Mr. President, Congress, Wall Street: I know You Don't Get It - But The Bailouts Should Be Tied To Something Tangible

Okay, its happened again. American International Group (AIG) has just paid $165 million in bonuses--to FORMER Chief Executives. Now I ask you, how is that going to help banks start lending or otherwise stimulate the economy? Answer; it won't! And that's the issue! And I ask you, on this the third time, why aren't the bailout moneys being tied to real outcomes, companies having to sign contracts containing terms and conditions on how the money is to be used, and the entire program being managed by Government Program Managers?

As more evidence that these folks are on a different page, note this from the Associated Press:

"Senate Republicans...applying the brakes to Democratic attempts to quickly tax away most of the bonuses at troubled insurance giant AIG and other bailed-out companies.

Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republicans' vote counter, blocked Democratic efforts Thursday evening to bring up the Senate version of the tax bill to recoup most of the $165 million paid out by AIG last weekend and other bonuses in 2009. The House had swiftly approved its version of the bill earlier in the day.

By rushing, Kyl said, Democrats were letting populist outrage trump informed decision-making in the Senate, which is supposed to be insulated from the pressures of public passion."

Why on earth wouldn't Republicans, who claim to be fiscal conservatives, want to get the taxpayer's money back? And just what do they mean by populist rampage? Those of us who are "rampaging" are the citizens of the United States--the folks who elected you to serve. Remember us?

And what's Obama's stance on this? He's "stunned."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Looking at this whole saga, again, just stresses the point that non of these folks get it--the American people are tired of Government as usual. But we are also tired of being tired. The folks in Washington have heard it all before and they know what we want. But why are we not getting it? I think Tavis Smiley is on the right track, the American people need to hold the folks in Washington more accountable by asking why our specific concerns have not been addressed. We also need to ask them how they are going to.

In this pursuit, The African-American Pragmatist is in the process of drafting a letter to the President and Congress asking that specific concerns be addressed. A short list follows:

1. Why were the bailouts not tied to concrete results?
2. Why isn't this being run as a Government program with auditors monitoring how taxpayer money is being spent?
3. Who is monitoring where all of this money is going?
4. Republicans, please provide specific reasons why AIG should not return taxpayer money used to pay bonuses?
5. What specific measures are you going to take to prevent this from happening again?
6. In measurable terms, explain how giving money to Wall Street and banks is supposed to stimulate the economy? Also, please explain why it has not worked so far.

Do you have a question you would like to ask the President and Congress about this issue? Tell me, and it will be included in the letter. I have set a suspense of April 4. Is this to soon? Please let me know.

Friends, the bottom line is the President and Congress must realize that the American people don't care what side of the isle they sit on. They must either give us tangible solutions to the problems facing this county or get out of D.C.

It’s Not Wrong To Hold Obama (Or Any African-American) Accountable

On April 11 of last year, Tavis Smiley, quit his long association with The Tom Joyner show after facing a backlash from the program's listeners. Smiley has been with the show 11 years.

Recently, Smiley has been in the news again, this time over his new book “Accountable” which makes a public call to hold all public officials, especially President Obama, accountable. According to a National Public Radio article entitled, “Smiley Holds Obama – And You – Accountable,” Smiley even has a list of questions people should ask their leaders and themselves.

I guess my question is; what’s so wrong with this? Shouldn’t our leaders be held accountable? Shouldn’t we [African-Americans] be held accountable as individuals, family members, co-workers, leaders, and politicians for our actions?

If you’ve been reading my posts you’ll see that the Republican Party has come under fire for accepting a narrow view of “conservatism” and being critical or anybody from outside of the Religious Right. But isn’t this the same thing? Are we saying that just because someone is black…and popular, he or she can’t or should not bear scrutiny?

Regardless of what one might think of Tavis Smiley, his persona, or his agenda, doesn’t he have a point? Is it wrong to seek truth?

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” –Mathew 5:14-16

What do you or don't you like about Tavis? Do you feel President Obama is being held accountable?

Tell me what you think! Have an opinion (and I know you do) I’ll listen.

