Independent Women's Forum - Michelle D. Bernard

Nightly News with Brian Williams: Divided Dems to Scupper Obama's Health Push

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:31:00 EST

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hardball with Chris Matthews: Why Did The Dems Abandon Rangel?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:35:00 EST

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

IWF in the News:The Big Question: Who Will Win Support at the Health Reform Summit?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:28:00 EST

The Hill

Today's question:

Which party will shine at Thursday's healthcare summit?

Michelle Bernard, President of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Only Failure Will Make This Summit A Success

Neither party will shine during the White House summit, which is more likely to cause viewers to roll their eyes and flip the channel than get excited about health care reform. The only way that this summit will be a success is if it's ineffectiveness finally convinces Congress to give up on its current legislative push and go back to the drawing board in terms of crafting a proposal.

The public has already expressed its disgust for the current proposals in every way it can - in the voting booths, in town hall meetings, and consistently to pollsters. One summit-even one that goes swimmingly from the Democrats' perspective-isn't going to change the consensus among the American people that these health care bills should be canned. The American people have listened to policymakers talk about health care reform; it's time for Washington to start listening to the public and give up on this version of health care reform.

The Big Talker 1210: Rhode Island Fires Teachers

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:13:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard hosts a segment on education issues in Rhode Island....

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Will Dems See a Backlash Over Reconciliation?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:17:00 EST

The Hill

Today's question:

Will there be a backlash from voters if Democrats pass healthcare reform through reconciliation?

Michelle D. Bernard, President and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

HEALTHCARE REFORM THROUGH RECONCILATION NOW WILL BE RECONCILED BY WOMEN AND INDEPENDENTS IN NOVEMBER

Absolutely. Poll after poll shows voters reject the Democrats healthcare proposals. The latest Rasmussen poll confirmed those findings once again: "41% of voters favor the proposed healthcare plan, while 56% oppose it. Those figures include 45% who strongly oppose the plan and just 23% who strongly favor it." Yes, nearly half of the country "strongly" opposes the healthcare legislation that the Democrats are now seeking to advance using reconciliation - a procedure that was meant for use only for budget matters, not for legislation that would fundamentally reorder one-sixth of the economy. This surely will infuriate not only those ideologically opposed to this healthcare reform proposal, but political independents who want a more civil, bipartisan Washington.

A poll conducted by Independent Women's Voice after the Massachusetts special election found that twice as many Massachusetts voters thought Congress should "start over" in healthcare negotiations as thought that Congress should "keep going as is." Undoubtedly, these voters, like most Americans, will be even more disgusted by those who would seek to advance this most unpopular legislation by thwarting the regular legislative process, and they'll be ready to show their anger in the voting booths in November.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Will Obama's New Plan Give Health Reform a Boost?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:42:00 EST

The Hill

Today's question:

Will President Barack Obama's new health reform plan generate momentum for the stalled legislation?

Michelle D. Bernard, President & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

The American people have soundly rejected the fundamental reform proposal that's being advanced by Congress and the White House. The tweaked bill that's being offered by the White House isn't going to change the consensus among Americans that a trillion-dollar government effort to micromanage the health care insurance of all Americans is the wrong direction.

Yet the White House and Congress don't seem concerned about the American people's attitudes per se. Their only priority is insuring they can convince enough House Members that something has changed and that there will be political benefits to passing health care once and for all so they can sneak the legislation through via reconciliation. It seems like it will be an uphill battle to convince vulnerable Democrats that somehow supporting this wildly unpopular initiative is in their political interest.

The White House would better serve the American people by going back to the drawing board and considering reforms that really could improve the system. They could start by thinking about some of the challenges that women face:

Today, health insurance is tied to employment, which means that women (who frequently take time out of the workforce and work in part-time positions that don't include health benefits) often face disruptions in their coverage. Buying health insurance on the individual market (instead of through an employer) can often be costly and difficult. Why is this such a problem? It's largely the product of ill-conceived government policy. In particular, employers purchasing health insurance receive tax breaks while those purchasing in the individual market don't. They could start addressing that problem by reforming the tax treatment to put employer-provided and individually-purchased insurance on a level playing field. You can check out more ideas for how to improve the system here: http://www.iwf.org/files/228e1cb798b2957ae19a5ca4a78bb1f9.pdf.

The President may be able to gin up a little momentum among those in his party to pass his health care reform. But that won't make the bill any better or more popular.

Hardball with Chris Matthews: Is a Palin Presidency Out of Reach?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:56:00 EST

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

IWF in the News: The Big Question: How Can the Deficit Panel Make Their Work Count?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:25:00 EST

The Hill

Today's question:

What could President Barack Obama's deficit commission do to have a strong effect on policy-makers?

Michelle D. Bernard, president & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Nothing. There is absolutely nothing that any deficit commission can do to encourage the spending-addicted Congress to do their jobs and actually reduce outlays to bring the budget into balance. The soon to-be-retired because nothing works in Congress Evan Bayh and Senator John McCain were on the right path in proposing The Fiscal Freeze Act of 2010 which would include a spending freeze and earmark moratorium until the federal budget is balanced; make the President's proposed freeze on non-security discretionary funding law, create a line item veto that passes constitutional muster so that the President can "weed out wasteful spending items", and give the annual Congressional budget resolution the force of law." http://senatus.wordpress.com/?s=fiscal+freeze+act+of+2010 . Only Congress can do this, not a powerless, unelected deficit commission. In the short-term, it is going to be up to the President to show that it's time to get serious about spending and veto bills that include unnecessary spending and waste.

Ultimately, only voters will be able to force their elected representatives to radically alter the government's spending habits to bring down long-term deficits. We have seen it happen in NJ, where Gov. Christie campaigned on the need to slash state spending; voters elected him and now he is making good on his promise with a spending freeze and by offering major cuts that would fundamentally change the state. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/nj_gov_chris_christies_spendin.html If the public wants responsible budgets, they'll have to make it the number one issue in the next election and vote only for who are truly committed to reducing the size of government.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: What Does Bayh's Decision Mean for His Party?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:33:00 EST

The Hill's Congress Blog

Today's question:

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh said pointed partisanship caused his retirement. What does Bayh's retirement mean for other centrist Democrats? Will Democrats be able to keep their Senate majority?

