Local Government TV

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Jennings Defends Wealth Disparity Forum

If pioneers were still wearing coonskin caps, Alan Jennings would have one. As the Executive Director of the CACLV, he has spent decades fighting a war he knows he will lose - the war against poverty. He was one of the leading proponents of Friday's wealth disparity forum, which I pretty much panned as itself a racist exercise. Alan has a different view, and it should be heard.

Each time I've posted something here, someone tells me not to "feed the trolls." Most of the folks on this thread seem to be thoughtful, not mean-spirited and hateful, so I'll ignore their advice.

I'd like to clarify a few points:

First, the $3.4 million grant paid for only about $10,000 of the "Justice For All" portion of the over-all planning effort. Frankly, I would argue that the most valuable and desirable purpose of government is to attempt to guarantee equal access to opportunity. If you believe in the free market, then you should believe in it being a fair market. We are simply raising questions about
whether the free market is, indeed, fair. I don't think anyone in the group suggested that all of us white folks are racists. But we'd be lying to ourselves to suggest racism isn't a factor in market distortion.

Second, the task force was formed to enable people of color to voice their concerns; that freedom of speech is one of those pesky little rights enumerated in that most American of documents, the Bill of Rights. CACLV provided the staff support to facilitate that voice.

And that voice did a damn good job, as those present at the 2-hour forum included two school superintendents, a college president, three foundation directors, community and economic development officials, bankers, CEO's of two well-regarded local companies, the United Way, and others. To a person, we heard high praise for the forum.

Third, there is barely a hint of asking the rich to give up a penny. This, as the report said, was about opportunity, not entitlement.

Fourth, Bernie, with all due respect, we have been doing homeownership counseling for 20 years and, yes, we are especially focused on helping lower-income and minority homebuyers. And HUD has been funding it, along with those Commie bankers, for most of that time.

Folks, read the report. It's not radical, really. And we think it can make progress on the uncivilized level of disparity in our world. What's so bad about that?

What is bad about that report, which I have not seen anywhere online, is that it starts off by playing the race card. It attempts to argue that wealth disparity exists because of racism.

Anyone who did read the report would realize it does call for more funding to urban school districts, that quality pre-kindergarten be provided to low-income families. Local colleges are told they must offer 50 scholarships per year to children of color. Employers are called on to provide subsidies. A living wage, not a mere minimum wage, is advocated. Large purchasers are expected to buy from under-represented groups. Some of these are good ideas, and I agree with most of them. But they do require the rich to give. They do call for wealth redistribution.

I am sure the forum was popular to the invited participants.But it was a simplistic and jingoistic approach to a nuanced problem that extends beyond race. Whether Alan knows it or not, there are poor white people, too. I'm one of them.

As for the task force, it lacked the very diversity complained about in the report. Not one token whitie. Doesn't the pesky First Amendment apply to us, too?

Alan's homeownership counseling program is open to one and all. The program advocated in the report is one "marketed to homeowners of color." That's discriminatory and violates the Fair Housing Act.

Finally, I agree that the $3.4 million HUD grant funded other projects, including the Envision LV report. I agree a free market needs to be fair, and believe that Congressman Charlie Dent had some ideas about fairness that were mysteriously absent in the one-sided report.

40 comments:

  1. They disagreed with the Chamber of Commerce Alan, so it must be bad. At least according to our new right wing blogger Bernie O'Hare. He claims any actions that discriminate in any pure way is wrong. I guess the civil riggts laws of the mid 60's are awfully racist according to Bernie O'Hare.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am neither right nor left wing. It was a one-sided report from a group that lacked diversity and has an agenda. Racism is wrong on all levels, and that includes this group.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said, Mr. Jennings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't we already have wealth redistribution? Welfare, food stamps, section 8, free phones, etc. are paid for by someone and I don't think it's the poor. They tried that each according to his needs in The Soviet Union and it didn't work very well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "They tried that each according to his needs in The Soviet Union and it didn't work very well"

    All pure "isms" are inherently amoral. Be it Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc.

