Saturday, May 9, 2015

Indiana FSSA and the shredded Hoosier safety net

Originally published March 2013 on Examiner.com.  Since then, while there has been some improvement in some areas, overall the situation in Indiana has gotten worse.  This particular article was much praised for the thoroughness of its research.  Some editorial changes--GF


Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) was established in 1991 as an umbrella agency to coordinate and provide all human services in Indiana, from welfare through mental health, child care and rehabilitation services.  The brainchild of Democratic Governor Evan Bayh (1988-1996), it was supposed to make the delivery of these services more efficient, and also cut costs.  It has five major divisions: the Division of Family Resources (DFR), which handles eligibility for Medicaid, SNAP benefits or food stamps, and Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance, i.e., what is generally known as welfare; Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning (OMPP), which administers Medicaid; the Division of Disability and Rehabilitative Services; Division of Mental Health and Addiction (DMHA); and Division of Aging, which handles long-term care under Medicaid. (State of Indiana, http://www.in.gov/fssa/2406.htm)

 

Also in need of mention under human services, though not part of FSSA, is the beleaguered Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS), which handles issues of child neglect, abuse and foster care in the state.  Indiana’s child abuse and neglect rates are among the highest in the country, where child deaths due to neglect and abuse are noticeably high, standing at a rate of 12.2 instances per 1,000 children under 18 in 2011, according to the Indiana Youth Institute.  (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/stateprofile.aspx?state=IN&loc=16; Indiana Daily Student, “Indiana child abuse rates 1.5 percent times the national average,” September 13, 2007, http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=56055&section=search; Niki Kelly, “Indiana’s fatal child abuse rate increases,” Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette, April 2, 2010, http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20100402/NEWS07/304029971/1002/LOCAL; “More Indiana Children Die from Abuse, Neglect, Report Says,” November 1, 2011, http://www.sjccasa.org/images/images/Indy%20Channel%20News.pdf)

 

The DCS’ Annual Child Fatality Report, July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010,” issued February 2012, http://www.in.gov/dcs/files/fatalitiesreportSFY2010.pdf, has a revealing chart on p. 3, which I’ve copied below:

 

SFY Total   Abuse   Neglect   Previous Involvement

2003   51      34           7                               11
 
2004   57      22         35                               19 
 
2005   54      24         30                               20

2006   53      30         23                               11

2007   36      17         19                                 9

2008   46      24         22                               15

2009   38      24         14                                 9

2010   25      19           6                                 4

 

As shown, there were 360 children’s deaths from abuse or neglect in Indiana in the eight years from 2003 through 2010; further there were over 50 deaths annually from 2003 through 2006.  Also, and quite disturbing, these deaths occurred despite DCS prior involvement in 98 instances, and DCS intervention was quite prevalent during the years 2003-2006, when the most death occurred.  While both the number of deaths and the pattern of previous DCS prior involvement both tapered off from 2007 on, the DCS had already established itself as a troubled and troubling government agency which had undermined itself and its mission; and even the DCS itself admitted in 2002 that there had been ongoing underreporting of abuse and neglect deaths since at least 1999. (Indiana Youth Institute, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/Map.aspx?state=IN&ind=1131&dtm=2469&tf=18)

 

These are but some indication of malfunction in the delivery of human services in Indiana.  As for the FSSA itself, its performance generally pleases no one.  The various Divisions often do not communicate with one another, as I directly experienced from the 1990s through the present—when disability had not only made me eligible for food stamps and Medicaid, I was also receiving mental health services through Community Mental Health Centers operated under the aegis of the DMHA.  I found out directly both through my experiences and the anecdotes provided by my psychotherapists that persons receiving both welfare and mental health services are stymied by lack of coordination among programs and services.  My long-term pharmacist regularly complains of the arbitrariness and sudden rule changes under Medicaid, as well as the opaqueness of the language FSSA uses, often decipherable only by a lawyer.  Further, three times I’ve been ruled ineligible for benefits I was entitled to, which I won back on appeal—a process usually taking six months, and in one instance, over a year.

 

In 2006, under Republican Governor Mitch Daniels (2000-2012), the FSSA contracted out its welfare eligibility determination to IBM, an ill-fated move that lasted until 2010, and was marked by repeated malfunction by IBM, resulting in delays for benefits and the turning down of applicants who were, in fact, eligible for benefits.  Ironically, Daniels privatized welfare services in the same year that Texas, which had earlier privatized such services, abandoned privatization because it hadn’t worked.  Now Indiana has a hybrid system of local offices and centralized call centers and document centers which Indiana residents can use to apply for benefits, handle appeals, and provide documentation for their cases.  However, as I’ve directly experienced, at least in 2012 these centralized services worked none too well; in particular, I remember a call on December 18, 2012 to the central call-in center on a denial of eligibility issue, and found that the center only had data through the middle of November.  Also, as I no longer had a specific case worker, each time I called I talked to a new case worker who was unfamiliar with my case, and had to waste time reviewing the documents which were each time presented anew.  However, I must say that services from the FSSA had considerably improved in 2013, when I received prompt phone calls in both January and February from an FSSA representative on my pending cases, and where the service provided was competent.

