EFTA01133276.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bce: jeevacation@gmail.com Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 09/22/2013 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 07:48:05 +0000 Attachments: There_Have_Been_More_Mass_Shootings_Since_Newtown_Than_You_Think_Huff_Post_ 09 17 2013.docx; The lvlyth of the 'Free_Market' and How to Make the_Economy_Work for Us_Robert Reich Iltrff_iosi_09 16_2013.cTocx;—Ame&a's RiciTest and Poorest Stares 14- 7_Walc_Street_Septeiriber_16,2913.docx; The_gest_Economies_in_the_World_24- 7 Wall Street_September 10,2013.docx; Food ecurity_in the_U.g. USDA September 2013.docx; The Power_of_2 WSLETditorial—09_16,20Th.docx; AnoTherinsult to_Jie Poor_NYT September_19,2013.docx; Shooting_of at_paric_puts_Chiago_bacc in_the_spotlight-Chicago_Tribune- September_10J013.docx; Judy_Collins_bio.docx Inline-Images: image.png; image(1).png; image(2).png; aa4.jpg; image(3).png; image(4).png; image(5).png DEAR FRIEND Another Insult to the Poor By: NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD In what can be seen only as an act of supreme indifference, House Republicans passed a bill on Thursday that would drastically cut federal food stamps and throw 3.8 million Americans out of the program in 2014. The vote came two weeks after the Agriculture Department reported that 17.6 million households did not have enough to eat at some point in 2012 because they lacked the resources to put food on the table. It came two days after the Census Bureau reported that 15 percent of Americans, or 46.5 million people, live in poverty. These numbers are basically unchanged from 2011, but in a growing economy steady rates of hunger and poverty amount, in effect, to backsliding. Cutting food stamps would accelerate the slide. Food stamps kept four million people out of poverty last year and kept millions more from falling deeper into poverty. Under the House Republican bill, many of these people would be further impoverished. The struggling middle class is also faring poorly. Though the unemployment rate dropped to a low of 7.8 percent last year from a high of 9.1 percent in 2011, median household income was virtually unchanged, at $51,017. In a healthy economy, income would rise when unemployment falls. But in today's weak economy, much of the decline in the jobless rate is not due to new hiring, but to a shrinking work force — the very definition of a feeble labor market in which employed people work for years without raises and unemployed job seekers routinely end up in new jobs that pay less than their previous ones. Even so, congressional Republicans have shown no inclination to end the automatic budget cuts that, if left in place, will lead to an estimated loss of 900,000 jobs in the coming year, keeping poverty high and incomes stagnant. In addition, there seems to be little Republican appetite for renewing federal unemployment benefits — a lifeline for millions of unemployed Americans — when they expire at the end of 2013. It is nothing new that poor people are stuck and those in the middle class are struggling. The poverty rate, though steady last year, has worsened or failed to improve in 11 of the last 12 years. The latest EFTA01133276 numbers would have been worse but for "doubling up." There are currently 10.1 million adults age 25 to 34 who are not in school and who live with parents or others who are not spouses of cohabitating partners. If they were on their own, 43 percent of them would fall below the poverty line, which last year was $11,945 for someone under age 65. Similarly, while median household income held steady last year, it was still lower by 8.3 percent, or $4,600, (measured in 2012 dollars) than in 2007, before the recession. And the longer the historical perspective, the more dire the situation. From 2000 to 2012, median income for working-age households headed by someone under age 65 (again in 2012 dollars) fell almost $7,500, from nearly $65,000 to just under $57,500, a decline of n.6 percent. Against that backdrop, there is no justification for savaging the safety net and decimating the budget. As it happens, the Times editorial board actually understated things. Thursday's vote was not only an undeniable act of heartlessness, it was also perhaps the ultimate example of how today's increasingly radical and unhinged GOP leadership picks on the poor, coddles the rich, makes thinly veiled appeals to racism, and plays time-wasting political games instead of governing. As Dan Froomkin pointed out in The Huffington Post -- in short, the important thing about this vote to anyone paying any attention at all was the subtext -- what it really meant. But the coverage was stenographic and context-deficient. The New York Times (critique) The headline over Ron Nixon's story characterized the cuts as "deep," but the author quickly turned to a play-by-play, writing that the vote "set up what promised to be a major clash with the Senate." His initial assessment was un-skeptical and almost sympathetic: Republican leaders, under pressure from Tea Party-backed conservatives, said the bill was needed because the food stamp program, which costs nearly $8o billion a year, had grown out of control. Then he presented a fabulously disingenuous