The politics of poverty

I. Louisiana moves to make panhandling illegal. The state will join other cities and communities that have criminalized the act of begging for money on the streets. No one has, so far as I can tell, proposed making it illegal for rich people to ask for contributions for their causes or for political parties to solicit for funds or charities to ask for support. If any state were to even consider such a move they would be reminded of uncomfortable things like the 1st Amendment.

Some might argue (as Louisiana legislators have) that they’ve targeted the panhandlers because they bother regular folks with their pleas. Perhaps they do but if they looked at the number of emails that arrive every day in my inbox or sift through the pounds of petitions and promotions in the regular mail every day they might wonder just what form of solicitation is more annoying.

Some might also maintain (as Louisiana legislators have) that panhandlers just spend the money given to them on (depending on who’s making what claim):

a. drugs and booze

b. cell phones and computers

These are commonly held myths about poor people — harking back to Reagan’s assailing of “welfare queens” scamming the government — but the studies that have been done reveal nothing of the kind. These desperately poor people are, in fact, spending what little money they can scrape up begging on food and, if there’s anything left over, housing. Besides, all those “legit” organizations that constantly have their hands out typically spend a far smaller proportion of their income on their claimed goals with numbers running as low as 10% and rarely above 80%.

II. Congress announced they will hold meetings on poverty in America without any input from anyone in poverty. Paul Ryan (R-WI) will chair these and, as chair, will decide who testifies. Those invited are well-heeled politicians, policy advisors and executives in various poverty-related organizations. The several organizations that offered to have actual poor people come to the hearings were told to have them just write a statement and send it in. This latter gambit, of course, let’s Ryan and his group off the hook. They can now tell the press that they took testimony from X number of poor people — providing that the word “took” in that sentence doesn’t imply read, understood or gave a rat’s ass about.

III. The Senate filibustered the minimum wage bill. While this is hardly a surprise, having Republicans accuse Democrats of staging a show vote they knew would never pass was a jaw-dropper. This sentiment, I hasten to add, came from the party that voted to repeal Obamacare 52 times! John Cornyn (R-TX) got one thing right. “This is all about politics,” he said. “This is all about trying to make this side of the aisle look bad and hardhearted.”

Indeed. The truth begins to hurt when others learn it. Increasing the minimum wage is the single most popular notion in the land with over 75% of the population supporting it — and that includes a majority from Cornyn’s own party (58% in a recent poll). Moreover, as standard macroeconomic analysis shows, every dollar that goes to a poor or working class person generates between $1.10 and $1.22 for the overall economy because every dollar that a poor person has gets spent and spending drives the economy. As a group of distinguished economists including seven Nobel Prize winners concluded the long-range impact of raising the minimum wage is positive with little or no evidence of job loss.

Brain-warping stupidity

Two truly insane things to contemplate today.

The support for Cliven Bundy’s anarchy in Nevada. This one’s a real stunner. Here’s a guy who says he doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the US government, who grazes his cattle on federal land (i.e., our land, yours and mine, which our tax dollars support and maintain) without paying for the privilege, who has ignored court orders for decades and currently owes a million dollars in fines and fees. When the feds come to arrest him — as they would anyone with this history — a group of crazies armed to the teeth show up to “defend freedom.” And the right wing, from Rand Paul to Sean Hannity, leaps in to fan the flames. In Hannity’s broadcasts he looks like he’s just hoping that a shooting war breaks out so he can launch another moronic attack on a “government out of control.”

So, here we have a group on the Republican right that is famous for loudly proclaiming that we are a nation of laws countenancing a law-breaking crackpot. There are, at last count, some 18,000 honorable farmers and ranchers across the country who use public land and pay the reasonable fees to do so. After all, when Bundy uses federal land to fatten his cattle on he’s basically cheating all the other ranchers who pay the fees or who pay for their own land on which their cattle graze. There are good reasons why the Nevada Cattleman’s Association has condemned Bundy over his antics.

The so-called “standoff” that erupted was the result of an influx of what Harry Reid properly called “domestic terrorists.” Some of these armed militias were local but most were right-wing fanatics from around the country, the ones who have paranoid dreams about the UN and see “black helicopters” in the evening skies. Things were tense for some time when the BLM officers finally decided that it wasn’t worth the carnage that would likely ensue if they moved on Bundy’s ranch. They released the cattle they had corralled and left. They should be praised for their discretion. The person seemingly most disheartened by this was Hannity who had stated that he expected the federal agents to make a midnight raid and kill Bundy and his family.

This nonsense provokes a thought: Whose side would these bozos be on if the stand-off was between a Black man who had been refusing to pay his rent for twenty years, had several courts rule against him, who owed his landlord a million dollars and whose actions were being supported by a bunch of gun-toting members of the Black Panthers? Just asking….