 

Indiana has been hard hit by the recession that started in 2007, with both massive increases in poverty and unemployment, making more Hoosiers eligible for both welfare benefits through the FSSA and unemployment benefits through the Department of Workforce Development under the Department of Labor.  However, the response of the Governor’s office and the Indiana General Assembly has been to cut benefits and blame the poor and unemployed for their plight.  In 2011, the General Assembly passed a law which governor Daniels signed that reduced unemployment compensation by 25% and capped the maximum weekly benefits allowed at $360/week, or the equivalent of a full-time job paying only $9/hour.  In 2012 the General Assembly passed legislation, which Gov. Daniels signed, making Indiana a Right-to-Work state, the first such state to enact such legislation since Oklahoma did in 2001.  Touted as a job-creation measure, to date it has not paid off in increased employment, but has, instead, undercut worker protection on the job and undermined unions.  However, Indiana’s unemployment rate stood at 8.3% in December 2012, above the national average of 7.9%; (Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST8000003) and if the Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 measure of unemployment is used, which includes not only those officially unemployed (i.e., actively looking for work), but also discouraged workers and those only marginally attached to the workforce, as well as those employed only part-time when they’d rather be employed full-time, the rate jumps to 14.2%.  In people terms, this represents 262,000 officially unemployed Hoosiers statewide, and if the U-6 measure is used, 448,500 persons. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST8000003; http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt/htm)

 

Similarly with poverty.  Indiana had a 2007-2011 average poverty rate of 14.1%, which compares to 14.3% nationally.  However, Indiana’s poverty rate for 2007, before the recession, was only 11.8%, and climbed steadily thereafter:  in 2008 it was 14.3%, 1n 2009 16.1%, in 2010 16.3%, and in 2011 15.6%.  Poverty among children under 18 stood at 22.6% in 2011. (Indiana Youth Institute, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/stateprofile.aspx?state=IN&loc=16 )  So, from 2007 to 2011, Indiana’s overall poverty level increased by 32%, rendering 989,000 Hoosiers living in poverty in 2011, out of a total Indiana population of 6,500,000. (US Census Bureau, “Table 21.  Number of Poor and Poverty Rate, by State: 1980 to 2011,” http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html)

 

However, this actually underestimates the number of Hoosiers, as well as US residents in poverty, as the Census Bureau’s poverty threshold stands at only $11,945 per year for single persons under 65 and $11,011 for those 65 an older; while that for a family of four stands at only $23,681. (US Census Bureau, “Poverty Thresholds for 2012 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years,” http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html)  But based on calculations of the increase in the Consumer Price Index since 2001, when Indiana’s Economic Development Commission stated a “livable wage” standard of $10/hour for full-time work, that “livable wage” (also called a Living Wage) would equal $12.99/hour as of December 2012 and $13.03/hour as of January 2013.  Since the Living Wage is economically defined as at least 130% of the poverty wage, that would make the upper threshold of poverty $9.99/hour for a single person in December 2012, and $10.02/hour in January 2013.  Indeed, statisticians at the Bureau of Labor Statistics have argued in research papers prepared for the Bureau that the actual poverty thresholds should be 1½ times what they are now to accurately reflect costs of living, which would make the poverty threshold for a single person nearly $18,000 a year, and that of a family of four over $35,500 a year.  As it stands now, the federal income limit for food stamp eligibility for a single person is only $1,211 a month, (communication from DFR, FSSA) or $14,532 per year, the equivalent of a full-time hourly wage of $6.99/hour—less than the minimum wage.  But few who are really informed would call a year-round minimum wage adequate to lift one out of poverty!

 

However sobering these measures of actual Living Wage and poverty incomes are, and which themselves call for extending benefits to combat poverty, both the federal government and, above all, the State of Indiana, are going in the opposite direction, which can only worsen an already bad situation.  Newly-elected Indiana Governor Mike Pence, a Republican Tea Party stalwart (first among the Republican House leadership to join Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party caucus) (This, and more, was elaborated on in George Fish, “The Tea Party and the 2012 Indiana elections,” Examiner.com, October 22, 2012, which is also posted on "Politically Incorrect Leftist.") has proposed a biennial budget for Fiscal Years 2014-15 of $29 billion that, while increasing Medicaid spending by $200 million each year, also eliminates dental care, financing for hearing aids, and podiatry services; it also does not provide funds for increasing Medicaid coverage to 133% of the federal poverty level for entitlements, as called for by the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.  Instead, Governor Pence is calling for a cut in the state’s personal income tax of $790 million, reducing the tax rate from a 3.4% flat rate to 3.06% rate, a measure that has garnered even Republican opposition.  (Sunshine Review, http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Indiana_state_budget) But Pence’s tax plan is in line with general Republican strategy to cut social entitlements, and thus shred the already-fragile social safety net.  And despite a stated commitment to job creation, this Republican budget under Daniels allotted less than 1% of its funds to economic development, even less than it allotted to conservation and environmental protection.  (Pie graph provided by the office of State Sen. Jean Breaux)

 

As it was, the Fiscal Year 2012-13 budget signed into law by Governor Daniels spent 23% of its revenues on welfare and Medicaid, (Breaux, op.cit.) with some of the lowest levels of benefits in the country.  TANF cash assistance benefits, for example, were only a maximum of $288 a month for a family of three in 2005, (National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, http://www.nccp.org/tools/table.php?states=IN&submit=Create+Table&ids%5B%5D=12-288&db=pol&data=text) and are not available to many unemployed families—the breadwinner(s) receive too much in unemployment compensation to qualify!  Income limit for full Medicaid coverage is a paltry $710 per month, (communication from DFR, FSSA) and receiving more than that means paying a spend-down before Medicaid will pay for any medical expenses.  In my particular case, with a Social Security income of $822/month (the national average is $1,400/month) and occasional work through temp services, my “total countable income” of $990.24/month means I have a spend-down of $280/year.  Further, as I am now working full-time in a warehouse job that pays $9/hour, I will be losing my eligibility for food stamps and Medicaid entirely, although my work income for the nine-and-a-half months of work expected for 2013 will only amount to $14,800 for the year.  However, not only can I expect my medical expenses to substantially increase, I can also expect to pay an additional $300/month for groceries.  All on a job with only a $360/week gross income and net of approximately $298!

 

But I’m now one of the “lucky ones” among my fellow “overqualified” older Hoosier college grads in that I have a full-time steady job, my first in 12 years.  Several of my friends have only seasonal work, and then often don’t even work a full-time week.  One such friend only qualifies for $64/week in unemployment compensation when she’s not working.