quote, without a hint of what it really signified, from Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.): "In the real world, we measure success by results. It's timefor Washington to measure success by how manyfamilies are lifted out ofpoverty and helped back on theirfeet, not by how much Washington bureaucrats spend year after year." What's notable about this quote is how it illustrates the GOP's loopy fantasy that defenders of the program want more people on food stamps as a goal unto itself. In fact, the program is by design -- and for good reason -- countercyclical. When people need it more, participation goes up. When there are more hungry people, we spend more to feed them. Everyone is concerned when there are a lot of people getting food stamps, but the problem is that they are hungry, not that they are being fed. The GOP argument boils down to a nonsensical: When people are hungrier, we should feed them less. It shouldn't be treated as if it makes sense. But it was. Yes, Nixon put this comment in his story: Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan and the chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, called it "a monumental waste of time." But then he offered his readers this shockingly dishonest quote, without any skepticism: "This bill makes getting Americans back to work a priority againfor our nation's welfare programs," House Speaker John A. Boehner said. EFTA01133277 Toward the bottom of the story, Nixon finally offers a little context: A Census Bureau report released on Tuesdayfound that the program had kept aboutfour million people above the poverty level and had prevented millions morefrom sinkingfurther into poverty. The census data also showed nearly 47 million people living in poverty -- close to the highest level in two decades. But maybe that should have been in the second paragraph instead? One of the big uglies in the US, is that millions of Americans are still stuck five years now after the depth of the great American recession. New data out this week from the U.S. census bureau is showing us more than 46 million living below the poverty line, by the way, that is considered $23,500 for a family of four. More than one in five Americans in poverty are children. Needy and household income, that is the exact mid-point, about the same as last year, a little more than $51,000, a little more than 8% less than before the recession hit. And all of this is happening in plain sight. In 2012, the top 5% of the households, those malting more than $91,000 took in the same as they did before the recession, but the other 95% made less. This reality is reflected in the growth of Americans who rely on local food banks to feed themselves and their families. While median income has fallen, the incomes of top earners have continued to rise, making income inequality worse. The Census Bureau's measure of inequality, known as the "Gini index," held steady at 0.477 in 2012, but at the record high set in 2011. A Gini index of 0 means perfect income equality, an index of 1 means one person would get all of the nation's income. We're slowly grinding our way towards 1. The top 5 percent of all households earned 22.3 percent of all the nation's income in 2012, matching its haul in 2011. The median income of households in the top 5 percent rose to $318,052 from $317,950 in 2011. The income of these highest-earning Americans has recovered completely from a dip during and after the recession, compared with the 8 percent decline for the median American household. The racial differences in income are even starker: The median income for black households was $33,321 last year, less than half the median income for Asian households. The current federal poverty threshold for a family of four is $23,550. These numbers help explain why, even though the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, and even as President Barack Obama touts "progress" in the economy, one-third of Americans think we are still in a recession or a depression, according to a recent survey. For many of them, the recovery has been worse than the recession. In an article by Mark Gongloff this week in The Huffington Post - Income Falls For 5th Year, Inequality At Record High - he points out that the facts are in showing that the poor are poorer and the rich are getting richer. Median household income fell for the fifth straight year in 2012, the Census Bureau reported on Tuesday, to $51,017. This is the lowest annual income, adjusted for inflation, since 1995. As the typical American family's income has fallen every year since 2007, the year the Great Recession began, for a cumulative decline of 8.3 percent. Median income is also down 9 percent from its record high of $56,080, set two recessions ago in 1999. EFTA01133278  Real Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1967 to 2012 2012 dollars Recession 80.00 70.00 N...." 568.636 Asian 60.00 $57,009 0 White. not Hispanic 50.00 $51017 All races 40.00 0 539,005 Hispanic (any race) - \..../ .---N -1,...--- ------- - $33,321 30.000 Black 20.000 1O000 OI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IMI 1959 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2012 Note: Median household Income data are not available prior to 1967. Implementation of 2010 Census population controls began in 2010. For information on recessions. see Appendix A. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Survey. 1968 to 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplements. While median income has fallen, the incomes of top earners have continued to rise, making income inequality worse. The Census Bureau's measure of inequality, known as the "Gini index," held steady at 0.477 in 2012, but at the record high set in 2011. A Gini index of o means perfect income equality, an index of 1 means one person would get all of the nation's income. We're slowly grinding our way towards 1. The top 5 percent of all households earned 22.3 percent of all the nation's income in 2012, matching its haul in 2011. The median income of households in the top 5 percent rose to $318,052 from $317,950 in 2011. The income of these highest-earning Americans has recovered completely from a dip during and after the recession, compared with the 8 percent decline for the median American household. The racial differences in income are even starker: The median income for black households was $33,321 last year, less than half the median income for Asian households. The current federal poverty threshold for a family of four is $23,550. These numbers help explain why, even though the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, and even as President Barack Obama touts "progress" in the economy, one-third of Americans think we are still in a recession or a depression, according to a recent survey. For many of them, the recovery has been worse than the recession. In contrast this week Forbes Magazine published (32nd list) — 2013 Forbes zioo: Richest People in America, and just to check out how several friends on the list fared this past year, I took a look. Bill Gates is still the richest American for the loth year in a row and has reclaimed the title of world's richest person from Mexico's Carlos Slim with a net worth of $72 billion. Warren Buffett, again number two, was the year's biggest dollar gainer, having added $12.5 billion to his fortune. Facebook's hot stock pumped up Mark Zuckerberg's fortune by $9.6 billion and put him back into the top 20 after missing the top cut last year; Carl Icahn lost his battle to stop DELL (+0.07%) from going private but he had a great year and moves back in the top 20 for the first time since 2008. The biggest percentage gainer was Workday's David Duffield, whose fortune more than tripled to $6.4 billion, and just behind him in terms of percentage jumps was the entrepreneur Elon Musk, now worth $6.7 billion and ranked 61st. See Weblink: Five years after the financial crisis sent the fortunes of many in the U.S. and around the world tumbling, the wealthiest as a group have finally gained back all that they lost. The 400 wealthiest Americans are worth just over $2 trillion, roughly equivalent to the GDP of Russia. That is a gain of EFTA01133279 $300 billion from a year ago, and more than double a decade ago. The average net worth of list members is a staggering $5 billion, $800 million more than a year ago and also a record. The minimum net worth needed to make the 400 list was $1.3 billion. The last time it was that high was in 2007 and 2008, before property and stock market values began sliding. Because the bar is so high, S American billionaires didn't make the cut. There are 20 newcomers to the list. Among the notables are Michael Rubin, whose online sports merchandise retailer Fanatics, recently attracted venture capital investors at a sky-high valuation; Jeff Sutton, who owns a number of the priciest store fronts on Fifth Avenue and Times Square, and 35-year-old Robert Pera, one of just nine under 40, whose wireless networking gear maker Ubiquiti Networks surged after a strong earnings announcement in August. At the time he tweeted this lyric from a Jay-Z song: "And as for the critics, tell me I don't get it. Everybody can tell you how to do it, they never did it." Only 3o people from last year's list are poorer than a year ago. Twenty-eight people dropped out of the ranks and six people died, including surround sound pioneer Ray Dolby. Of those 28, only 15 saw their fortunes drop, including T. Boone Pickens, whose costly bets on wind energy lost him his billionaire status, and Manoj Bhargava, whose 5-Hour Energy drink firm has been hit by lawsuits and falling revenues. The rest simply couldn't keep up with the rising tide. Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder is one of the billionaires who didn't qualify and, in his case, even with a rise in his fortune, just didn't have enough to stay in the club. Under a Republican bill that the House of Representatives that passed on Thursday the GOP wants to change the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") so that more recipients must be working or in training to qualify for food stamps. The office of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has said in background documents explaining the proposals to reporters. First of all it is important to emphasize that more than 85% of the people who get federal assistance for food are either children, children with their parents, senior citizens or people with disabilities, including our veterans. And