topnav

Home Issues & Campaigns Agency Members Community News Contact Us

Community News

Open dialogue among community members is an important part of successful advocacy. Take Action California believes that the more information and discussion we have about what's important to us, the more empowered we all are to make change.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Just Picking on the Poor: The Facts and the Faces of Cutting SNAP

Today, the House of Representatives votes on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly food stamps. The proposal would cut SNAP by nearly $40 billion over the next 10 years. These cuts would hurt millions of people, namely seniors and the poorest among us. But it will most heavily affect low-income families with children where the parent(s) work for a living but don't make enough to adequately feed their families. Working families with kids are 72 percent of all SNAP beneficiaries.

According to the Census Bureau, food stamps kept 4 million people out of poverty last year. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the House proposal would cut assistance to nearly 4 million low-income people in 2014 and an average of 3 million more each year for the next decade. Christian leaders across the evangelical, Catholic, Protestant, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American church spectrum are reacting with moral outrageat this assault on the people that Jesus specifically instructs us to protect.
Many of these leaders are from the Circle of Protection, a coalition of more than 65 heads of denominations and religious organizations, plus more than 5,000 church pastors. We have been working for more than two years to resist federal budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people.
Who are the pastors? They run across the political spectrum, but are characterized by one thing -- they actually know poor people, work with low-income families, and have SNAP beneficiaries in their congregations. All of the pastors I've ever talked to who know, work, and worship with those affected are adamantly opposed to these cuts because they know what they will mean to people they love.
One pastor I spoke to recently, a good man and friend, told me he was worried about government dependence, like the food stamp program. When I told him that the vast majority of food stamps go to working families with young children, and that they are usually only on the program temporarily during hard economic times; he said, "You should get that out." He didn't know the facts and the faces of SNAP. So many of us in the faith community have worked to tell the facts and show the faces -- to share our stories, to "get that out."
The program has enjoyed bipartisan support through the years, but now congressional Republicans are determined to cut these critical nutrition programs to America's hungry. Although SNAP benefits are modest (an average of less than $1.50 per person per meal), SNAP is the nation's foremost tool against hunger and hardship, particularly during recessions and periods of high unemployment. Currently, 47 million Americans benefitfrom SNAP, but that number is expected to be greatly reduced once the economy recovers. SNAP is designed to expand in periods of great need and contract when the economy is better.
Is it ignorance of how deep the problem of "food insecurity" or hunger is in America now? Is it just ideology against government per se? Because many poor people do have to turn for help to their governments, anti-government rhetoric can often turn to anti-poor rhetoric. Have you seen the Fox News "face" of a SNAP recipient -- a young blond California surfer who brags about cheating on food stamps? Why is Fox News lying? Why don't they tell the real facts and show the real faces of kids who are still hungry even though their parents work?
If you know the facts and faces of the hungry families that are helped by SNAP, I believe it is a moral and even religious problem to vote to cut funding for the program. The Bible clearly says that governmental authority includes the protection of the poor in particular, and instructs political rulers to promote their well-being. So the argument that the poor should just be left to churches and private charity is an unbiblical argument. I would be happy to debate that with any of our conservative Congressmen who keep telling our churches that we are the only ones who should care for the poor. To vote against feeding hungry people is un-Christian, un-Jewish, and goes against any moral inclination, religious or not.
Finally, for politicians to defend these SNAP cuts because of our need to cut spending in general is un-credible and incredible.
These same politicians are not willing to go to where the real money is: the Pentagon budget, which everyone knows to be the most wasteful in government spending, or the myriad subsidies to corporations, including agribusiness subsides to members of Congress who will be voting to cut SNAP for the poor.
Tea Party-elected Rep. Stephen Fincher, (R-Tenn.), who likes to bolster his anti-poor rhetoric with misused Bible verses, collected $3.5 million in farm subsidies between 1999 and 2012, according to the New York Times. Fincher is helping to lead the effort to cut food stamps to working families with children by illogically quoting: "The one who is unwilling to work should not eat," all the while collecting millions of dollars in agricultural subsidies. Congressman Fincher's position is hypocritical -- and it's this kind of hypocrisy that makes Christians look bad and turns young people away from the church.
You see, for many House conservatives this isn't really about SNAP, but about their opposition to the idea that as a society we have the responsibility to care for each other, even during the hard times or when resources are few. Conservatives know their ideas for privatizing Social Security or cutting funding to Medicare and Medicaid are politically unpopular, but their ideology of individualism that borders on social Darwinism remains unchanged. SNAP is the perfect target for them. The image of what it does and whom it serves has been widely distorted by the media, while the people who benefit from it have little influence in the halls of Congress and pose little risk to the political careers of Republican members.
They are going after cuts to the poor and hungry people because they think it is politically safe to do so. So let's call that what it is: moral hypocrisy. Our job, as people of faith, is to protect the poor and to make it politically unsafe for politicians to go after them -- to pick on the poor. So we will be watching who votes against feeding the hungry this week and will remember to bring that to public attention when they run for re-election.
We will be doing our own faith count today. Stay tuned for the results.