Michelle Bernard, President of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Sen. Bayh voiced his frustrations with Washington and Congress when explaining why he didn't plan to seek a 3rd term. Yet surely part of his frustration lies with this past year when hopes were so high that President Obama would change the tone of politics, govern from the center, make the legislative process more open and deliberative and enact positive reforms for the country. Many Americans-in particular political independents-now tell pollsters they are more frustrated than ever with Washington. Sen. Bayh must share their frustration, and maybe he also worries that voters might take their frustrations out on him. If Sen. Bayh is really so disheartened by the political process, you would think he might want to stay and focus on working from within to change the process. Perhaps he thinks Washington is truly irredeemable.

Centrist Democrats, particularly those in states or districts that traditionally lean Republican, didn't need the retirement of Bayh to get a sense of just how tough the upcoming election season will be for them. The Democratic loss of the Massachusetts' Senate seat told the whole story. And no one should forget Virginia and New Jersey. Bayh's retirement may encourage a few more to make an early exit. Even a few months ago it seemed almost impossible to imagine that Democrats could lose control of the Senate. But unless something changes soon, I'd put Republican chances of a takeover at more than fifty percent.

Dr. King's Dream Will Be Realized

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:08:00 EST

thegrio.com

This Black History Month, we have much to celebrate. Not that racism has disappeared or barriers to minority achievement have disappeared, but after the election of Barack Obama as president, we can imagine a time when Dr. Martin Luther King's dream will truly be realized and all men and women will be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

In his most famous speech, delivered in August 1963, Dr. King observed that one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation: "The life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land."

No longer, however.

Reverend King said at the time that he had a dream, that "one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'."

America still falls short of its high ideals, but today far more Americans believe that all men are created equal and--just as important--act on that belief. Some Americans still fixate on someone's color (or country of origin, sex, religion, or other extraneous factor), but today, most care far more about a person's character.

Could Dr. King have imagined that less than a half century after that August day an African-American would sit in the Oval Office as president of the United States? That a black man would be America's face to the world and the world's most powerful person? Obviously, symbolism goes only so far. Minorities know far too well that we remain especially vulnerable to many economic and social ills. After the emotional high of the evening of the first Tuesday of November in 2008, African-Americans had to go to work--or go look for work--on Wednesday morning.

Nevertheless, we recognize how far we have come. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center finds a far more confident and hopeful black community. According to the Pew Center, "Despite the bad economy, blacks' assessments about the state of black progress in America have improved more dramatically during the past two years than at any time in the past quarter century."

The point is not that African-Americans have become incurable Pollyannas. More blacks than whites are dissatisfied with their lives and communities, and more than 80 percent doubt America's basic racial fairness. Nevertheless, reports Pew: "nearly twice as many blacks now (39%) as in 2007 (20%) say that the 'situation of black people in this country' is better than it was five years earlier, and this more positive view is apparent among blacks of all age groups and income levels. Looking ahead, blacks are even more upbeat. More than half (53%) say that life for blacks in the future will be better than it is now, while just 10% say it will be worse," also a significant improvement from 2007.

Although expectations of the impact of President Obama's election have dimmed over the last year, a majority of African-Americans still believe that his victory improved race relations. (A third of whites say the same, with most opining that it made no difference.)

Black History Month should lead us to simultaneously celebrate how far America has come and rededicate ourselves to completing the fight against injustice. There is much work to do: we need to focus on improving our economy, so that jobs are available and families can focus on pursuing the American dream. We need to improve our public schools, which particularly in low-income, minority communities fail to give our children the tools they need to succeed in life.

Yet the good news is that we can finally foresee the fulfillment of Reverend King's dream. Barack Obama's success demonstrates that Americans increasingly do judge their fellow citizens by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and that there are no limits to the success that black Americans can achieve.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) and an MSNBC political analyst. Bernard is a regular panelist with MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and The McLaughlin Group, and a political commentator for The Hill's Congress blog.

Hardball with Chris Matthews: Moving Terror Out of New York

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:09:00 EST

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Warren Ballentine Show: Remarks on The State of the Union Address

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:22:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joins The Warren Ballentine Show to discuss the state of the union address....

The President Needs to Learn More About the Real Meaning of the Massachusetts Senate Election

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:14:00 EST

Townhall.com

Elections matter. The 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama was historic. The 2010 Senate election of Scott Brown was less symbolic, but perhaps more substantive. President Obama should learn from last week's result. Massachusetts voters spoke loudly, and what they said bodes ill for the President's agenda of expanded government.

President Obama took office at a time of economic crisis. Americans wanted change, and a majority gave their votes to Barack Obama. But events haven't worked out as people expected: Americans haven't seen the change that they desired. That's why Scott Brown was elected to the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy: Massachusetts citizens overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in November 2008; they voted for Brown in January 2010.

The President's State of the Union showed that he had gotten this message-in part. He knows that turning around the economy is paramount, and that voters are disgusted with Washington. Yet he needs to dig deeper to understand more. He might start by looking closely at the results of a poll conducted by our sister organization, the Independent Women's Voice, of Massachusetts voters. The results show that it will take more than new rhetoric to win back voters: voters are focused on issues and want real change in Washington.

The poll showed that health care was voters' most important concern. Nearly one-third of those polled put the current health care debate as their top priority. Another 57 percent ranked it in the top three. And even in liberal Massachusetts, voters don't back a government medical takeover. Of those who ranked health care as their number one concern, 51 percent opposed the leading congressional proposals.

The preferences of self-identified political independents are most telling: Independent men rejected the measure by a 57 percent to 35 percent margin. Independent women were opposed by a similar margin: 55 percent to 33 percent.

Voters want a fresh start on health care. Only 16 percent of respondents believed that health care negotiations should "keep going as it is," and nearly half thought it would be important to open the legislative process to the public.

In the State of the Union, President Obama said he was open to new ideas about how to fix health care. So are Massachusetts voters. And many of those polled back market-oriented reforms: allowing small businesses to band together to buy insurance (57 percent supported), helping individuals to buy insurance (50 percent), implementing malpractice reform (46 percent), and permitting insurance sales across state lines (36 percent).

Of course, health care wasn't voters' only concern. Nearly one-in-five said economic recovery was the most important issue; another 62 percent ranked it within the top three. And once again, Massachusetts voters rejected Obama administration policies. Forty-six percent of voters believed that increased government spending-the Obama Administration's preferred tactic during year one-is more likely to deter the economic recovery, while less than a third believed spending would speed it up. Four out of five said they believed small business tax credits would stimulate economic growth. A majority of voters also want the Bush income tax cuts to be reauthorized, and cuts in government expenditures to reduce government debt.

