expenses month to month.

Qualifications: Must be a citizen and in most states, a resident. SS# must be provided, Proof of ages of ALL people in home, Income is based on state and specifics. In general if net income - expenses is less than Local Min. Income Figure in your area you may qualify. (I know locally, it doesn't take very much money at all to lose these benefits... unemployment will do it!

Additional Requirements on TANF: Depending on the age of the child, Recipients are required to attend classes, job seek, etc. 20-40 hours each week. They are required to show proof of job search (etc) and this is also followed up on (workers call and verify they are doing this, or expect documentation!)

Makes sitting 'on your butt' kinda difficult right?!

Who deserves Credit for much of these time limitations and added requirements: Bill Clinton.

Resources

Don’t Trash Talk the Poor: Clearing Up Misconceptions About “Welfare” (click here)

Policy (click here)

The Misconception About Welfare (click here )

TANF: Failing America's Poorest Children (click here)

THE HHS POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2010 (click here )

Consumer Expenditures 2007 (click here)

Cash Assistance from TANF (click here)

Fear and Loathing as Policy [Immigration Myths]

¡Hola! Everybody...
Starting tomorrow, I will be posting on Latino/as in America, “Eddie-Style.” If you’re interested in a look at Latino/as from an “engaged Latino scholar’s” perspective, then, by all means, stop by... I am posting the following as a public service. (Fuck you Lou Dobbs)

I will be in court most of the afternoon trying to save a kid from needlessly going to prison. Wish me luck...

* * *

-=[ Immigration Myths ]=-

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

-- John Adams (1735–1826)

“Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,” December, 1770

* * *

Common misperceptions regarding immigration and its effects on American society often result in suspicion, discrimination, racism, and violence. Fear leads to hate. If you feared no one, you would hate no one. The only antidote is knowledge, the only sin, ignorance...

Immigrants don’t pay taxes

All immigrants pay taxes, whether income, property, sales, or other. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Even undocumented immigrants pay income taxes, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file” (taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and social security numbers), which grew $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.

Sources: National Academy of Sciences, Cato, Institute, Urban Institute, Social Security Administration

Immigrants come here to take welfare

Immigrants come to work and reunite with family members. Immigrant labor force participation is consistently higher than native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S., unless the “study” was undertaken by an anti-immigrant group. In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits. In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.

Sources: American Immigration Lawyers Association, Urban Institute

Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries

In addition to the consumer spending of immigrant households, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments. While it is true that immigrants remit billions of dollars a year to their home countries, this is one of the most targeted and effective forms of direct foreign investment.

Sources: Cato Institute, Inter-American Development Bank

Immigrants take jobs and opportunity away from Americans

The largest wave of immigration to the U.S. since the early 1900s coincided with our lowest national unemployment rate and fastest economic growth. Immigrant entrepreneurs create jobs for U.S. and foreign workers, and foreign-born students allow many U.S. graduate programs to keep their doors open. While there has been no comprehensive study done of immigrant-owned businesses, we have countless examples: in Silicon Valley, companies begun by Chinese and Indian immigrants generated more than $19.5 billion in sales and nearly 73,000 jobs in 2000.

Source: Brookings Institution

Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy

During the 1990s, half of all new workers were foreign-born, filling gaps left by native-born workers in both the high- and low-skill ends of the spectrum. Immigrants fill jobs in key sectors, start their own businesses, and contribute to a thriving economy. The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven’t spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.

Sources: National Academy of Sciences, Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, Federal Reserve

Immigrants don’t want to learn English or become Americans

Within ten years of arrival, more than 75% of immigrants speak English well; moreover, demand for English classes at the adult level far exceeds supply. Greater than 33% of immigrants are naturalized citizens; given increased immigration in the 1990s, this figure will rise as more legal permanent residents become eligible for naturalization in the coming years. The number of immigrants naturalizing spiked sharply after two events: enactment of immigration and welfare reform laws in 1996, and the terrorist attacks in 2001.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services)

Today’s immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago

The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%. Similar to accusations about today’s immigrants, those of 100 years ago initially often settled in mono-ethnic neighborhoods, spoke their native languages, and built up newspapers and businesses that catered to their fellow émigrés. They also experienced the same types of discrimination that today’s immigrants face, and integrated within American culture at a similar rate. If we view history objectively, we remember that every new wave of immigrants has been met with suspicion and doubt and yet, ultimately, every past wave of immigrants has been vindicated and saluted.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Most immigrants cross the border illegally

Around 75% have legal permanent (immigrant) visas; of the 25% that are undocumented, 40% overstayed temporary (nonimmigrant) visas.