 

Indiana is about average for the nation economically.  Its cost of living is near the national average, and while wages are low, so are also housing and other costs.  Its unemployment rate is generally just a little above the national average.  But loss of manufacturing jobs has cost the Hoosier state immensely, so that Indiana had only a 2007-2011 per capita income of $24,497 and a 2007-2011 median household income of $48,393, compared to the national per capita income of $27,915 and median household income of $52,762. US Census, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html) Indeed, Indiana’s per capita and median household incomes have been falling steadily compared to their national counterparts for the past ten years.  (Indiana Business Research Center, Kelly School of Business, Indiana University, STATS, http://www.stats.indiana.edu/dms4/new_dpage.asap?profile_id=339&output_mode=1; Indiana Institute for Working Families, “Status of Working Families in Indiana, 2011,” p. 24, http://www.incap.org/statusworkingfamilies.html)

 

 Educationally, Indiana is far worse off:  only 22.7% of its residents aged 25 or over had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to the national rate of 28.2%.  (US Census, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html) In 2010, Indiana had only an 84.5% high school graduation rate.  (Indiana Youth Institute, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/stateprofile.aspx?state=IN&loc=16)

And even though the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 budget allotted 53% of its spending to K-12 education and 12% to higher education (a significant drop in higher education spending from previous years), its primary and secondary schools are still mediocre and  among college graduates, 60%  leave the state each year due to lack of job opportunities.  In 2011, 43.1% of Indiana’s residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher suffered long-term unemployment, while 7.4% were underemployed, and16.2% only worked part-time. (Indiana Institute for Working Families, op.cit., p. 20, p. 14) “We're stuck,” said Philip Powell, Associate Professor of Business at Indiana University-Bloomington, to the Indianapolis Star in 2009.  We're stuck because we don't have the knowledge base we need in the labor force. A lot of that is because of our really mediocre primary and secondary educational system." (Quoted in George Fish and Dave Fey, “Mediocrity—a Hoosier affliction,” Bloomington Alternative, July 12, 2009, http://bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2009/07/12/10039)

 

Such is the State of Indiana, March 2013—inadequate social services, shredded social safety net, too-high unemployment, an inept FSSA administering human services, poor education, a Brain Drain, and politics dominated by Tea Party Republicans.  Only thing “good” to report is that it’s about the national average. But that was in 2013; since then, Indiana has sunk below the national average in crucial socio-economic indices, poverty has increased, and though employment has improved, the employment growth has been in the low-wage sector.  Indiana is now ranked 9th among the states in which the middle class is disappearing, http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/01/22/states-where-the-middle-class-is-dying/3/.

              

Friday, February 20, 2015

Another take on Indiana Moral Mondays

This version of my articles prepared on Indiana Moral Mondays was originally submitted to the social-democratic newsmagazine/website In These Times, which did not use it.  It expands on ideas originally presented in my Examiner.com and New Politics postings--GF
 
 
Certainly by press accounts, the Moral Mondays movement in Indiana, given organizational form as Indiana Moral Mondays, is off to an auspicious start.  After months of preparation, Indiana Moral Mondays was officially launched in Indianapolis, the state capital, the weekend of Friday, September 19 and Saturday, September 20.  Brought in especially to help give impetus and direction to the fledgling movement was the Rev. William Barber, head of the North Carolina NAACP and leading spokesperson for the Moral Mondays movement which started there, and which has now spread to 13 states in the South and Midwest (Indiana Moral Mondays is evidently the second Moral Mondays movement, after North Carolina, to have developed as a concrete organization).  Barber, with an Indiana connection himself (his parents were residents of Indianapolis, and he was raised here), addressed both the workshops and teach-in that occurred the evening of the 19th, and was the fiery keynote speaker at the afternoon rally at the Indiana State House on the 20th, which (depending on which press account one accepted) attracted 200-400 people from throughout the state.  As an attendee, I’d put the number closer to 400 than 200.
 
 
Significant press coverage was given by the story appearing in the Indianapolis Star, the state’s flagship mainstream newspaper, by Vic Ryckaert’s September 20 “Indiana Moral Mondays battles low pay, injustice, racism, and more,” http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/09/20/moral-mondays-battles-low-pay-injustice-racism/15979953; and a vital follow-up appeared in the African American newsweekly Indianapolis Recorder September 25, Ebony Chappell’s  “Fast-food workers join Moral Mondays movement,” http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/news/article_c7c34c48-44ce-11e4-9c4c-0b68ff004dfb.html.  Coverage also appeared on the left newsserve Portside, which reposted an article by Harry Targ, a professor of political science at Purdue University and member of the Indiana Moral Mondays Steering Committee, that was published September 24 on Popular Resistance, http://www.popularresistance.org/moral-mondays-comes-to-indiana/, and was a reprint of his September 23 BlogSpot blog, “Diary of a Heartland Radical,” http://www.heartlandradical.blogspot.com/.  Targ’s article/blog, “Moral Mondays Comes to Indiana,” serves especially well as a a fundamental primer on the impetus behind Moral Mondays and the basics of its program, stressing as it does at its heart the “five-point agenda” adopted by Indiana Moral Mondays as its chief goals:  
  • Secure pro-labor, anti-poverty policies that insure economic sustainability;
  • Provide well-funded, quality public education for all;
  • Stand up for the health of every Hoosier by promoting health care access and environmental justice across all the state’s communities;
  • Address the continuing inequalities in the criminal justice system and ensure equality under the law for every person, regardless of race, class, creed, documentation or sexual preference;
  • Protect and expand voting rights for people of color, women, immigrants, the elderly and students to safeguard fair democratic representation.
Targ’s piece thus approaches intellectually what Rev. Barber presented with great emotional compulsion and eloquent rhetorical flourish in his keynote address, given in the impassioned oratorical style of the African American church and heavily emphasizing morality and the moral implications of the political issues involved.  Regardless of how one might feel about this approach as a secular leftist, a direct listening to Barber’s speech compelled one to acknowledge it as a rhetorical tour de force, one aesthetically vigorous and pleasing in that same deeply emotional way that African American gospel music is.
 