via: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/just-picking-on-the-poor_b_3956677.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

Sunday, September 15, 2013

HEALTH REFORM: Feminist to address luncheon on Obamacare

For Loretta Ross, health care reform is personal.
The author, feminist and reproductive-rights advocate has insulin-dependent diabetes — and no health insurance. Without insulin, she could die.
Ross is looking forward to Oct. 1, when she and other Americans with pre-existing conditions can buy health insurance on exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act.
On Thursday, Sept. 12, Ross, 60, of Atlanta, will discuss the importance of the Affordable Care Act at Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties’ 7th Annual Empowerment Luncheon.
Less than two weeks before the sign-up period opens, many people still don’t understand what the Affordable Care Act means for them and their families, said Robert Armenta Jr., spokesman for the Planned Parenthood chapter.
“In fact, we just received a report that more than four in 10 Americans think the new healthcare law has been repealed, overturned in court or are just unsure whether it remains law,” he said.
That’s why the group invited Ross to speak at the luncheon, which benefits health-education programs in San Bernardino County.
Ross has worked on healthcare reform since the president first proposed it. The plan didn’t go as far as she would have liked, Ross said in a phone interview; she favored universal healthcare. “I will accept half a glass,” she said.
Most important to her was keeping abortion restrictions out of the plan and retaining access to contraception, she said. “We have not completely succeeded.”
Her home state, Georgia, resisted implementing the act and tried to roll back reproductive and contraceptive rights, she said.
But the efforts to undo reproductive rights have triggered a resurgence of feminism among younger women, awakening them from complacency, Ross said.
Inspiring young women to get involved and advocate for their rights is now the focus of Ross’ work. She retired last year after 38 years of managing and organizing feminist nonprofits.
Ross’s feminism dates to the 1970s when she was the director of the nation’s first rape crisis center.
Working there saved her life, she said. It helped her overcome the trauma of being kidnapped and raped at age 11 after she got separated from her Girl Scout troop at an amusement park.
She didn’t tell anyone at the time, she said, internalizing the crime and blaming herself for getting lost.
I asked her if an 11-year-old girl today would be more able to report being raped. Ross said it depends on whether there’s someone she can tell without fear of being punished.
Whenever Ross speaks publicly of the rape, women come up afterward and reveal their own sexual assaults they’ve kept secret since childhood, she said.
Educating and empowering girls to protect themselves is vital, Ross said: Even today, health classes focus on preventing disease and pregnancy rather than avoiding sexual assault.
The luncheon is at 11:30 a.m. at the Hilton Hotel, 285 E. Hospitality Lane, San Bernardino. Tickets are $45.
Cassie MacDuff
Press-Enterprise

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Fracking bill passes California Assembly

A closely watched bill to regulate hydraulic fracturing in California moved closer to the governor's desk on Wednesday, advancing out of the Assembly on a 53-18 vote.

Of the bills to regulate "fracking" that surfaced this session, only Senate Bill 4 remains.
Legislators pushing for tighter regulation of fracking, which involves shattering underground rock formations with a pressurized cocktail of water and chemicals, have cited the potential for a drilling boom in California's Monterey Shale.

Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, spoke of the "tremendous economic opportunity" that harvesting the tough-to-reach underground reserves would bring but spoke of the need to create a framework around a potential gold rush.

"Let's bring on the boom, and let's make sure the constituents are protected," Gray said.
SB 4, by Democratic Sen. Fran Pavley, would erect a permitting system, mandate groundwater monitoring and dictate more disclosure, including having fracking firms notify neighbors of planned wells and release more information about the chemicals they shoot underground.
The measure is less stringent than unsuccessful bills that would have sought a fracking moratorium, which some members vowed to continue seeking.

"I still believe that a moratorium is the best way to go with respect to fracking," said Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, "but this bill is the next best alternative."
In advocating for the bill, lawmakers have faulted the Department of Conservation entity responsible for overseeing drilling (the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, also known as DOGGR), for delaying in crafting fracking regulations and for floating anemic guidelines.

But Republicans opposing SB 4 argued that the Legislature should not try to supplant DOGGR's authority to release regulations, which they called sufficient. They implored their colleagues to reject the measure, which they said would handicap economic development, particularly in the energy-rich Central Valley.

"This bill is something that will stop or hurt jobs and economic growth in California," said Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield.

The measure has already passed the Senate, where it will return for a concurrence vote before likely proceeding to Gov. Jerry Brown. The governor has a precarious relationship with environmentalists, some of whom accuse him of being overly lenient with the energy industry, so his decision will come under heavy scrutiny.

PHOTO: Workers tend a well head on March 29, 2013, during a hydraulic fracturing operation, also known as fracking, at an Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. gas well outside Rifle, in western Colorado. The Associated Press/Brennan Linsley

Friday, September 13, 2013

To avoid Type 2 diabetes, choose whole fruit over fruit juice

Apples. Grapes. Blueberries.