Source: INS Statistical Yearbook

Weak U.S. border enforcement has lead to high undocumented immigration

From 1986 to 1998, the Border Patrol’s budget increased six fold and the number of agents stationed on our southwest border doubled to 8,500. The Border Patrol also toughened its enforcement strategy, heavily fortifying typical urban entry points and pushing migrants into dangerous desert areas, in hopes of deterring crossings. Instead, the undocumented immigrant population doubled in that time frame, to 8 million -- despite the legalization of nearly 3 million immigrants after the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Insufficient legal avenues for immigrants to enter the U.S., compared with the number of jobs available to them, have created this current conundrum.

Source: Cato Institute

The war on terrorism can be won through immigration restrictions

No security expert since September 11, 2001 has said that restrictive immigration measures would have prevented the terrorist attacks -- instead, they key is good use of good intelligence. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were here on legal visas. Since 9/11, the myriad of measures targeting immigrants in the name of national security have netted no terrorism prosecutions. In fact, several of these measures could have the opposite effect and actually make us less safe, as targeted communities of immigrants are afraid to come forward with information.

Sources: Newspaper articles, various security experts, and think tanks

* * *

The above was prepared by the National Immigration Forum, June 2003

For a more thorough contextual look click here

* * *

Love,

Eddie

Monday Mythbusters [Salt and Hypertension]

¡Hola! Everybody...
As a New Yorker, the best thing I can say today (sports-wise) is that the at least the Yankees don’t suck... LOL

* * *

-=[ Bacalao con Viandas ]=-

The other day, I had the pleasure of ordering one of my favorite dishes: bacalao con vianda. Viandas are vegetables: yautias (taro root) malanga (root vegetable with brown skin and white or purple flesh), papas (potatoes), plátanos (plantain bananas), yucas (cassava), ñames (root vegetable with brown skin and white flesh), batatas (sweet potatoes). These are mixed with onions sliced into rings, Olive oil, sliced hard-boiled eggs, aguacates (avocados), and sliced tomatoes. I love this dish! My dear departed grandmother ate a plate of this everyday of her life and she lasted until her mid 90s -- a vibrant, ass-kicking old lady. LOL .It’s a very West African-influenced dish.

Anyway, I love smothering the vianda with olive oil and sal5t -- lots of salt! As I covered the various toot vegetables with salt, my friends immedat5ely pounced, admonishing me for using so much salt and reminding me that high blood pressure (hypertension) runs in Latino/a culture.

I didn’t want to argue, but the connection between salt and hypertension is overblown, to say the least... plus, if I want to use salt, muthafuckas, I’ll use salt! LOL

This claim remains controversial in the medical community. Well, at least according to my research. The more researchers delve into this issue, the more difficult it becomes to justify. In fact, a 1988 editorial in the British Medical Journal, after reviewing a slew of studies, concluded that, “the evidence that salt is [an] important [contributor to high blood pressure] is weak... [and] the more complex the analysis the weaker the relation.”

The body of literature regarding this issue is so vast, that no one could successfully synthesize all the findings. What happens usually is that one camp will select studies that favor their position. However, more recent studies show that there never really was a connection between salt and hypertension. And when you look at the studies, you begin to get a picture of why. The way it was explained to me is that the subject has been studied in three basic ways. The first searches for a connection between salt consumption and hypertension within a given society. Such research has been fruitless. In one of the largest such studies, which tested 7,000 residents of Scotland, it turned out that weight and age were much moiré reliable predictors of hypertension than salt consumption was. “The true association between sodium and blood pressure is extremely weak,” the researchers surmised.

The second approach is to look at many different countries to see whether the places where hypertension is common are also places where people consume a lot of salt. The results from one huge study of more than 10,000 subjects at fifty-two testing centers around the world did find an association between sodium in the urine and systolic blood pressure. However, upon close examination, the link turned out to be far less impressive. Once adjustments were made for the subjects’ age, weight, and alcohol consumption, the relation was statistically significant in only eight of the fifty-two centers. And when the results from four nonindustrialized societies (where salt consumption was extremely low) were set aside, the relation vanished.

Of course, even if high salt consumption and high blood pressure did go hand in hand, that wouldn’t prove that one causes the other. Something else could be at work -- a third factor that might be associated with certain eating habits and hypertension. That would explain the paradox of Japan, where salt usage is high, but blood pressure is not.

In the last type of study, researchers ask people to eat less salt and then watch to see what happens to their blood pressure. One review of twelve such studies found that sodium restriction was a useful strategy for older patients with hypertension. However, there wasn’t any reason to think that using less salt would lower the blood pressure of people who are hypertensive to begin with. In addition, such studies have nothing to say about whether salt caused the hypertension -- an idea that has become increasingly doubtful as the studies have become more sophisticated.

I always say that a little moderation in is always a worthwhile goal when it comes to diet. In the meantime, I will slather my bacalao con vianda with lots of salt and olive oil!

Love,

Eddie