 
I interviewed Targ following Rev. Barber’s speech, and he provided significant additional information.  As way of self-disclosure, I’ve have known Targ for years as an activist, both at the Indiana and national levels.  He stated that Indiana Moral Mondays, same as with other Moral Mondays movements, endorsed a “state-oriented” political approach that would rely heavily on “fusion politics” to draw diverse constituencies into participation on the key “interconnected issues” of labor, education, healthcare, women’s reproductive rights, and gay and lesbian rights.  He stated, “Rev. Barber has articulated what he calls ‘fusion politics’” as stressing “the only way progressives can make a dent is if we can work together and look at the interconnectedness of all these issues.”  Targ continued that while Moral Mondays would be strongly oriented at “pressing” the Indiana General Assembly, the state’s two-house legislature, and the Governor’s office, both presently dominated by Tea Party-leaning Republicans, on issues, undertaking education and voter registration, and working also for alternative candidates for office, Indiana Moral Mondays “is not primarily or exclusively and electoral movement.”
 
 
Targ further emphasized that Moral Mondays was looking toward a long-term strategy and presence, and perhaps would be more able to flex its muscle by the 2016 elections.  Education and “working class” economic issues such as inequality, poverty, low-paying jobs and persistently steady unemployment would be emphasized, and that pushing for the right of workers to form unions would be “just one part of a broader effort” to reach out to that 90+% of Indiana’s workforce that was non-union.  As part of “fusion politics,” outreach to white workers that educated them on the shared commonalities of what they faced with African American workers would be an important component of Moral Mondays’ work.  As Targ stated, “All workers are experiencing increased exploitation and immiseration.”  Indeed, outreach to the “white working class,” long an electoral base for the Republican Party in heavily Red-state Indiana, was emphasized by several speakers at Saturday’s rally.
 
 
Much the same was articulated by another professor whom I interviewed, Joseph Varga, Assistant Professor of Labor Studies at the main campus of Indiana University in Bloomington,  a self-professed “labor activist and LBGT activist” also active in South Central Indiana Jobs with Justice.  (Self-disclosure:  I’ve known Varga also for some time.)  He was enthused about Moral Monday’s potential for “coalition building,” as he saw that “the only way we’re going to stop the reactionary movement in this country is through numbers.” Son of a Hungarian immigrant factory-worker father, Varga grew up with a blue-collar identity and saw that his own fellow white worker cohorts would support social safety-net and populist measures out of self-interest, even as they “stayed away from labels of what we call liberalism and leftism in this country.”  Varga feels the U.S. is in a “state of emergency” for poor and working people, emphasizing “working people and poor people have no representation whatsoever; they are getting destroyed.”  He adds, “I don’t think workers vote against their self-interest if we have a Democratic Party that’s not doing a damn thing for them.” 
 
 
Varga thinks “actions are going to speak louder than words,” and that workers will be attracted to, and join, a movement that is in “the places where goods and services are transported and being moved and clog that system up so badly that it cannot operate until our concerns are addressed.”  Civil disobedience was, of course, a hallmark of the North Carolina Moral Mondays, and was also mentioned by Rev. Barber in his speech here in Indianapolis.
 
 
 
Admitting to feeling a “little bit skittish” with Moral Mondays because of the moralistic emphasis and active presence of churches and Christian religious believers, Joe Varga emphasized that the activities in Bloomington were strictly secular and, as for overt religious influence, the best course was to “just ignore it.”
 
 
Harry Targ highlighted in his article above that Moral Mondays, in the 13 states in the South and Midwest where it has a presence, have begun to build a new fusion movement that draws together workers, women, young and old, black, brown, and white people, documented and undocumented, environmentalists, people of faith and atheists, and the LBGT community based upon ‘moral’ and ‘constitutional’ agendas.”  (Despite these assurances of inclusiveness from Targ and Varga, however, I saw no discernable Jewish or Muslim presence, and certainly no overt atheist, agnostic, or secular humanist one, at Saturday’s rally.)
 
 
At present, it certainly is true that Moral Mondays has galvanized much of the radical imagination, and has become a pole of attraction and excitement.  But whether Indiana Moral Mondays can become an effective political force, based as it is so fervently on moralism little backed up with concrete program, is another matter altogether.  The Occupy movement also had a galvanizing presence in Indiana, and it too was similarly based on fervid moral indignation with little, or no, attempt to develop a program of concrete action, either nationally or in Indiana.   So Occupy left little or nothing discernable in its wake except fond memories among activists.  But perhaps, as Moral Mondays begins articulating its vision and building coalitions, it will draw more people into it and thus over time become more concrete and programmatic in its approach.  And perhaps the success of Moral Mondays movements will vary from place to place, which seems the most likely.  But despite the publicity and activity in North Carolina, Moral Mondays there seems to have had little deterrent effect on the Republican Supermajority in control of the legislature.  Yet despite this, Moral Mondays there has certainly not closed up shop.  Indeed, far from it—to continue the marketing analogy, the franchise has only broadened and set foot in new locales.
 