One Black's Woman Opinion re: The Octuplet Mom

I am really growing tired of the attention surrounding the Octuplet mom. I know this short post may strike a chord, which I hope it does, because I believe the elevation of the Octuplet mom to 'media-darling' has some not-so-subtle racial undertones.

If a single African-American mom, who already had 6 children, would have had 8 more babies with no real means of supporting such a large family, I doubt she would have received such outpouring of sentiment. First of all, her mental state would have been questioned. DHR/Child Services would have likely taken immediate custody of those 8 babies, as well as the 6 at home, and ordered evaluations of the mother. Everyone would have likely been speculating about the mom's motivations: Was she doing just to get a check (or a 'fatter' check, assuming the mother was already receiving public assistance)? Additionally, what medical practitioner would have assisted a single African American mom of 6 by impregnating her to give birth to 8 more? I believe a single African American mom in similar circumstances as the Octuplet mom would have been denigrated, rather than exalted, in the court of public opinion. And why would a Mother allow throngs of cameras, lights, and people in her home at a time when these young babies need less media attention and more of their mother's attention?

I would like to hear from you - after all this is only one Black woman's opinion.

The Republican Party: Out To Destroy America - Just To Make A Point

My girl Dovescorner (Twitter) turned me on to this video - thanks baby girl.

It's an interview D.L. Hughley did with Frank Schaeffer (author of "Crazy For God") about fundamentalist Christianity, the Republican Party, and the religious right. It's really intriguing.

During the interview, Schaeffer makes a plethora of points:

• Americans are tired of voting for someone JUST because they fundamentalist Christians.
• The religious right is now the base of the Republican Party.
• George Bush II was unqualified to be President but was elected solely because of his fundamentalist views.
• John McCain asked Sarah Palin to be his running mate simply because she was a fundamentalist Christian and to appease the Republican base.
• The Republican Party has moved from [favoring small government and physical constraint] to one which represents fundamentalist Christians on one side and a view of the world that sees everyone that is other [minorities, homosexuals, different countries, etc.] as the enemy. Do you agree with Schaeffer?
• The Republican Base now consists of "...religious and neoconservative ideologues and the uneducated white underclass with a token person of color or two. The best thing that has happened to this country is the election of Barack Obama.

The issue is simple. Does the Republican Party's current agenda pose a threat to you, your freedom of choice, your prosperity, or your way of life?

Black men in prison: To fix this problem we must fix the black family

I was reading an article by Earl Ofari Hutchinson entitled, "America's Prison Juggernaut Continues to Crush Black Males." In it, Ofari takes the central stance that "...High joblessness, failing public schools, budget cutbacks in skills training and placement programs, the refusal of employers to hire those with criminal records, and the gaping racial disparity in the drug sentencing laws are the major reasons why far more blacks than whites are behind bars."

Do you agree with this?

I'm not sure I do. Now, while I agree that these factors do play a role in crime for all races, I think other reasons are far more prominent. What about the role of the family? What about the absence of black fathers in the home or a positive role model in the male's life?

Black pastors, how do you feel about the role of family and black male crime?

Now, I don't know about your city, but here in Atlanta, news about black males committing crime doesn't seem to change, in good times and bad. To check out my notional feeling on this, I took the liberty of looking at some Bureau of Justice crime statistics for the years 1993 through 2009. What I found was interesting.

1993 - The incarceration rate of blacks was 7 times that of whites. At year end there were 1,471 black inmates per 100,000 black U.S. residents, compared to 207 white inmates per 100,000 white residents.

2000 - Among the more than 1.3 million sentenced inmates at year end, an estimated 428,300 were black males between the ages of 20 and 39. At year end 2000, 9.7% of black males age 25 to 29 were in prison, compared to 2.9% of Hispanic males and 1.1% of white males in the same age group.

2001 - Among the more than 1.3 million sentenced inmates at year end 2001, an estimated 441,700 were black males between the ages of 20 and 39. At year end 2001, 10.0% of black males age 25 to 29 were in prison, compared to 2.9% of Hispanic males and 1.2% of white males in the same
age group.

2002 - At year end, 10.4 % for black males age 25 to 29 were in prison.