The Christmas Day attempted terrorist attack also put national security on people's minds. Nearly two-thirds of Massachusetts citizens said that it was "very" or "somewhat" important to their vote when Brown said: "In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

Brown's victory obviously was good news for the Republican Party. It shows that they can win elections even in the most liberal territory. Yet this election was not a vote for the Republican Party, which continues to lag behind the Democrats in public support among Massachusetts voters. Voters saw the election as a referendum on the Democratic policy agenda. They found the agenda wanting, so elected Scott Brown to send a message to Washington.

The message is clear: Massachusetts voters believe health care reform is important, but they want it done right. They don't like the Democratic plan, and they especially don't like the Democrats' attempt to railroad a bad plan into law. Instead, the people want real, bipartisan solutions. Voters believe the economy requires immediate attention. Yet even in liberal Massachusetts, voters want traditionally conservative solutions: spending cuts, tax reductions and less regulation.

Finally, Massachusetts voters emphasize the importance of protecting Americans from terrorism. That doesn't mean giving up the liberties which have made America great. But it does mean treating foreign terrorists different than domestic criminals.

Last year when Sen. Ted Kennedy died, no one imagined that the Massachusetts Senate election would turn out to be so important. But voters wanted to send Washington a message. If the President and Congress don't listen, they are likely to find that the voter revolution won't stop with one state.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) and an MSNBC political analyst. Bernard is a regular panelist with MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and The McLaughlin Group, and a political commentator for The Hill's Congress blog.

Obama Should Scrap Health Care Reform in State of the Union

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:04:00 EST

thegrio.com

The president faces difficult choices as he prepares to deliver tomorrow's State of the Union. His political capital is damaged.The Democrats' filibuster-proof Senate super-majority is no more. And although the administration has been reluctant to acknowledge it, surely they received the message from Massachusetts voters who cite health care as their top concern and elected a man who campaigned explicitly on derailing Congress's health care train.

Democratic leaders are struggling to figure out their next step. Should they try to concoct an alternative legislative path to force a bill to the president's desk, or should they take a step back, scrap the current legislation, and take another stab at health care reform? They worry they'll pay a political price for giving up on legislation that consumed so much of this administration's first year, but pressing on--particularly using some legislative slight-of-hand--seems even riskier.

Yet there are other reasons why the president should urge Congress to go back to the drawing board on health care reform that have nothing to do with politics. For one, the bills currently passed by the Senate and House hurt those that they are supposed to help. In particular, the concerns of people of color and the poor have been given short shrift during these health care negotiations.

Consider what current legislation would do to Medicaid, a program that predominantly serves at-risk, minority populations. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 15 million more Americans will be funneled into Medicaid by 2019. That means that the problems that plague Medicaid today will become even worse in the future. Medicaid's reimbursement rates are so low--often below what it costs health care practitioners to see the patient--that many doctors won't accept Medicaid patients. The proposed legislation does nothing to address that problem and will make it worse by flooding Medicaid's roles.

Medicaid patients also lose out when it comes to access to preventative services. There was a political uproar when a government commission recommended changing standard procedure for women's preventative services including reducing the number of mammograms women should expect to receive. The Senate responded by passing an amendment to limit the affect of those recommendations--but the amendment applies only to non-Medicaid populations. An oversight? Hardly.

Where is the outrage from Democratic leaders? Where is the concern that problems with access to health care will worsen? Unions get special treatment, and individual Senators negotiate explicit kickbacks for their constituents, but the minority community is ignored. Maybe part of the problem is the minority communities' political power is limited, especial for blacks, since when we do vote, we overwhelmingly vote for Democrats no matter how poorly we are treated.

Two prominent African-American organizations have spoken out about other areas of the bill that will harm minorities. The United States Commission on Civil Rights sent a seven page letter to the President and Senate leadership expressing serious concerns about "racially discriminatory provisions" in the bill. Citing concerns about minorities in long term care facilities, they state:

"...these provisions permit a separate and unequal operating standard for long-term care facilities that serve racial and ethnic minorities, with the possibility that their residents will not be afforded the same levels of protection against abuse and other crimes as residents of nursing homes that have larger non-minority populations."

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus also objected to aspects of the bill. In an open letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, they highlighted that cuts planned in the health care bill will "devastate the many hospitals that rely on [disproportionate share hospital] funds and that serve as a lifeline to low-income populations." Neither letter has been responded to in any public way by the White House or the Democratic Congressional leaders.

This only scratches the surface of a bill that is chocked full of spending and special provisions for nearly all other major interest groups. Yet the Senate bill cuts nearly $120 billion in subsidies that are given directly to insurers in the Medicare Advantage program, a program used predominantly by non-white, low income seniors. Over 80 percent of Hispanic seniors making less than $20,000 per year use these plans, and Medicare's own actuaries say that the bill will force millions to lose their current coverage. All others will see costs go up and benefits decrease.

Is this really the best we can do? The United States does need health care reform, but current proposals take us in the wrong direction with more government dictates and higher costs, but without addressing the root problems in the current system and without helping many who need it most.

It will take courage for President Obama to tell Congress to start anew with health care reform. Yet this is what the country needs. During this State of the Union, instead of soaring rhetoric and lofty promises about transforming the country, the president should show a commitment to listening to the American people, and pursuing changes that will have real impact and bipartisan support. There are simple, smaller, but important reforms that can help make health insurance more affordable and the health insurance marketplace more competitive. Sometimes the boldest proposals are ones that sound modest.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: What Does Brown's Win Mean for Obama and Dems?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:21:00 EST

The Hill

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley. What is the message for President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats?

Michelle D. Bernard, president & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Americans Want Change Once Again

The message to Democrats from last night election couldn't be more clear: the American people are disgusted with Washington politics and reject it's big government agenda.

One year ago, Massachusetts voted for President Obama by more than 20 percentage points. Yesterday they voted in a Republican by a 5 point margin. This is a political earthquake. The Democratic leadership can no longer claim that just a fringe of Americans oppose their agenda. A majority of Massachusetts voters are political independents. They overwhelmingly voted for Scott Brown and against his Democratic opponent.

Many voters saw this explicitly as a referendum on health care and voted for Scott Brown solely so that he could be the 41st vote against the proposed health care legislation. This means something! Democrats need to recognize that a majority of Americans strongly oppose their proposals and are appalled at the backroom deals and bribery that have been used to advance this legislation.