 
But in terms of Indiana,  Targ’s and Varga’s optimism might be based more on both of them living in bucolic college-town islands where left political activity is far more the norm than elsewhere in Indiana.  This is especially this author’s jaundiced take on the potential of Indiana Moral Mondays here in Indianapolis where I live, where the prevalent overweening religious pietism and religiosity could turn Moral Mondays into yet another clique of the “peaceable religious progressives” who will hostilely exclude anyone not of their religious persuasion.  Such happened here before in Indianapolis before during my 34-year residence to date as an open Marxist atheist activist who found himself ostracized and belittled at every turn.  Indeed, such is presently happening with me now in my relationship with Indiana Moral Mondays, with several key people actually succeeding in banishing me from its Facebook page for my open atheism.  And it is my direct experience with such petty moralistic vindictiveness that has forced me to give up any attempt at local activism and concentrate instead on writing for the nationwide socialist and alternative press, limiting myself only to attending certain local demonstrations and activities and writing on them.
 
 
Because, unfortunately, I have seen directly too much promising activism thwarted in Indianapolis:  in the derailing of a promising, more broadly-based and secular peace movement here in the mid- to late-1980s, when key people instead turned it into an exclusively religious pacifist clique that focused solely on “symbolic protest” and did no mass outreach; and in the destruction of the Solidarity Books/Paper Matches youth collective here a decade-and-a-half ago, where a group of feisty anarchist youth tried to set up a truly viable non-sectarian left bookstore, and were driven out in frustration and disgust by the “respectable religious progressives” who were incensed over these youths’ revolutionary rhetoric.  Which now means the only way to purchase left literature in Indianapolis is through the local Barnes & Noble outlets, or else order online through anti-union but low-price Amazon or union-organized but higher-price Powell’s Books.  Or some other online outlet, making this, the Circle City, a major MSA, completely bereft of any radical bookstore whatsoever.
 
 
And ruefully, that doesn’t exhaust the list of positive movements derailed here by the “respectably peaceable religious progressives,” and trying to change them is frustratingly akin to the proverbial pulling teeth.  Along with attempting to participate secularly in social justice movements in Indianapolis when these “religious progressives” insist on subordinating all to “religious belief” and limiting participation to members of the “faith community.”  And indeed, this can even approach the absurd, as in the recent insistence by a leading Quaker activist that “It would’ve been all right with me” if Hitler had conquered rather than to have fought World War II!
 
 
And by no means are Indiana Moral Mondays and the “peaceable religious progressives” the only “faith communities” in Indiana or nationally, though a recent communication between Indiana Moral Mondays and me tried to asset otherwise.  For if the Religious Right isn’t also a “faith community,” then what is?  Certainly an unpleasant and reprehensible one, but also one that fulfills the basic dictionary definition.  Same can be said of the many fervent religious believers in the Republican and Tea Parties; and malodorous as the religious views of such as Pat Robertson and Michele Bachmann are, to give but two examples out of many, it cannot be said that their positions lack Biblical or theological support.  Even a cursory reading of the Bible or of theologians such as Aquinas demonstrates indeed that  the religious views of a Robertson or a Bachmann have a great deal of support from “traditional Christian” sources.  That’s especially important here in Indiana, one of the most consistently Reddest of the Red States, where the Tea Party and the Religious Right are strong—and needless to say, where the “faith communities” adhering to them will be antithetical to the “faith communities” within Moral Mondays, and will work, on the basis of their religious convictions, to undermine and even destroy movements of the broad left that share with the Religious Right the same religious fervor and moral indignation, but which the Religious right considers heresy, apostasy and worse.
 
 
Also, statewide movements in Indiana, such as Moral Mondays is trying to be, have never been able to sustain themselves successfully. The Indiana Green Party tried, but disbanded, and the only movements here that have been able to sustain themselves over a long run have been regional ones based preponderantly in certain major cities and urban areas:  Gary/Northwest Indiana, near Chicago; Lafayette/W. Lafayette, where Purdue University is; Bloomington, where Indiana University is; Mishawaka/South Bend, where Notre Dame is; and Indianapolis, leaving large swaths of Indiana without any active leftist or radical, let alone any progressive or liberal, presence whatsoever.  Except for the northern, more industrialized part of the state, the rest, preponderantly rural, is base for the Republican and Tea Parties, and these two have dominated Indiana politics easily now for many years; as for the Democratic Party, it’s more a vote-gathering machine which sees “moderates” and “conservatives” having the best electoral chances.  After all, Indiana was political home and base for the most quintessential of Blue Dog Democrats, former Senator Evan Bayh.
 
 
Further, Indiana is staunchly socially and culturally conservative, even hidebound, and in this is more akin to the Old Confederacy than to the Midwest which it is geographically part of.  Indeed, Indiana, because of its cultural conservatism and lack of significant urbanity, even in its cities, is the great sleeper, the great stealth juggernaut, of Red-state politics that’s consistently overlooked by the national media.  (For an excellent journalistic portrait of this hidden aspect of the state, see Truthout, Bryan K. Bullock, June 27, 2014, “The Ultra-Right-Wing State Nobody Mentions,” http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/24552-the-ultra-right-wing-state-nobody-mentions.)
 
 
But then, perhaps, Indiana Moral Mondays will succeed where others have failed.  Perhaps, though it’s far too early to tell one way or the other.  So, while it will certainly take more than moralistic fervor to make Indiana Moral Mondays consistently, viably effective, it does seem to be off to an auspicious start.  And of course, we of the broad left can only wish it well.
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 

Indiana Moral Mondays launches—but can it be effective?

This account of the founding of Indiana Moral Mondays was originally published on Examiner.com.  Another published account of the founding by me, "Indiana Moral Mondays," appears on the socialist website New Politics,  http://newpol.org/content/indiana-moral-mondays --GF
 
 By media accounts, Indiana Moral Mondays got off to an auspicious start the weekend of its founding in Indianapolis, Friday, September 19 and Saturday, September 20 .  (See, e.g., in Indianapolis newspapers, Indianapolis Star, Vic Ryckaert, September 20, 2014, “Indiana Moral Mondays battles low pay, injustice, racism, and more,” http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/09/20/moral-mondays-battles-low-pay-injustice-racism/15979953; Indianapolis Recorder, Ebony Chappell, September 25, 2014, “Fast-food workers join Moral Mondays movement,” http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/news/article_c7c34c48-44ce-11e4-9c4c-0b68ff004dfb.html.)  Reports gave the attendance at Saturday’s rally at the State House at 200 to 400 to hear the Rev. William Barber, head of North Carolina NAACP and guiding spokesman for that state’s Moral Mondays movement which sparked the spread of Moral Mondays organizations to 13 states in the South and Midwest, including Indiana, give the keynote address.  Barber’s impassioned address in the oratorical style of the African American church, heavily emphasizing morality and the moral implications of the political issues involved, was a rhetorical tour de force, aesthetically pleasing in that same deeply emotional way that African American gospel music is.
 