2003 - At year end, 9.3% of black males age 25 to 29 were in prison.

2004 - About 8.4% of black males between ages 25 and 29 were in State or Federal prison

2005 - About 8.1% of black males age 25 to 29 were in State or Federal prison.

2007 - While the imprisonment rates for most groups increased during the past 7 years, the imprisonment rates for black males and black females decreased. At year end 2000, the black male imprisonment rate was 3,188 prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents. White men were imprisoned at a rate of 410 prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents. By year end 2007, the black male imprisonment rate had decreased to 3,138 prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents, while the white male imprisonment rate increased to 481 prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents. These changes resulted in a decrease in the ratio of imprisoned black men to imprisoned white men. In 2000 the ratio was 8 to 1 and in 2007 the ratio was 7 to 1.

Again, joblessness and failing public schools may explain some crime. However, it falls far from an answer. Many feel that the black economic resurgence occurred when Bill Clinton was in office (January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001). If this is true, how would Hutchinson and others explain the rise in black crime rates during this period?

I think it's high time for the black community to seriously examine the core issues affecting crime in our community: absence of black fathers, absence of positive role models in the lives of many young black males, single mothers (may of whom are babies themselves) trying to raise a child, the negative images the media keeps pumping out to our youth, and the lack of personal responsibility and accountability in general.

Black moms, do you really think your kids can listen to much of today's music and watch many of today's videos and not be negatively affected? You tell me.

I tell you, I don't think we're going to fix this problem until we fix the black family.

Now tell me; what do you think? --IamRobert and I'm listening.

Immigrant Entrepreneurs - The Key to U.S. Economic Recovery

According to homeland house, “…small business is the bedrock of American commerce and industry…small firms generate 60 to 80 percent of the new jobs. Small firms employ about half of all private sector employees, shell out more than 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll, create more than half of non-farm private gross domestic product (GDP), and provide jobs for 40 percent of our high tech employees.

Did you know that immigrants represent a significant proportion of business owners and therefore will play a key role in the U.S. economic recovery? It’s true.

And don’t think that immigrants only serve as cheap labor. US News & World Report featured a report by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (report) by researchers from Babson and Baruch colleges which “debunks the myth that poor immigrants do not contribute much to economic growth…In fact, a not-insubstantial number become entrepreneurs. For example, according to the report, about a quarter of early-stage businesses started by Mexican-Americans are started by people of lower household income (under $40,000).”

Partly because of language barriers, partly due to culture, and partly out of desperation; immigrants tend to be entrepreneurs, and set up shops and small businesses on their own. For instance, a survey of 28,000 companies found that immigrants were key founders in more than a quarter of all the engineering and technology companies set up in the U.S. between 1995 and 2005. The researchers say the "startling statistics" they have put together show that the U.S. economy depends upon the high rates of entrepreneurship and education among immigrants to "maintain its global edge."

Statistics from the Small Business Administration Supports This Claim:

* According to Census 2000, immigrants constitute 12.2 percent of the total U.S. work force, and 12.5 percent of the total population of U.S. business owners. The total business income generated by immigrant business owners is $67 billion, representing11.6 percent of all business income in the United States.

* Immigrants are nearly 30 percent more likely to start a business than are non immigrants, and they represent 16.7 percent of all new business owners in the United States.

* Immigrant business owners make significant contributions to business income, generating $67 billion of the $577 billion in U.S. business income, as estimated from 2000 U.S. Census data.

* Business owners from Mexico constitute the largest share of immigrant business owners.”

National Statistics

* A 2006 Study by Duke University and the University of California at Berkeley indicates that 25% of engineering and science companies were founded with at least one immigrant. Nationwide, these immigrant-founded companies produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers in 2005.

* A 2006 study by Stuart Anderson, National Foundation for American Policy and Michaela Platzer, Content First, found that immigrant-founded venture-backed companies are concentrated in cutting edge sectors: high-technology manufacturing, information technology and life sciences.