Democrats have time to recover-at least partially-before the mid-term elections. Recovery starts with recognizing that they have a big problem, actually listening to the message that Americans have sent, and committing to govern from the center.

A Dream Realized?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:00:00 EST

As we celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday, we also should celebrate how much of his dream has been realized. Not that racism has disappeared or barriers to minority achievement have disappeared. But after the election of Barack Obama as president, we can imagine a time when all men and women will be judged by the content of their character.

When Martin Luther King's birthday became a holiday, some saw the day as being for blacks only. However, Rev. King's message was for everyone. He spoke for all Americans, not just African-Americans.

It took enormous moral courage to lead a campaign of nonviolence in the face of pervasive injustice. The 20^th century saw many violent revolutions, with often horrific consequences. Dr. King led a nonviolent transformation of the most powerful and influential nation on the planet.

The process wasn't easy and many people suffered greatly while pursuing justice. And the end of legal discrimination didn't end social hostility.

In his most famous speech, delivered in August 1963, King observed that one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation: "the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land."

No longer, however.

Rev. King said at the time that he had a dream, that "one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'." His dream continued, "that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

America still falls short of its high ideals, but today far more Americans believe that all men are created equal and-just as important--act on that belief. Some Americans still fixate on someone's color (or country of origin, sex, or other extraneous factor), but today most care far more about a person's character.

Which is the only way Barack Obama could be elected president. Could Dr. King have imagined that less than a half century after that August day an African-American would sit in the Oval Office? That a black man would be America's face to the world and the world's most powerful person? Obviously, symbolism goes only so far. Minorities know far too well that we remain especially vulnerable to our many economic and social ills. After the emotional high of the evening of the first Tuesday of November in 2008, African-Americans had to go to work-or go look for work-on Wednesday morning.

Nevertheless, we recognize how far we have come. A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds a far more confident and hopeful black community. According to the Pew Center, "Despite the bad economy, blacks' assessments about the state of black progress in America have improved more dramatically during the past two years than at any time in the past quarter century."

The point is not that African-Americans have become incurable Pollyannas. More blacks than whites are dissatisfied with their lives and communities, and more than 80 percent doubt America's basic racial fairness. Nevertheless, reports Pew: "nearly twice as many blacks now (39%) as in 2007 (20%) say that the ‘situation of black people in this country' is better than it was five years earlier, and this more positive view is apparent among blacks of all age groups and income levels. Looking ahead, blacks are even more upbeat. More than half (53%) say that life for blacks in the future will be better than it is now, while just 10% say it will be worse," also a significant improvement from 2007.

Although expectations of the impact of President Obama's election have dimmed over the last year, a majority of African-Americans still believes that his victory improved race relations. (A third of whites say the same, with most opining that it made no difference.)

Martin Luther King's birthday should lead us to simultaneously celebrate how far America has come and rededicate ourselves to completing the fight against injustice. We can finally foresee the fulfillment of Rev. King's dream. Barack Obama's success demonstrates that after decades of struggle by Dr. King and those who picked up his mantle, Americans increasingly do judge their fellow citizens by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) and an MSNBC political analyst. Bernard is a regular panelist with MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and The McLaughlin Group, and a political commentator for The Hill's Congress blog.

IWF in the News: White Liberalism Is Inherently Racist

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:00:00 EST

The Examiner

While the recently exposed racist comments made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Bill Clinton may be shocking and offensive, they are simply indicative of the way most white liberals view black Americans.

The comments were revealed in "Game Change" by Time Magazine's Mark Halperin and New York magazine's John Heilemann. The book gives a behind the scenes look at the 2008 presidential campaign.

In the book, Harry Reid is quoted as describing Barack Obama as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Also exposed, was a comment by Bill Clinton, as he was trying to persuade Sen. Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Clinton told Kennedy that just a few years ago, would have been serving them coffee.

While Reid was quick to apologize for his statement (and his true feelings toward 13 percent of this nation's population), Clinton has offered no such apology and has refused to even speak about the issue...Of course, Clinton, unlike Reid, is not up for re-election this year.

Though always dismissed by the mainstream news media, liberals, as does the Democrat Party have a long history of racism, and keeping blacks "in their place."

Immediately following President Bush's 2004 announcement that National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice would replace Colin Powell as Secretary of State, the left-wing racists began their attack.

Madison, WI liberal talk show host John Sylvester called Condoleeza Rice an "Aunt Jemima." Sylvester said: "I was aiming that directly at a black person that is letting himself be used by an administration that has been extremely hostile to minorities."

You see, the liberal left does not believe that black Americans should have the right to an opinion--unless they espouse liberal ideals. If a black man or woman becomes a Republican or claims to be a conservative, they are deemed a sell-out.

Once the left realizes that they cannot control the words and actions of a prominent black leader, they allow their true feelings toward the entire black race come to the surface. For the Democrat Party, black folks are seen as nothing more than a voting block to be manipulated.

During her time with the Bush administration, several political cartoons appeared in most of this nation's liberal newspapers which exaggerated the black features of Dr. Rice, and were reminiscent of the racist cartoons that that were common in American newspapers during the 'Jim Crow' period.

Michelle D. Bernard, senior vice president of the Independent Women's Forum.said of the cartoons: "The depiction of Dr. Condoleezza Rice by Jeff Danziger, Pat Oliphant and Garry Trudeau as an ebonics speaking, big-lipped, black mammy who just loves her 'massa' is a disturbing trend in editorial cartoons. These cartoons take the racism of the liberals who profess respect and adoration for black Americans to a new level. It is revolting."

The NAACP was completely silent on this issue. However, had Dr. Rice been a liberal Democrat, that organization would have plenty to say. The incident truly demonstrated that the NAACP is nothing more than another branch of the Democrat Party.

Nor did NOW (National Organization for Women) or the League of Women Voters come to the defense of Dr. Rice. Could it be due to the fact that these groups are also not what they claim to be and merely fronts for the Democrat Party? Of course, both organizations sat silently throughout the Clinton years and refused to condemn a president who was clearly a sexual predator.

One favorite left-wing policy is that of affirmative action, the practice of awarding jobs, promotions, and college admission based solely on the color of one's skin. When conservatives argue against the policy, we are called racists. However, it is those who push for affirmative action who are the true racists.