Harry Targ, a professor of political science at Purdue and member of Indiana Moral Mondays Steering Committee, limned the founding of Indiana Moral Mondays well in an article posted September 24, 2014 on the left news listserve Portside.  This basic information article, “Moral Mondays come to Indiana,” originally published by Targ September 23 as his entry on his BlogSpot blog, “Diary of a Heartland Radical,” http://www.heartlandradical.blogspot.com/, and reposted the next day on Popular Resistance, http://www.popularresistance.org/moral-mondays-comes-to-indiana/, is a fundamental primer on the impetus behind Moral Mondays and the basics of its program, stressing as it does at its heart the “five-point agenda” adopted by Indiana Moral Mondays as its chief goals:
 
  • Secure pro-labor, anti-poverty policies that insure economic sustainability;
  • Provide well-funded, quality public education for all;
  • Stand up for the health of every Hoosier by promoting health care access and environmental justice across all the state’s communities;
  • Address the continuing inequalities in the criminal justice system and ensure equality under the law for every person, regardless of race, class, creed, documentation or sexual preference;
  • Protect and expand voting rights for people of color, women, immigrants, the elderly and students to safeguard fair democratic representation.
 
In an interview with the author following Rev. Barber’s speech, Targ provided additional information.  (Self-disclosure:  I have known Targ for years.)  Targ said that Indiana Moral Mondays endorsed a “state-oriented” political approach that would rely heavily on “fusion politics” to draw diverse constituencies into participation on the key “interconnected issues” of labor, education, healthcare, women’s reproductive rights, and gay and lesbian rights.  He stated, “Rev. Barber has articulated what he calls ‘fusion politics’” as stressing “the only way progressives can make a dent is if we can work together and look at the interconnectedness of all these issues.”  Targ continued that while Moral Mondays would be strongly oriented at “pressing” the Indiana General Assembly, the state’s two-house legislature, and the Governor’s office, both presently dominated by Tea Party-leaning Republicans, on issues, undertaking education and voter registration, and working also for alternative candidates for office, Indiana Moral Mondays “is not primarily or exclusively and electoral movement.”
 
Targ further emphasized that Moral Mondays was looking toward a long-term strategy and presence, and perhaps would be more able to flex its muscle by the 2016 elections.  Education and “working class” economic issues such as inequality, poverty, low-paying jobs and persistently steady unemployment would be emphasized, and that pushing for the right of workers to form unions would be “just one part of a broader effort” to reach out to that 90+% of Indiana’s workforce that was non-union.  As part of “fusion politics,” outreach to white workers that educated them on the shared commonalities of what they faced with African American workers would be an important component of Moral Mondays’ work.  As Targ stated, “All workers are experiencing increased exploitation and immiseration.”  Indeed, outreach to the “white working class,” long an electoral base for the Republican Party in heavily Red-state Indiana, was emphasized by several speakers at Saturday’s rally.
 
Much the same was articulated by another professor whom I interviewed, Joseph Varga, Assistant Professor of Labor Studies at the main campus of Indiana University in Bloomington,  a self-professed “labor activist and LBGT activist” also active in South Central Indiana Jobs with Justice.  (Self-disclosure:  I’ve known Varga for some time.)  He was enthused about Moral Monday’s potential for “coalition building,” as he saw that “the only way we’re going to stop the reactionary movement in this country is through numbers.” Son of a Hungarian immigrant factory-worker father, Varga grew up with a blue-collar identity and saw that his own fellow white worker cohorts would support social safety-net and populist measures out of self-interest, even as they “stayed away from labels of what we call liberalism and leftism in this country.”  Varga feels the U.S. is in a “state of emergency” for poor and working people, emphasizing “working people and poor people have no representation whatsoever; they are getting destroyed.”  He adds, “I don’t think workers vote against their self-interest if we have a Democratic Party that’s not doing a damn thing for them.” 
 
Varga thinks “actions are going to speak louder than words,” and that workers will be attracted to, and join, a movement that is in “the places where goods and services are transported and being moved and clog that system up so badly that it cannot operate until our concerns are addressed.”  Civil disobedience was, of course, a hallmark of the North Carolina Moral Mondays, and was also mentioned by Rev. Barber in his speech here in Indianapolis.
 
Admitting to feeling a “little bit skittish” with Moral Mondays because of the moralistic emphasis and active presence of churches and Christian religious believers, Joe Varga emphasized that the activities in Bloomington were strictly secular and, as for overt religious influence, the best course was to “just ignore it.”
 
Harry Targ highlighted in his article above that Moral Mondays, in the 13 states in the South and Midwest where it has a presence, have begun to build a new fusion movement that draws together workers, women, young and old, black, brown, and white people, documented and undocumented, environmentalists, people of faith and atheists, and the LBGT community based upon ‘moral’ and ‘constitutional’ agendas.”  (Despite these assurances of inclusiveness from Targ and Varga, however, I saw no discernable Jewish or Muslim presence, and certainly no overt atheist, agnostic, or secular humanist one, at Saturday’s rally.)
 