the other 15% are people who are just trying to hang on by their fingertips, as food stamps aren't a luxury that anyone brags about. You try to live on $4 a day which is the average food assistance allotment for a person. The newscasts in question are two Fox News stories about one 29-year-old California food stamp recipient who harbors no ambition to get a job. "This is the way I want to live and I don't really see EFTA01133280 anything changing," the man said in the stories, copies of which Fox distributed to Capitol Hill offices. "It's free food; it's awesome." Just wanting a job wouldn't be awesome enough to satisfy Republicans' proposed rules, however. While merely seeking work fulfills a requirement of unemployment insurance, SNAP recipients would have to do better. "If you're lookingfor work but can'tfind it, and you can'tfind a place in a work or training program -- something only a few states make available to all of these individuals -- you will lose SNAP after three months," Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget Priorities said in a Wednesday blog post. The Center on Budget has been the foremost critic of the legislation outside of Congress. Able-bodied adults without children would be eligible for only three months of benefits under the GOP plan unless they're working, training, or volunteering 20 hours per week -- a pre-existing requirement that most states have waived because of high unemployment. Republicans have cited Congressional Research Service data showing that able-bodied adults without dependents had risen to 10.2 percent of the overall SNAP population in 2011, up from 6.6 percent in 2007. Overall SNAP enrollment surged to 47 million in 2012 because the Great Recession and its aftermath made more Americans poor enough to qualify. Republicans prefer to blame liberal policy for the increase, so their bill would take the waivers away. Republicans also want states to be able to require working-age SNAP recipients with children older than one year to obey the work requirements outlined in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, meaning at least 20 hours per week at a job, volunteering, or participating in a state-run training or work-search program. But the legislation doesn't require states to make space available to SNAP recipients in such a program. Since it would allow states to keep half the savings from reduced enrollment, critics like Greenstein say the bill essentially pays states to kick people off food stamps. Despite slacker stereotypes, the share of food stamp recipients who work has risen over time. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 30 percent of SNAP recipients worked in 2010, up from fewer than 20 percent in 1990. Most of the rest are either elderly, children, or disabled. The CBO has estimated that the Republican legislation would result in 3.8 million fewer Americans receiving food stamps next year and would save $39 billion over 10 years. But House Republicans are unlikely to get their way -- even if the bill passes the House on Thursday afternoon, the Democratic Senate is unlikely to accept most of its provisions, and the White House has already threatened a veto. Even without new legislation, all food stamp beneficiaries will see an across-the-board drop in the value of their benefits this November thanks to the expiration of a boost from the 2009 stimulus bill. Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) have introduced a long-shot bill to prevent the drop. The surfer in the news reports, Jason Greenslate, did not respond to a request for comment on serving as the latest in a long line of examples of no-good food stamp recipients. Like everything else, I am sure that there is fraud and abuse in our food stamp program but the truth is that with 15% of the American population living in poverty and more than one in five children in the country living in households where food insecurity is a serious problem, the richest country in the world should be doing everything that it can to make sure that no one goes to bed hungry. This legislation is the same boondoggle that it is suppose to address. More importantly it doesn't address the problem, that in America tens of millions of people including millions of children are not getting enough food and nutrition. Therefore, if Congress wants to address food assistance, why don't they start with trying to find a way to make sure that no one goes to sleep hungry, especially children. An estimated 14.5 million American households had difficulty providing enough food for their families last year, according to a recent government report. In 7 million of those homes, at least one member of the family had to skip meals or eat less because money was tight. These numbers are more or less unchanged since 2008. W2. EFTA01133281 A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service report measures how many households have to limit their food options or even skip meals because they cannot afford enough or healthier food. According to the report, between 2010 and 2012, an average of 20% of Mississippi households had low or very low food security. In that period, an average of one in 12 Arkansas households had at least one family member skip a meal or eat less because of a lack of money. These are the states where the most people go hungry. The states with the lowest food security, not surprisingly, are among the poorest in the country. In all to states, the median household income was less than the national median of $50,502. In Mississippi and Arkansas, the two worst states for food security, median income was less than $4O,OOO. Of the 10 states with the lowest food security, eight had the highest poverty rates in the country. Prevalence of very low food security. 