With honors being awarded based on one's race, the left is saying that blacks and Hispanics cannot compete with whites on an even playing field, that they must be given an advantage that they themselves are not capable of achieving.

So, who are the true racists?

IWF in the News: CBC 2009 Winners and Losers

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:55:00 EST

The Center for Bioethics and Culture Net

Winners:

Dr. Darwin J. Prockop, a worldwide leader in adult stem cell research, has moved his research lab from Tulane University to the Texas A&M Health Center which has pledged $40 million over the next 5 years towards his research. Lawmakers in Texas have invested $5 million towards adult stem cell research as have other states like Oklahoma.

Jason Jones, founder of HERO (Human-Rights Education and Relief Organization) and the I Am Whole Life Campaign, whose mission is to "promote a respect for the intrinsic dignity of the human person regardless of ability, age, status, ethnicity or sex." As another initiative,Jones has recently launched MoviesToMovement to foster art that promotes human dignity.

Michelle D. Bernard, President of the Independent Women's Forum, a non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility. IWF advocates for "authentic feminism that embraces children and likes men, school choice, education reform, sound, non-politicized science, and is against higher taxes and wasteful government spending."

www.StemCellResearchFacts.org, a new website devoted to highlighting the advances in the oft maligned and misunderstood science of adult stem cell research. It was created to show the real promise and hope that adult stem cells offer and serves as a tool to help clarify the stem cell debate.

Life Legal Defense Foundation, who just celebrated their 25th anniversary of providing trained legal defense to the innocent and the voiceless. They have provided legal defense in notable cases such as the family of Terri Schiavo and Rev. Walter Hoye as well as heading a legal challenge against Proposition 71 in California.

Dr. Qi Zhou, of the State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Biology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences whose advances in iPS cell research led a team that created virtual genetic duplicates of mice using skin cells from adult animals. His research proved the functional equivalency of these cells to the embryonic stem cell.

Losers:

Nadya Suleman, the 33 year old single mother who has said she is open to having more children has 14 children through in vitro fertilization technology. Eight of the children were born at once this year, landing her the title "Octomom." Claims were made that six embryos were implanted, with two of the embryos twinning, resulting in eight live births.

Michael Kamrava, who treated "Octomom," Nadya Suleman, was expelled from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) amid a flurry of controversy. He was responsible for implanting at least 6 embryos in Suleman's uterus. He continues to practice, but he now faces several accusations by the Medical Board of California that could potentially result in the suspension or revocation of is medical license.

Ben Ramaley, a fertility doctor in Connecticut was accused of impregnating a female patient without her knowledge, let alone her consent, using his own sperm. The couple had doubts about the biological father when their twins were born with a "fair complexion." The patient's husband is African-American. DNA testing confirmed their suspicions.

Geron Corporation, received clearance from the FDA to begin the world's first human clinical trial using human embryonic stem cells in patients with newly diagnosed spinal cord injuries. As of now, the FDA has placed a hold on the trial due to safety concerns. Geron hopes by the third quarter of 2010 the trial will be in progress.

Sweden, where the Swedish National Board of Health has ruled that women are allowed to end their pregnancies, up to the 18th week, based solely on the gender of the fetus, if they so choose. This decision came in response to a Swedish woman aborted her babies several times because they weren't boys.

New York, the first state to allow taxpayer funds to compensate women up to $10,000 who donate their eggs for embryonic stem cell research. The American Society of Reproductive Medicine ‘guidelines,' suggest a woman can donate her eggs up to six times. An egg "donor" in New York could potentially make $60,000 while endangering her health.

WPHT: Terrorism, National Security and Jihadism

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:49:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard hosts a segment on international and political issues....

Hardball with Chris Matthews: What's Reid's Problem?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:36:00 EST

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

IWF in the News: The Big Question: What Do Democratic Exits Mean for 2010 Races?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:59:00 EST

The Hill

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) will not seek reelection. What does this news mean for the 2010 election? How will this impact President Barack Obama's agenda?

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said:

The window is closing on the Democrats' ability to unilaterally do dramatic damage to the country.

They will not have 60 votes in the Senate after the November 2010 election. Dorgan was a strong incumbent who has won repeatedly in a red state-despite voting to the Left of Barney Frank. His leaving makes it almost certain that an R will take this seat in 2010 and that Conrad will follow him out the door, vertically or horizontally, in 2012 as Conrad will not have the cover of his fellow Senator casting identical votes on each issue. From 2011 on, Conrad's votes for the labor union/trial lawyer/big city agenda will contrast with those of Hoeven. So there will be a Republican Senator contrasted with a Democrat Senator. A moderate conservative contrasted with a liberal democrat. Two years of casting identifiably left wing votes will finish Conrad.

Dodd would have stayed if Obama and the Democrats were popular enough to muscle him back into office. Dodd left because the current was against the Democrats and Obama is no longer the powerful popular figure that can sweep in and save a failing campaign.

Michelle D. Bernard, president & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Sinking poll numbers and congressional approval ratings should have led the Democratic leadership to conclude that they were pursuing an agenda that most of America rejects. But after months of ignoring these warning signs, some politicians are deciding they'd rather throw in the towel than face an angry electorate. While the loss of Senator Dodd may actually improve Democrats' electoral prospects, the rash of retirements is just more evidence that many Democrats are out of touch with America and face potentially devastating losses in November. They would be wise to abandon the worst of their big government agenda and start governing from the center--after all, that's why voters elected them in the first place.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

Dodd was polled to lose against any contender including libertarian Peter Schiff. He recognizied that the sea has changed even here in tradition-bound New England. I think the Obama admin has orchestrated the ramming through of astonishing amounts of deficit-based changes in a hurry knowing that the country would react against them, but thinking that it would be too late to do anything about it. Wrong. This is poor spirited. The results will be historic and and possibly catastrophic. It simply will not work in a country as alive as ours; 1840s Russia yes, 1920s China yes - those were dead realms. What these programs have done here is awakened the heartland. The states will defend against them and have now found the antidote: Jefferson and the 10th Amendment. These Dems are getting out of Dodge while the getting is good.

Brad Delong, professor of Economics at UC Berkley, said:

Hmmm...

So far, as I understand it, we have (i) three Democratic governors who could seek reelection have decided not to, while four Republican governors who could seek reelection have decided not to; (ii) 12 Democratic House members and 13 Republican House members who have decided to retire; and if I recall correctly (iii) six Republican Senate members and two Democratic ones who have decided to retire.