At present, it certainly is true that Moral Mondays has galvanized much of the radical imagination, and has become a pole of attraction and excitement.  But whether Indiana Moral Mondays can become an effective political force, based as it is so fervently on moralism little backed up with concrete program, is another matter altogether.  The Occupy movement also had a galvanizing presence in Indiana, and it too was similarly based on fervid moral indignation with little, or no, attempt to develop a program of concrete action, either nationally or in Indiana.   So Occupy left little or nothing discernable in its wake except fond memories among activists.  But perhaps, as Moral Mondays begins articulating its vision and building coalitions, it will draw more people into it and thus over time become more concrete and programmatic in its approach.  And perhaps the success of Moral Mondays movements will vary from place to place, which seems the most likely.  But despite the publicity and activity of the original in North Carolina, it seems to have had little deterrent effect on the Republican Supermajority in control of the legislature.  Yet despite this, Moral Mondays there has certainly not closed up shop.  Indeed, far from it—to continue the marketing analogy, the franchise has only broadened and set foot in new locales.
 
But in terms of Indiana,  Targ’s and Varga’s optimism might be based more on both of them living in bucolic college-town islands where left political activity is far more the norm than elsewhere in Indiana.  This is especially this author’s jaundiced take on the potential of Indiana Moral Mondays here in Indianapolis where I live, where the prevalent overweening religious pietism and religiosity could turn Moral Mondays into yet another clique of the “peaceable religious progressives” who will hostilely exclude anyone not of their religious persuasion.  Such happened here before in Indianapolis before during my 34-year residence to date as an open Marxist atheist activist who found himself ostracized and belittled at every turn.  Something that forced me to give up any attempt at local activism and concentrate instead on writing for the national socialist and alternative press, limiting myself only to attending certain local demonstrations and activities and writing on them.
 
For unfortunately, I saw too much promising activism thwarted:  in the derailing of a promising, more broadly-based and secular peace movement here in the mid- to late-1980s, when key people instead turned it into an exclusively religious pacifist clique that focused solely on “symbolic protest” and did no mass outreach; and in the destruction of the Solidarity Books/Paper Matches youth collective here a decade-and-a-half ago, where a group of feisty anarchist youth tried to set up a truly viable non-sectarian left bookstore, and were driven out in frustration and disgust by the “respectable religious progressives” who were incensed over these youths’ revolutionary rhetoric.  Which now means the only way to purchase left literature in Indianapolis is through the local Barnes & Noble outlets, or else order online through anti-union but low-price Amazon or union-organized but higher-price Powell’s Books.  Or some other online outlet, making this, the Circle City, a major MSA, completely bereft of any radical bookstore whatsoever.
 
Also, statewide movements in Indiana have never been able to sustain themselves successfully. The Indiana Green Party tried, but disbanded, and the only movements here that have been able to sustain themselves over a long run have been regional ones based preponderantly in certain major cities and urban areas:  Gary/Northwest Indiana, near Chicago; Lafayette/W. Lafayette, where Purdue University is; Bloomington, where Indiana University is; Mishawaka/South Bend, where Notre Dame is; and Indianapolis, leaving large swaths of Indiana without any active leftist or radical, let alone any progressive or liberal, presence whatsoever.  Except for the northern, more industrialized part of the state, the rest, preponderantly rural, is home to the Republican and Tea Parties, and these two have dominated Indiana politics easily now for many years; as for the Democratic Party, it’s more a vote-gathering machine which sees “moderates” and “conservatives” having the best electoral chances.
 
Further, Indiana is staunchly socially and culturally conservative, even hidebound, and in this is more akin to the Old Confederacy than to the Midwest which it is geographically part of.  Indeed, Indiana, because of its cultural conservatism and lack of significant urbanity, even in its cities, is the great sleeper, the great stealth juggernaut, of Red-state politics that’s consistently overlooked by the national media.  (For an excellent journalistic portrait of this hidden aspect of the state, see Truthout, Bryan K. Bullock, June 27, 2014, “The Ultra-Right-Wing State Nobody Mentions,” http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/24552-the-ultra-right-wing-state-nobody-mentions.)
 
But then, perhaps, Indiana Moral Mondays will succeed where others have failed.  Perhaps, though it’s far too early to tell one way or the other.  And while it will take more than moralistic fervor to make Indiana Moral Mondays consistently, viably effective, it certainly seems to be off to an auspicious start.
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 

Indiana Senator Dan Coats cherry-picks CBO data to oppose minimum wage hike

Also originally published on Examiner.com.  Slight editorial changes--GF
 
As shown on this blog, Indiana Senator Dan Coats drew from a biased think tank financed by the low-wage restaurant and hotel industry and operating as an adjunct to a right-wing public relations firm, the Employment Policies Institute, for part of his rationale for opposing a minimum wage hike on the Senate vote to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour on April 30, 2014.  (See George Fish, “Indiana Senator Dan Coats’ minimum-wage views stem from biased source,” posted on this blog.)
 
But another rationale for Coats’ opposition comes from cherry-picking the data from a far more respectable, and economically respected, source, the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) February 2014 report, “The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income.”  Senator Coats claimed, in his press release of April 30, 2014 justifying his joining with fellow Republicans to filibuster the minimum-wage increase bill that had passed the Senate by a majority, http://www.coats.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/coats-statement-on-minimum-wage-vote-, that according to the CBO, a raise in the minimum wage according to the legislation, which would raise it to $10.10 an hour by 2016 and index it to the rate of inflation thereafter, would cost up to a million jobs in the U.S. and that only 19% of the  increased earnings of such a raise would benefit families below the poverty line.
 
But Coats only quotes selectively from what the CBO report says.  The full report, which is available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf, not only contradicts Coats, but presents a far more nuanced and sophisticated approach which actually notes that job loss will probably be only half of what Coats claims above, and the benefits from increased income actually spread out to a lot more people who, even if not below the poverty line, are only of middling income.  In other words, on balance, there is more benefit and less loss to raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2016, according to the CBO, than Senator Coats’ alarums claim.  And it’s stated so directly in the CBO’s report.
 