    These "isms" have no soul and no humanity, they are just ideology. A truly civilized and advanced society moves beyond any one "ism" to what is best for the entire society.

    A brain is a terrible thing to waste that is why I try to use mine instead of letting other people think for me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 4:09. Yes. As in 14 billion dollar tax credits to Exxon Mobil. But that's not welfare. Let's focus on food stamps. You are an unwitting corporate tool.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's right. I keep forgetting, corporations don't create jobs, government creates jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. because basing loans on race and not the ability to repay worked out so well in 2000-2007, we should do more of it.

    I am also curious, did any of the recommendation in the report have anything to do with promoting a two parent household and a stable family unit?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Corporate tax breaks and loopholes cost the US billions each year. On top of that, the fat cat CEOs are living the good life while paying their workers minimum wage and giving them part time hours, which in turn makes them eligible for medical assistance, food stamps, subsidized child care, and a host of other government benefits. The middle class is subsidizing the working poor and the Waltons of the world are laughing all the way to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I am neither right nor left wing."

    That's funny.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The wealth gap is greater now than in anytime since before the great depression. It effects all races. It should be addressed by all americans. Watch the documentary inequality for all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 6:21 My best guess is he used a double-negative facetiously; he's CLEARLY on the right.

    ReplyDelete
  13. let me quote Thomas Sowell, a noted black economist, who concluded this based on government data:
    "Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and "War on Poverty" programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began."
    Government cannot make people prosperous.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When the top 10% of earners pay 68% of federal taxes, that's redistribution of wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The wealthiest taxpayers have an average tax rate of 18%, while middle class earners pay an average of 35% of their incomes. This is wrong. Investment income should be taxed at the same rate as income from work, and we need to close a lot of the loopholes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%. Have you ever played Monopoly? The game ends when 1 player owns so many properties, houses, and hotels that the others can't afford to survive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An all American game. Good analogy. However I wonder how long it will take for the 90% to get really pissed off and do something.

      Delete
  17. "My best guess is he used a double-negative facetiously"

    It is not a double negative. It is a word combination used to express negation and is grammatically correct.

    http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/30075/what-is-the-correct-way-to-use-neither-and-nor-in-a-sentence-together

    ReplyDelete
  18. So then you really don't consider yourself right-winged? Huh...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Instead of focusing on your unhealthy obsession with me, focus on the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good report, presenting both sides. We need more reasonable, balanced, and civil discussions on these issues.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  21. I thought part of the goal was to promote walkable jobs for lower income class neighborhoods?

    ReplyDelete
  22. agree with anon 8:26, It is the fault of those pesky Civil Rights Laws of the 60's.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The problem wasn't the Civil Rights laws that Rs fought to pass over vicious D opposition. It was the so-called anti-poverty programs that came along afterwards, when the government showed up to "help," by creating a permanent dependency class. As LBJ said at the time, "I'll have those n*****s voting Democrat for decades. He was an obnoxious racist and a legendary Democrat politician. He didn't care about blacks; only their votes. His legacy lives on today.

    ReplyDelete
  24. good job 12:25, don't let actual facts get in the way of your righteous moral indignation

    ReplyDelete
  25. Democrats Harry Byrd, Robert Byrd, Allen Ellender, Albert Gore Sr., J. William Fulbright, Walter F. George, Russell Long and Richard Russell all were loyal Democrat segregationists who opposed the pesky Civil Rights Act and remained Democrat icons until they finally croaked and entered their rightful, eternal sentence in Hell. Not all Ds were KKK. But all KKK were Ds. And LBJ was correct about "those n-----s" and their future voting patterns.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "As LBJ said at the time, "I'll have those n*****s voting Democrat for decades."

    Please cite your source of this quote. Years of presidential research and I have never even heard of it. I would be interested in reviewing the information. Please tell me were I might fond the source of this information.