So it looks as though the retirement tide is still running against the Republicans, at least in the Senate...

Ron Walters, professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, said:

Chris Dodd was a vital cog in President Obama's legislative team and it will undoubtedly throw more pressure on the leadership of Harry Reid to get things through. However, this may also be a perfect tiiming for an exit by Dodd, having capped a 36 year career with a monumental victory that comes about in several generations. So, Dodd may not be missed as Obama's priorities shift to other areas of the Congress. The main issue then becomes that since Dodd was running behind in the state polls whether he will be replaced by another Democrat and in view of Dorgan's decision to retire, whether Democrats will retain the 60 votes necessary to affect cloture. That will also be the most serious result.

Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said:

As a good friend keeps reminding me, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

A.B. Stoddard, Associate Editor of The Hill, said:

Retirements by senior Democrats do not come as a surprise, and there could be more. Looking down the barrel of the 2010 midterm elections the party is on the defensive this year in a way Democrats never imagined: on energy reform, the stimulus, on their signature issue of health care with support for reform dropping by the month, on the economy and joblessness and on the issue of terror and the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay. This year will be a kick-the-bums-out year for sure.

Democrats could very well keep the seat of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), since he had personal liabilities and the new Democratic candidate has won statewide and is in a strong political position there. Democrats are likely to lose the seat of Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), however, particularly if the GOP governor makes a run for it.

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, said:

Many Democrats thought that healthcare would be a winning issue in 2010. But the bill is highly unpopular. As Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie blogs regarding Dodd's decision: "The healthcare bounce was showing no signs of making an appearance. The imminent passage of the behemoth bill is hardening, not easing, the public's hostility to incumbents."

Obama ran on a platform of openness and moderation, but is ducking his promises on openness while pushing an agenda far more radical than his campaign suggested. In response, Americans have been pulling away, and it's not surprising that members of Congress are choosing to get out rather than face an angry public next fall.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

When you hear that locomotive coming down the tracks, it's best to get out of the way.

Dodd's collusion with the real estate scamsters and AIG pretty much doomed his reelection chances, and so it made sense - financially - for him to get out.

But more than Dodd's corruption is involved here: an anti-incumbent, anti-bailout, populist wave is rising, and has been since Obama's election, and it won't crest for years. That wave will crush BOTH parties, unless they figure out a way to either surf it, or get out of the way.

Alan Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University, said:

Dorgan's retirement makes it a little more likely that Republicans will pick up the North Dakota seat, but he would have probably faced a tough race if he had run. Dodd's retirement makes it more likely that Democrats will keep the Connecticut seat since the likely Democratic nominee, Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal, is much more popular than Dodd. Neither will have any impact on Obama's agenda for the rest of the year. If anything, Dorgan may feel freer to support Obama's policies.

Richard S. Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and professor at MIT, said:

It might not mean much. They might be stepping aside in order to allow the Democrats to run stronger candidates. To be sure, this indicates an above-normal degree of nervousness. However, the Massachusetts election on Jan. 19 to choose a replacement for Ted Kennedy could be more important. In the still unlikely case that the Republican, Brown, wins, that could well be a game-changer. The polls show him catching up with the fairly unattractive Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley.

Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, said:

In narrow, direct partisan terms, not all retirements are the same. Sen. Dodd's retirement gives Connecticut Democrats a better chance to keep his seat. Sen. Dorgan's retirement is a likely boon for Republicans in North Dakota.

With a net loss of seats in the Senate likely and potential big losses in the House, Obama and congressional Democrats must weigh advancing issues for which they may need their current strong Democratic majorities to win with political calculation about avoiding potentially dangerous votes for members facing hard reelection battles. There are political arguments both ways, but a lot of their base does not want policy decisions to be driven entirely by short-term partisan calculations.

Dick Morris, columnist and Pundits Blog contributor, said:

It will trigger a wave of Democratic dropouts and defections and party switches. It marks the beginning of the end of his congressional ascendancy.

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

I understand that there are more GOP senators who are not running for reelection than the two Democrats who just announced retirement. The decisions of Dodd and Dorgan should not have GOP leaders jumping for joy prematurely. A Democrat will likely succeed Dodd in Connecticut and it looks like a Republican will succeed Dorgan in North Dakota. Not a big shift in power there. What happens with the seats currently held by retiring GOP senators should be factored into thoughts about what will become of President Obama's agenda.

It would be wonderful for the nation if leading Republicans were markedly different from leading Democrats. The notion that automatically identifies Republicans as believable conservatives/constitutionalists is not merited. The country needs people who believe in LESS government, not more efficient, or more compassionate, or more something else kind of government. How much LESS? Read and abide by the U.S. Constitution for an extremely important answer to this extremely important question.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Should Liberals Scuttle Senate Health Deal?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:54:00 EST

The Hill

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.Today's question:

Howard Dean said yesterday that "the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate [healthcare] bill ... "

Will liberals in Congress take Dean's advice? Should they?

Hal Lewis, professor at UC Santa Barbara, said:

No one should ever take Howard Dean's advice, even when he accidentally happens to be right. As for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid taking anyone's advice, you must be kidding.

Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said:

Liberals aren't likely to follow Howard Dean's advice as a whole - some will, some won't, and in the end something that is less than half of a loaf will pass. People will forget what the months of debate were all about, and the media will help the Obama administration trumpet its first year in office successes. If liberals in Congress wanted to stand for something, then they could at least stand by their own words - but I don't see that happening in any organized fashion anytime soon.

Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, said:

Now that the "public option" is dead, both the Left and the Right should be able to agree: the Senate bill is nothing but a $450 billion bailout of the private insurance companies.

In fact, the bailout may be several multiples of that figure.

That $450 billion just represents checks that the Treasury would write to private insurance companies. The Reid bill would also force nearly every U.S. citizen to fork over cash to the private insurance companies - no matter how lousy a deal they offer. A recent CBO memo reveals that Reid has been meticulously working behind closed doors to conceal the full cost of his private-insurer bailout.

The Left and the Right should insist that Reid produce a complete CBO score that reveals the full cost of his bill's private-insurer bailout - in particular, the cost of the individual and employer mandates.

Left-wing Democrats will follow their own consciences when deciding how to vote. But they should force Reid to be honest about what he's asking them to swallow.

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:

There's a lot of suffering out here, including people who lack healthcare coverage, lots more every day.

People of good conscience are working together to get the best deal for reform, it's all hands on deck.