For example, the CBO claims that the most probable job loss in 2016 from raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will only be 500,000 jobs, or 0.3% of the jobs available, though there is a ⅔ probability that the statistical spread of job loss could range from only a small number of jobs lost (or far less than 500,000) up to a million jobs lost.  (p. 1; Table 1, p. 2)  But, and this the CBO did not calculate, although it does so state,  the loss of job income caused by the furlough of 500,000 or so workers would, for an indeterminate number of them, be partially offset by increased federal benefits such as SNAP (food stamps), unemployment compensation, and lower tax liabilities. (See discussion on pp. 8-9 and 15-17; although much of this discussion on benefits is cast into how it would affect those still employed, it is easy to extrapolate on benefit changes for the unemployed from this discussion.) Nor would such workers necessarily be reduced to permanent unemployment; and this author really doubts that the loss of 500,000 extremely-low-wage jobs could be really seen as some sort of disastrous loss either to individual workers or to the economy.  Rather, it might be even a form of “liberation” from the very real misery of being trapped in jobs that cannot pay other than bare subsistence, if even that.  Coats himself says as much in his press release—that “The true problem plaguing impoverished Americans is…a lack of good job opportunities. “ Though he does state rather disingenuously that “The true problem plaguing impoverished Americans is not low wage rates”—as it the two didn’t go hand-in-hand!
 
The CBO report states that this increase in the minimum wage would increase the income of 16.5 million workers and result in $31 billion in added household income, which would benefit not only those presently below the federal poverty threshold calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau, but also significantly, those whose income was between one and three times the poverty threshold, with the largest gain, 2.8%, going to those households below the poverty threshold. Of this $31 billion income increase, 19% of it would go to families earning less than the poverty threshold. (The Average Real Family Income range from below the poverty threshold up to 2.99 times the poverty threshold prior to the minimum wage increase is from $10,700 or less up $51,400 annually; in other words, the poor and the middle class.)  Those whose household income was between three and six times (3.0-5.99) the poverty threshold (Average Real Family Income before the raise of $86,600 annually) would see little household income increase, while those households with incomes six and more times the federal poverty threshold (Average Real Family Income before the raise of $182,200 annually) would see their Average Real Family Income drop about $700 per year, or a decline of 0.4%, due to decline in business income and loss of stock value. (But, what, really, is an income decline of only $700 to a household earning $182,200 or more annually?)  So it’s easy to see here that there would be a slight but positive redistributive effect, certainly welcome in this time of decades-long rise in income inequality and income stagnation or actual decline for the poor and the middle-class, with the gains going to those already rich. Further, 900,000 individuals, out of the 45 million projected as under the poverty threshold in 2016 under current law, would be raised out of poverty. (Table 1, p. 2, Table 4, p. 14; text, pp. 1, 2, 3, 11.)   As the CBO report baldly states on p. 30,
 
In CBO’s estimation, overall real income would increase for families with income less than six times the poverty threshold but would decrease for higher-income families, because both the income losses for business owners and the increase in prices would have the greatest effects on those higher-income families.  In CBO’s estimation, about 1 percent of the reduction in real income would fall on people living in families whose income was below the poverty threshold, whereas about 70 percent would fall on people living in families whose income was more than six times the poverty threshold.

 
Further, this writer, who holds a university degree in economics, wishes to emphasize the CBO’s approach throughout its report is conservative, and does not, for example, attempt to calculate many broader effects of an increase in the minimum wage through increased consumption, such as a calculation of the ripple effect of the Keynesian multiplier throughout the economy.  (Which, technically speaking, is an adaptation of the mathematical formula for calculating the limit of an geometric series, based on the confirmed notion that, especially in the lower income ranges, most income is spent on consumption of goods and services, which provides additional income to the providers of such goods and services, who in turn spend a portion of this additional income purchasing other goods and services, and so on.   Consumer spending comprises 70% of the U.S.’ Gross Domestic Product, or GDP.  The CBO report does acknowledge the ripple effect, p. 21.)
 
From February to December 2012 the Washington Post ran a series of four articles on the extent and sources of Congress members’ wealth, and gave the individual wealth as of 2010 for such members, including Senator Coats, who is emerging onto the national Senatorial Republican stage as a leader, principally in opposing both the extension of unemployment benefits and the raise in the federal minimum wage.  Coats’ individual wealth is found at http://apps.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-assets/member/daniel-coats.  The Washington Post estimated Senator Coats’ financial worth in 2010 at $4.8 million, a 5% increase over 2009, of which $1.7 million was in cash and bank accounts alone, with no estimated liabilities.   Further, Senator Coats’ annual salary as a Congressional officeholder is $174,000, http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm; This salary is equivalent to $83.65 an hour, which is 11.54 times the wage of a current minimum wage earner, $7.25 an hour, and 8.28 times the wage of a minimum wage earner if the minimum wage were to rise to $10.10 an hour.
 
Thus, from both this and the earlier blog entry here on Dan Coats and his opposition to a minimum wage hike, Senator Coats’ “factual arguments” against raising the minimum wage rely on both a reliance on a clearly biased, questionable think-tank financed by the low-wage restaurant and hospitality industries, and a dubious, cherry-picking, reading of the CBO report on the impact of a minimum wage increase to $10.10 an hour.   Further, Senator Coats’ own personal wealth makes him at the very least an incongruous “champion” of low-wage workers and their jobs, and might even make him appear, same as in his opposition to the extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, even as a hypocritical one.  As the other blog entry concluded, when Senator Dan Coats laments the supposed loss of employment stemming from an increase in the minimum wage, “Could it be that when [he] so laments, he does so with guile in his voice and crocodile tears in his eyes?”