Those three fruits are your best bets if you want to avoid Type 2 diabetes, Harvard researchers said this week.

But skip the fruit juice, with its high concentration of sugars.

The news from Harvard says eating whole fruits can lower your risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Researchers examined three different long-running studies of the habits of 187,000 people -- 12,198 of whom were stricken with Type 2 diabetes.

Those who ate at least two servings a week of whole fruits -- especially those apples, grapes and blueberries -- reduced their risk for diabetes by as much as 23 percent compared to those who ate less than one serving a month.

Fruit juice didn't score as well. Downing one or more juice drinks a day actually increased the risk of getting diabetes by as much as 21 percent.

Now that's a glass half-empty.

Posted by Cynthia H. Craft




Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/healthy-choices/2013/08/to-avoid-diabetes-choose-whole-fruit-over-fruit-juice.html#storylink=cpy

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Jerry Brown urges OK of amended bill to raise minimum wage

Gov. Jerry Brown said Wednesday that he supports raising the minimum wage in California to $10 an hour, urging lawmakers to approve a bill that was amended Wednesday and awaits action in the Senate.
The Democratic governor's announcement came after Assembly Bill 10, by Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, was amended to raise the minimum hourly wage to $10 sooner than previously proposed.

The measure would raise the minimum hourly wage from $8 to $9 on July 1, 2014, and then to $10 on Jan. 1, 2016. Under an earlier version of the bill, the minimum hourly wage would not have reached $10 until 2018.

"The minimum wage has not kept pace with rising costs," Brown said in a statement. "This legislation is overdue and will help families that are struggling in this harsh economy."
The legislation is pending in the Senate as lawmakers near the end of session this week. Brown was joined by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, D-Los Angeles, in supporting the bill.

"For millions of California's hard-working minimum wage employees, a few extra dollars a week can make a huge difference to help them provide for their families," Steinberg said in a statement.

The California Chamber of Commerce has included the bill in its annual list of "job killers," saying it would unfairly increase costs on employers.
Alejo said today that the bill is a "modest measure," noting that he agreed to remove an automatic cost-of-living escalator.
"We should have a statewide minimum wage that's fair, that's reasonable and that gives workers the dignity of at least being able to pay their bills and provide for their families with their minimum wage salary," he said.

Brown's wading in on the minimum wage issue is the second time in two days that he has commented on pending action in the Legislature, a rarity for for the governor. On Tuesday, he announced his opposition to a measure to rename part of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge for former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.

The Bee's Jeremy B. White contributed to this report.
PHOTO: Gov. Jerry Brown speaks to reporters at a news conference at the Capitol on Sept. 9, 2013. The Sacramento Bee/Hector Amezcua

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/09/jerry-brown-urges-action-on-bill-to-raise-minimum-wage.html#storylink=cpy

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Deal to ease prison crowding sails through Assembly

SACRAMENTO--A deal brokered by Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders to ease prison crowding passed with overwhelming approval in the Assembly on Wednesday.
By a 75-0 vote, lawmakers approved the proposal, announced Monday, under which the state would ask a panel of three federal judges for time to expand programs aimed at reducing new crimes by ex-cons.
If the judges reject an extension, the state would spend $315 million this year to increase prison capacity in time to comply with the court's order to shrink the prison population by about 9,600 inmates by the end of the year.
The deal broke an impasse over how to comply with the order that pits the governor, Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) and Republican legislative leaders against Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), who sought more funding to address drug abuse and mental illness.
Pérez, speaking on the floor, said the compromise "allows for us to  comply with the three-judge panel’s order but also would not allow for any inmates to be released early from prison."
He took pains to thank the Republican leaders in both houses for coming on board.
"This is a solution that truly was only possible because of the early bipartisan work between the governor, myself and the two Republican leaders," he said.
Even Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks), one of the most conservative lawmakers in the Capitol, chimed in to voice "rare support" of the speaker's comments.
The warm feelings did not extend to the federal courts. 
"We are here today because the federal courts have forced our hand," said Assemblyman Jeff Gorell(R-Camarillo).
"This is absurd. We ought to add extra desks so the judiciary can join us and continue to make decisions for this body," said Gorell. "It’s a ridiculous precedent."
The bill now heads to the Senate for final legislative approval.
LA Times -By Melanie Mason
PHOTO: Leftwing Nutjob 2011

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Legislature sending Jerry Brown bill making drug possession a 'wobbler'

The California Legislature is sending Gov. Jerry Browna bill to change drug sentencing laws in the state.

Under Senate Bill 649, local prosecutors would have discretion to decide whether a person charged with possessing a small amount of illegal drugs should be charged with a felony or a misdemeanor.

"It gives district attorneys more authority than they have today," said Sen. Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat who wrote the bill.

The Senate passed the bill today on a concurrence vote of 23-13. It now heads to the governor for consideration.

PHOTO: Sen. Mark Leno in 2011. The Sacramento Bee/Hector Amezcua.




Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/09/legislature-sending-jerry-brown-bill-making-drug-possession-a-wobbler.html#storylink=cpy