I'd like to remind all Senators, in particular, to vote their conscience, to relieve the suffering of many. Put the country first.

John Feehery, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

Yes....by all means yes. Liberals should kill this bill. if it becomes law, the democrats will lose their majorities. This is bad politics for the liberal majority, so they should kill it, and pass something less ambitious and move on to other things.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director for Antiwar.com, said:

They won't take his advice, but they should. Once Americans find out that they have to buy health insurance, and will be fined for not doing so, they will expect some compensating benefit. When they find out there's none, they are going to be extremely pissed off. And then the 2010 backlash is going to be even bigger than it might already be.

John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society, said:

The advice given the Senate by Howard Dean is precisely what should be done. The healthcare bill is a monstrous piece of legislation that is unconstitutional, hugely expensive, and remarkably threatening to the best healthcare system in the world. While the recommendation given by Dean is surprising coming from him, let's remember that a stopped clock registers the correct time twice each day. He's correct in this instance and his recommendation should be acted upon favorably.

Michelle D. Bernard, president & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Liberals Will Ignore Dean and Trust that Government Will Expand on its Own

A growing number of liberals seem to have accepted the idea that passing a health care reform bill - no matter what's in it and what's not - is their top, indeed their only, priority. Let's face it, no one knows what's in the latest iteration of the Senate legislation, and even if all is revealed soon, there is hardly enough time for Senators to consider seriously the many consequences, intended and unintended, of the provisions in this two thousand plus page legislation.

Liberals who previously had suggested that they might not support a bill that didn't contain a "public option" or an equivalent seem to have decided that it's best to pass this monstrosity and trust that its regulations and mandates will further cripple private insurance and increase public support for a single payer system. And that may be a sound strategy for them, even if it's disastrous for the American public.

Liberals should listen to Howard Dean. This hastily crafted bill (which is increasingly a patchwork of political favors cobbled together with the one goal of buying 60 votes) should be recognized as a mistake regardless of your ideology.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Should Liberals Scuttle Senate Health Deal?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:46:00 EST

The Hill

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.Today's question:

Howard Dean said yesterday that "the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate [healthcare] bill ... "

Will liberals in Congress take Dean's advice? Should they?

Hal Lewis, professor at UC Santa Barbara, said:

No one should ever take Howard Dean's advice, even when he accidentally happens to be right. As for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid taking anyone's advice, you must be kidding.

Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said:

Liberals aren't likely to follow Howard Dean's advice as a whole - some will, some won't, and in the end something that is less than half of a loaf will pass. People will forget what the months of debate were all about, and the media will help the Obama administration trumpet its first year in office successes. If liberals in Congress wanted to stand for something, then they could at least stand by their own words - but I don't see that happening in any organized fashion anytime soon.

Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, said:

Now that the "public option" is dead, both the Left and the Right should be able to agree: the Senate bill is nothing but a $450 billion bailout of the private insurance companies.

In fact, the bailout may be several multiples of that figure.

That $450 billion just represents checks that the Treasury would write to private insurance companies. The Reid bill would also force nearly every U.S. citizen to fork over cash to the private insurance companies - no matter how lousy a deal they offer. A recent CBO memo reveals that Reid has been meticulously working behind closed doors to conceal the full cost of his private-insurer bailout.

The Left and the Right should insist that Reid produce a complete CBO score that reveals the full cost of his bill's private-insurer bailout - in particular, the cost of the individual and employer mandates.

Left-wing Democrats will follow their own consciences when deciding how to vote. But they should force Reid to be honest about what he's asking them to swallow.

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:

There's a lot of suffering out here, including people who lack healthcare coverage, lots more every day.

People of good conscience are working together to get the best deal for reform, it's all hands on deck.

I'd like to remind all Senators, in particular, to vote their conscience, to relieve the suffering of many. Put the country first.

John Feehery, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

Yes....by all means yes. Liberals should kill this bill. if it becomes law, the democrats will lose their majorities. This is bad politics for the liberal majority, so they should kill it, and pass something less ambitious and move on to other things.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director for Antiwar.com, said:

They won't take his advice, but they should. Once Americans find out that they have to buy health insurance, and will be fined for not doing so, they will expect some compensating benefit. When they find out there's none, they are going to be extremely pissed off. And then the 2010 backlash is going to be even bigger than it might already be.

John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society, said:

The advice given the Senate by Howard Dean is precisely what should be done. The healthcare bill is a monstrous piece of legislation that is unconstitutional, hugely expensive, and remarkably threatening to the best healthcare system in the world. While the recommendation given by Dean is surprising coming from him, let's remember that a stopped clock registers the correct time twice each day. He's correct in this instance and his recommendation should be acted upon favorably.

Michelle D. Bernard, president & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Liberals Will Ignore Dean and Trust that Government Will Expand on its Own

A growing number of liberals seem to have accepted the idea that passing a health care reform bill - no matter what's in it and what's not - is their top, indeed their only, priority. Let's face it, no one knows what's in the latest iteration of the Senate legislation, and even if all is revealed soon, there is hardly enough time for Senators to consider seriously the many consequences, intended and unintended, of the provisions in this two thousand plus page legislation.

Liberals who previously had suggested that they might not support a bill that didn't contain a "public option" or an equivalent seem to have decided that it's best to pass this monstrosity and trust that its regulations and mandates will further cripple private insurance and increase public support for a single payer system. And that may be a sound strategy for them, even if it's disastrous for the American public.

Liberals should listen to Howard Dean. This hastily crafted bill (which is increasingly a patchwork of political favors cobbled together with the one goal of buying 60 votes) should be recognized as a mistake regardless of your ideology.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Should Obama Focus on Black Jobless Rate?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:11:00 EST

The Hill

Should President Barack Obama develop a plan to address unemployment among African-Americans as suggested by some members of the Congressional Black Caucus?

Julian Bond, former president of the NAACP, said:

Yes. Black joblessness typically is twice the white rate and signals deep distress in black communities. As a "special" problem it deserves a 'special' and targeted solution.

Michelle Bernard, president of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

The president needs to focus on jobs for everyone

Creating jobs and lowering unemployment for everyone should be the president's top priority. Yes, the unemployment rate is even more alarming than that of the general public, but the solution - creating private-sector, sustainable jobs - will come from the same policies that promote economic growth and jobs for everyone.