    Thank You

    ReplyDelete
  27. There are plenty of obnoxious quotes from LBJ to choose from. Here are several, with the racial epithets asterisked out:

    "These N*****s, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

    Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Source: Goodwin, Doris Kearns (1977). Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. New York: New American Library. p. 155. ISBN 0451140826. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 18:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

    "Sam, why don't you all let this n****r bill pass?"

    Said to Senator Sam Rayburn (D-TX) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Source: Dallek, Robert (1991). Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 19:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

    "Son, when I appoint a n****r to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n****r."

    Said to an aide in 1965 regarding the appointment of Thurgood Marshall as associate justice of the Supreme Court. Source: Dallek, Robert (1991). Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 19:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

    "I'll have them n****rs voting Democratic for two hundred years."

    Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. Source: Kessler, Ronald (1996). Inside the White House. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 33. ISBN 0671879197. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 19:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

    There are more.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Only $1O thousand to produce this few hours of profoundity.
    Where did the rest of the 3.4 Million go?
    More recommendations to go up on the shelf to gather dust?
    I'm wondering if any of these grand democratic exercises in the recent past
    recommend calling for a NIZ or a hockey arena?

    ReplyDelete
  29. This grant is a HUD sustainable communities grant. That itself has come under criticism by those who think it really is just another volley in the progressive goal to force everyone to live in the cities.

    In the LV, the money went to a panoply of nonprofits and I believe the grant ws funneled through LVEDC. In addition to the reports and the "1LV" study, money is being used for Bethlehem's Eastern Garteway, to help Mark Mulligan get richer at Easton's Silk Mill, and for an industrial area in Allentown.

    http://articles.mcall.com/2011-11-21/business/mc-allentown-planning-grant-20111121_1_hud-grant-study-development-simon-silk-mill

    ReplyDelete
  30. Right then..............

    ReplyDelete
  31. Most of the Asians that are here have caused no troubles. They work hard , educate their children and own their own properties.They almost never get arrested . They have been here for at least 20 years -whats the issue?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bernie, do you think Mr Mulligan got HUD MONEY for the silk mill ? Will I will tell you that nobody financed from HUD should be able to offset costs for luxury housing stock that does no go to public housing. .

    ReplyDelete
  33. Peter HUD wants everybody to live in the cities and will throw money at crap just to try to persuade people to move there

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry it took me so long to read your post on this meeting, Bernie.

    On last Friday afternoon I posted the report on the EnvisionLV website. People can find it at envisionlehighvalley.com/documents. It is the fourth report down, labeled "The Equity Report..."

    ReplyDelete
  35. Joyce, thanks for telling readers where they can find the report online.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The grant was also suppose to support walkable jobs for inner city folks most affected by poverty. Three pilot projects, one in each city.

    Will there be followup grants with HUD?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think this was a one-time deal. There is going to be a great deal of walk ability along the 13th St corridor in Easton and Bethlehem's Eatern Gateway.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The three catalytic projects for the Envision Lehigh Valley process are: 1) Allentown's Reindustrialization Project; 2) Bethlehem's Eastern Gateway Project and 3) Easton's 13th Street Corridor Project. As these and the other EnvisionLV projects, reports and studies are finalized, they are all put up on the envisionlehighvalley.com website under "documents." Where did the $3.4 million go? This was a three year project that engaged 12,000 people. The work was accomplished by a 13 member consortium that included the LVPC and the LVEDC, the LV Research Consortium, the three cities and the two counties. The 1LV report, a summary report of the entire process was just released on 10/23/14 by the LVPC with 31 new goals that will inform the revision of the region's comprehensive plan over the next two years.

    People interested in hearing a summary of the process and where we go from here are welcome to attend the Summit for Smart Growth and Sustainable Communities this coming Friday on 12/5/14 at the Hotel Bethlehem. People may register at renewlv.org.

    ReplyDelete

You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.