The support for state’s refusal to enroll in Medicaid. As of this writing there are still 21 states that have opted out of the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA (aka Obamacare) — three others are still considering various options. And, yes, every one of these is a “red” state where either a Republican governor or a Republican controlled legislature has blocked adoption. What is beyond insanity is that 100% of the cost of Medicaid is paid for by the feds for three years and 90% of it thereafter. It doesn’t cost these states anything to sign on. In fact, it will cost them dearly not to because all the poverty-stricken folks with serious medical conditions and no insurance will be using the public hospital emergency rooms and the tab for these procedures will fall to the states. The latest estimate from the Lewin Group is that these states will cost themselves a tad over $100 billion over the next five years.

This nonsense provokes a thought: Would these reactionary idiots be acting this way if the ACA had been passed by a Republican president? After all, it was Romney whose Massachusetts bill was the model for it and, in case you didn’t know, that bill was crafted by the conservative think-tank the American Enterprise Institute. It was their effort to recognize the need for health care reforms and to try to preempt the possibility of a single-payer system. Their reasons were simple: it benefitted the insurance companies which would suffer economically under a British type single-payer program. Just wondering ….

Gender pay-gap and GOP idiocy

There was an article in the New York Times the other day on the latest failed effort to pass legislation that would help close the pay-gap between men and women. The bill, which would allow unencumbered access to salary information, was proposed by Democrats and supported by a clear majority of the Senate only to be derailed by a Republican filibuster. In describing this non-event the Times reported that Republican lawmakers:

“… have said that given existing anti-discrimination laws, the legislation is redundant and is a transparent attempt by Democrats to distract from President Obama’s much-criticized health care law.”

If the pain of reading this sentence wasn’t so great it might have provided a good laugh, the kind we all need to start a day off. Two points that the GOP seems to think are worth making are prominent:

a. that a bill that would help lessen the glaring gender discrimination in pay isn’t needed because such legislation is already in place.

b. that it is merely a distraction from discussions of Obamacare.

Well the first is obviously a stupid thing to say. If the existing legislation were working then the pay-gap would be shrinking and women’s incomes would be going up relative to men’s. They are not. Hence existing legislation isn’t working and there is a compelling need for new regulations and oversight.

The second is even stupider (if that’s possible). The Affordable Care Act is here. It isn’t going away. It is working and will continue to improve virtually every aspect of health care in the country. The GOP assumed, as recently as two weeks ago, that they would be able to run their election campaign on “Obamacare” this year. It is now apparent that they cannot and will not. If anything, the Democrats will run on it as a signature success.

As readers of this blog know, I am a great fan of the ironic moment. Here we have another beauty, courtesy of GOP idiocy.

Irony, Fox Style

There’s been a fuss in the last week or so over Gabriel Sherman’s book, “The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News — and Divided a Country.” The book has been widely reviewed and praised for its “fair and balanced” but ultimately devastating overview of Ailes and Fox News, not to mention being flagged for its annoyingly long title. Has anyone published a political book in the past five years that doesn’t have a colon followed by “How ….” in the title?.

Ailes build a news organization up from basically nothing to where it is today, the dominant cable news organization with the largest audience (far outstripping its competition, CNN and MSNBC), the highest revenue stream and the highest profit margins. It accomplished all this using a simple, Ailesean strategy: identify your target audience and give ‘em what they want.

The target audience from the beginning was conservative Americans who identify with the GOP, vote reliably for any Republican on the ballot, hated the Clintons and have similarly unfriendly feelings for Obama. This group is, demographically speaking, small, specialized and shrinking. It consists of older, white, mostly Southern males. In fact, the median age of Fox viewers is over 65 years (latest figures show it’s now just about 68).

Importantly, however, among the critical cohort, those between 25 and 55, Fox’s numbers have been plummeting — over 40% in the just the past five years — at the same time that the number of viewers in this age bracket has gone up by 10%. Old, white geezers don’t buy much. Boomers, Millennials, Gen X’ers do. Is this a problem for Fox? In one way nope; in another yup, very much so.

Fox News orients its reporting toward the sentiments held by their target group. They use a stable of cheery blonds to read cherry-picked news, outline the day’s events and resolutely focus on those they know their audience wants to hear about. They have been shouting “Benghazi, Benghazi” for over a year now, repeatedly focusing on features about the IRS and how it targeted conservative organizations (never mentioning that it also scrutinized liberal groups) and miss no chance to report on even the most minor glitch in Obamacare — or what the rest of the news world calls the Affordable Care Act. For a week or so they had a good old thigh-slapping time fawning over Putin, praising him for being a tough and resolute leader who made Obama look like a wimp — a line of “reporting” that ground to halt with the invasion of Crimea.