The administration should focus on reducing barriers to employment; they could start by lowering taxes or creating deductions specifically for new hires. The administration thus far has failed to promote free trade agreements, but liberalizing trade would be one of the best ways to encourage growth and create jobs (without adding to our deficits). And while they are at it, the administration should tell Congress to forget creating another trillion-dollar healthcare entitlement program, which will add to our already mounting debt and could further stifle job creation, and promise not to pursue a cap-and-trade program which would be another job killer.

The president shouldn't target job creation toward specific groups, but should make spurring private employment across the board his administration's No. 1 priority.

Michael J. Wilson, national director of Americans for Democratic Action, said:

We need a massive jobs program to deal with the 17.2% unemployment rate (not the 10% fiction which excludes tens of thousands of unemployed workers for bureaucratic reasons). And there is no way that a massive jobs program won't have an impact on the African American community where the real rate is 24.7%. The disparate impact faced by some populations in the Great Recession is for a wide variety of factors including race, age, geographical locale and occupation. But to ignore the addition of higher unemployment to the extreme poverty that existed in many communities prior to the recession is to be more than "color blind"; it is to ignore the historic challenges of poverty that our nation still faces. Some of us more than others.

Bill Press, political commentator, said:

The Congressional Black Caucus is right. Unemployment has hit the minority community especially hard and should get special attention from the Obama administration. As Congresswoman Barbara Lee argues, the best way to address it is by directing leftover TARP funds to new construction jobs that can start immediately.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of AntiWar.com, said:

I see nothing wrong with that, but I don't think Obama understands what creates productive jobs, as opposed to government jobs, make-work "jobs," and military-related jobs. So right there you have a major problem. Our economic problems are only going to get worse, and Obama is going to get the blame - rightly, I believe - because his economic ideas are simply the same old pedestrian Keynesian nonsense, which has been disproven time and again, and which led to the present crisis in the first place.

African-American unemployment, however, has deeper roots, which I think people like Bill Cosby and Shelby Steele have addressed. What I think would be effective is for the president to market himself - yes, I know that's an odd formulation - as a role model. I mean, this guy is the president, he's African-American, and only he is in a position to really take on the culture of failure that is really at the core of the problem of black unemployment. To go out there and say: Achievement is cool, learning is cool, getting good grades is cool - and the whole "gangsta/thug" mentality is wrong, wrong, wrong. And not just do it on occasion, but constantly drum this message into his public persona. That's what's needed.

Major educational reforms are required, and yet the powerful teachers' unions are blocking them. If Obama would take these people on, and redefine teaching as much more than an economic sinecure, that would do a lot of good. We need to liberate schools, rather than Afghanistan or Iraq, and break the back of the pedagogical bureaucracy, which has a stranglehold on the system. We have such a wealth of untapped resources in this country, and yet the "credentialism" inherent in the bureaucracy has made it impossible to hook up with this tremendous resource. I would love to volunteer my skills in the public schools, and yet I am prevented from doing so because we have a government-granted monopoly that doesn't allow for competition: as in all government-related and -funded institutions, innovation is stifled, the market is abolished, and regimentation is the rule.

How about courses in economics that teach students how to manage their own finances? Why not have courses in entrepreneurship? In short, why not prepare students for life as it is actually lived, rather than pushing staid "academic" programs that don't suit the majority of students, whatever their race?

Again, the rigid thinking that underlies eductional "theory" and practice is just a reflection of the monopolistic conditions that prevail in this realm. Get rid of that, and you've unleashed the creative power and self-generated self-sustaining quest for useful knowledge that is inherent in all human beings.

John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society, said:

The president's plan to address unemployment should be to have government get out of the way of those who want to produce goods. He shouldn't favor any particular ethnic group. America was built by entrepreneurs who didn't face the onerous taxation, regulations and controls that stifle our nation's producers today. History confirms that there is no other way to proceed for long-term solutions to the current economic crisis.

Dean Baker, Co-Drirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research , said:

This is a question as to whether President Obama is willing to take some political risk to do what is clearly right on economic and moral grounds. There are pockets of the country, like Detroit, where the unemployment rate is 25 percent or higher. For young minorities in these areas, the unemployment rate is near 50 percent. Even if we had some very successful jobs program for the country as a whole, young people in these areas would still find it almost impossible to get a job.

This means that if we don't have jobs programs specifically targeted to these pockets of high unemployment, many young people a disproportionate share of whom are African American, may go years with no job opportunities. In many cases, these people may never get back on their feet again even when the economy recovers. Years of prolonged unemployment may not only ruin their lives, but also the lives of their kids.

For this reason, it should just be commonsense to have jobs programs for the hardest hit areas. Workers can get paid to do tasks that may involve little training, such as cleaning up parks or painting public buildings, but ideally they can also be given the opportunity to develop skills that can open the door to higher paying jobs. Much of this may end up being wasteful in the sense that the work may produce much of value, but there is nothing more wasteful than seeing hundreds of thousands of young people shut out from opportunity because the people who run the economy messed up on their job.

Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, said:

Once more, President. Obama has been given the golden opportunity to boost his popularity. He could simply say no, and maintain that the time is past for targeting specific racial groups.

Bernie Quigley, political commentator, said:

I wouldn't rule it out. They should focus where there is need and potential for growth to ride a wave of ascending economy; otherwise the money will be wasted. The money being spent here in northern New Hampshire does not seem to be having any effect. We are already at 2 percent unemployment and have a fairly benign economy. Jesse Jackson's and members of the Black Caucus's suggestion that money go to African-Americans does makes sense where there is a mature and useful African-American workforce like in Chicago, which can be advanced and amended and integrated into the greater economy. By which I mean that the spending should be regionalized to focus on need and potential. There should also be some reality-based thinking about triaging the economy. I grew up in Fall River, Mass., where there were over a hundred empty mills that had gone out of business in the Great Depression. Years later, many of the buildings went to practical secondary usage but the previous reality of immigrant labor working in cotton mills was over. The angel had passed and it did not come back. Detroit might be in the same situation today. Attempting to bring it back might be futile when there are other growth opportunities nearby. This entire project needs a face and it doesn't have one. Colin Powell's might work.

Hal Lewis, physicist and professor at UC Santa Barbara, said

For better or worse, Obama is President of the United States, black, white, and purple. If he starts down the road of discrimination he will lose even the minority of white votes that he now gets.

The Michael Smerconish Show: News of the Day

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:15:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joined The Michael Smerconish Show to discuss Obama's Nobel acceptance speech and her upcoming Philadelphia show....