Massachusetts — a case study

* A 2006-2007 study commissioned by The Immigrant Learning Center, Inc. (5) found that immigrant entrepreneurs contributed to the Massachusetts Biotechnology industry in the following ways: 25.7 % of bio tech companies in New England have at least one foreign-born founder.

* Bio tech companies in New England with at least one immigrant founder produced over $7.6 billion in sales and employed over 4,000 workers in 2006. 12 % of founders of MA bio tech firms are women.

* The preliminary evidence suggests that immigrants have been key contributors to the creation of new businesses and intellectual capital in the very successful biotechnology industry in Massachusetts.

From the nail salon, to the beauty supply store, to the convenience store, to high-tech. industries, immigrants have led the entrepreneurial trend in much of the country. The businesses they start will undoubtedly generate much needed jobs which will in turn help stimulate the U.S. economy. So, while the Republicans are talking about “sealing the boarders,” it might be wise to think about immigration reform in a different light.

Yeah, We All Know Rush Hates “Liberalism” – Problem Is What’s His Definition of It?

By now, I’m sure you all have heard the sound bite of Rush’s latest comment regarding Barack Obama: at his closing speech at the CPAC conference, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh doubled down on his widely-controversial claim that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail, insisting that he meant what he said, and chastising those who were critical of him. But, what exactly did we hear? More importantly, didn’t get to hear? My point is that just like you can’t always judge a book by its cover; you can’t always judge a person by a sound bite. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Rush fan, but I am one of the truth—now matter who it favors at the time.

Now, I think it's a forgone conclusion that Rush wants “Liberalism”, to fail. At issue here, is just what does he mean by “Liberalism”? To address that question I think we need to look at Rush’s comments historically. For brevity’s sake; I’ll only start with this year.

According to Think Progress, on January 16, “Limbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by 'a major American print publication' to offer a 400-word statement explaining his 'hope for the Obama presidency.' He responded: So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, 'Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.' (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, 'Oh, you can’t do that.' Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here.” Problem is; there was no definition of the term so what was meant was left to one’s perception of Rush.

On January 19, Rush did an interview with Sean Hannity. I took the liberty of reading the full transcript of Rush’s interview with Sean Hannity and provide you his full comment: …"Sean, he is our president now, and he's not black. He's not from Mars. He's our president. He's a human being. We're a country comprised of human beings that the Democrat Party and the left have attempted to arrange into groups of victims, and that's who he appeals to, and the victims are the people waiting around for some grievance to be resolved. They're waiting around for something to happen for them, and he is parlaying that. So I think the fact that he's African-American -- his father was black -- to me, it's irrelevant. This is the greatest country on earth. We want to keep it that way. It is that way for specific reasons. Now I look at the things that he has said, and I'm very much concerned that our greatness is going to be redefined in such a way that it won't be great, that we're just going to become average. "

So, are these comments racist, or a legitimate opinion against a policy or political direction that he disagrees with?

On February 28, Rush addressed CPAC (full transcript) and attempted to clarify his position. Read it and decide for yourself. It’s long, but a factual account of what Rush said—in its entirety.

What am I getting at here?

Racism does exist, yet even a racist has the right and civil obligation to question political policy and direction…just not a person’s right to exist and thrive.

What people take from Rush’s speeches (aside from the outlandish sidebars) has more to do with what's in their hearts and minds in the first place rather than what he says—we hear what we want to hear.

The time for demagoguery has past. No one should twist facts to support their position—people want solutions, not emotions.

No one has demanded that Rush defend, from a public policy perspective, what he means by Liberalism as it relates to creating America’s problems—but he has attempted to do that on his own.

The real issue here is that many of us assume we know Rush Limbaugh, what he stands for, and what he means when he makes one of his outlandish statements. Part of the problem is Rush. Consider this comment (according to Media Matters) made on the January 24 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, where he referred to then Sen. Barack Obama and actress Halle Berry as "Halfrican American[s]." What can one take from the comment except that he was insulting their ethnicity…or worse? But I believe the real Rush Limbaugh has been overlooked—that of master showman. You see the outlandish sales whether you’re on the right or left. So next time you hear Rush, ask yourself; do you want a good show or a good solution?