Their top guns are conservative icons like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly — though the once-wildly popular Glenn Beck got too crazy, even for Ailes who “allowed” him to go off and start his own network. A year or so ago there was a bit of a dust-up over a study that showed that those who get their news exclusively from Fox are less-informed and more ignorant of current events than those who don’t watch any news shows, leading some to argue that watching Fox News makes you stupid. Could be, but it’s just as likely that only stupid people watch Fox. It’s also true, to be fair, that those who only watched other cable news shows also scored low — though not as low as Foxites.

But, no matter. The really interesting story here is that Ailes has created what every media corporation would seemingly love: a news network with big numbers, a loyal following and a bottom line that is well in the black. Ironically, its doom is written in these rosy demographic and financial figures.

America is changing. It is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse and with diversity comes tolerance, acceptance and openness. If a news network is going to have a future it is going to have to adjust, welcome the change and ride with the new, more liberal social values that are sweeping the country.

But Fox can’t — even if they wanted to, even if Ailes realized the morass his policies will eventually pull the network into, even if the Murdochs demanded changes. They bound themselves with steel wires to their demographic. And, as always, it’s about money. Fox’s advertising revenues aren’t particularly high. They barely cover the cost of running the network. Their billion dollar annual profits (yup, they average just about that) come from subscription fees paid by local stations to carry Fox programming. These stations derive their income from local advertising and, because so many of them are in districts with high numbers of old white conservatives — you know, Fox viewers — they do fine. If Fox were to try to shift its editorial content or begin really presenting news in a “fair and balanced” manner, they would howl bloody murder and threaten to cancel — and that would be the end of Fox’s revenue stream.

FWIW, this kind of financial scaffolding is also the case with other right-wing talk shows. Advertising on Rush Limbaugh’s show is similarly in a tailspin, owing to almost all the top companies pulling out in protest over the stances he’s taken on things like climate change and abortion and the attacks he’s launched on everyone from Obama to Sandra Fluke. He’s holding on mainly by taking “corporate welfare” — right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Freedomworks are bailing him out. So much for “free market” principles.

Ailes, who has always been active in the GOP, made his network the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, attracted a loyal group of viewers from a small and dwindling sliver of the country, made pots of money and, given his girth and age, will likely not live to see it die on its own sword. Fox News’ audience isn’t going to change their attitudes or beliefs. Fox can’t change its orientation. Limbaugh is mired in the qucksand of ignorance he shares with his listeners. It’s all very Shakespearean, the traits that make for greatness hold within them a calamitous end.

Lamb and mushroom rigatoni

Time for a food post. One of the fun things that foodies do is to try to duplicate (or improve on) a dish they were served in a restaurant. I first had this at a bistro on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. Among the various mushrooms were a few thin slices of Botelus edulus. This earthy mushroom has many names. The French call it cèpe de Bordeaux or cep; in Italy it is porcini; the Brits call it king bolete or penny bun. In Germany it’s known as Steinpilz, in Austria Herrenpilz, in the Netherlands eekhoorntjesbrood, in Mexico as panza. In North America it is most often called by its Italian name, porcini.

B. edulus is the middle-class cook’s truffle. It has a musky quality that is close to a truffle but at a cost that a normal (i.e. middle-class) soul can afford. You can buy them fresh if you’re lucky — or willing to go into the fields at the right time, in the right place with the right knowledge, but mainly they come dried. I buy mine from local mushroom dealers or on online — in bulk (they have a very long shelf-life). Just rehydrate in warm water and they’re (almost) as good as the fresh picked. Buying this way also gives you a bonus, the mushroom dust at the bottom of the bag. Use it to enhance soups, stews, risottos.

Ingredients (serves 4 with leftovers —- maybe)

1 lb lamb cut into cubes or thick slivers

1 t chopped fresh rosemary

1 large onion, sliced in thin half-rounds

1 lb various mushrooms, sliced — porcinis are the key but feel free to toss in whatever you can find …criminis, oysters, shitakes, white button. If dried, rehydrate in warm water. Strain and save the soaking liquid

2 T flour

1 c lamb broth — here you’re likely to run into a problem. Very few stores carry this. I buy mine from a local Market that specializes in English products. You can alway make your own or just fall back on chicken stock (Knorr’s gel-packs are surprisingly good)

1 lb of chopped greens — any greens. I’ve ended up favoring chard or kale but collard or mustard greens work too though mustard greens tend to be a bit strong

1 lb pasta — rigatoni is good. A large, open pasta seems to be best but penne is fine

s & p to taste

Directions

brown lamb in a mix of butter and olive oil — use high heat otherwise too much liquid exudes from the lamb. Toss in the rosemary about half way through — remove and set aside

sauté onions and mushrooms in same pan (add butter if needed)

dust with flour — stir to blend

add lamb broth and soaking liquid — cook for 3,4 minutes

return lamb — cook for 4,5 minutes more

add greens — cook till done, another 7 minutes or so

mix with cooked pasta

The dish is remarkably simple yet captures a wonderful array of flavors. I think I’ve actually ended up with something that’s better than the bistro’s but I am not an unbiased observer.