2012 All households Household composition With children < 18 With children < 6 Married couples with children Single women with children Single men with children Other household with child With no children < 18 More than one adu Women living alone Men living alone With elderly Elderly living alone Race/ethnicity of head White non-Hispanic Black non•Hispanic Hispanic Other Income-to-poverty ratio Under 1.00 Under 1.30 Under 1.85 1.85 and over Income unknown Area of residence Inside metropolitan area In principal cities Not in principal citie Outside metropolitan area Census region Northeas Midwes South Wes 0 5 10 15 20 Percent of households Source: Calculated by ERS using data from the December 2012 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement. Ross Fraser, spokesperson for hunger-relief charity Feeding America, explained that having low food security does not necessarily mean families are starving. While people may feel full after eating, nutritious food is expensive. "Often, people have to make unfortunate choices about what they put in their stomachs." Fraser added. Indeed, according to a 2012 Gallup-Healthways survey, people in nine of the to states were less likely to eat healthily on a daily basis than the nation as a whole. Missouri and Tennessee were third and second worst in the country by this measure. It may surprise some that, in fact, the majority of the to states with food access problems have higher- than-average obesity rates. Mississippi and Arkansas had the second and third highest obesity rates in EFTA01133282 the country in 2012. "The lack of healthy food among families in these states," explained Fraser, "is one of the reasons you have very poor people who are obese. It is because they're not able to afford nutritious and high protein food." Based on a three-year average between 2010 and 2012, the USDA's report, Household Food Security in the United States in 2012, identifies the states with the highest proportion of residents who had low or very low food security. The report measures how many households have low food security — defined as being able to eat three square meals a day, but forced to reduce the quality of the food they eat — and very low food security — defined as having food intake reduced and eating patterns disrupted because of a lack of affordability. The 2000-2002 and 2007-2009 averages also were considered. 24/7 Wall St. also reviewed poverty, income, education and food stamp recipiency data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 American Community Survey, as well as the obesity and access to food data for 2012 from the Gallup-Healthways 2012 Well-Being Index. These are the states where the most people go hungry. io. Ohio > Low food security homes: 16.1% > Very low food security homes: 7.1% (3rd highest) > Median household income: $45,749 (16th lowest) > Pct. obesity: 29.5% (8th highest) More than 16% of families in Ohio experienced low food security, meaning they had difficulty accessing food and had poor diet quality. This problem was even worse for some families. Ohio also had the third highest percentage of households in the nation, at 7.1%, that had experienced very low food security at some point. In these homes, at least one person had to reduce food intake or had their eating patterns disrupted by irregular access to food. 9. Tennessee > Low food security homes: 16.2% > Very low food security homes: 6.9% (5th highest) > Median household income: $41,693 (6th lowest) > Pct. obesity: 29.6% (7th highest) More than 16% of Tennessee households faced food insecurity at some point. Like in most states, this number rose considerably from the decade before. In 2002, just 11.3% of households faced food insecurity at some point. Similarly, between 2002 and 2012, the average proportion of households facing very low food security more than doubled, from 3.3% to 6.9%. As of 2011,17.6% of homes received food stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, more than all but two other states. Also, according to Gallup-Healthways, residents in Tennessee were less likely than Americans in almost any other state to eat healthily. 8. Nevada > Low food security homes: 16.6% > Very low food security homes: 6.7% (8th highest) > Median household income: $48,927 (24th lowest) EFTA01133283 > Pct. obesity: 24.9% (15th lowest) Between 2002 and 2012, the percentage of households in Nevada that faced food insecurity rose from 9.3% to 16.6%. This was the largest such increase in the nation. In those to years, the percentage of Nevadans facing very low food security jumped as well, from 3.3% in 2002 to 6.7% in 2012. A lack of access to food was hardly the only major constraint facing Nevada residents, who according to Gallup were less likely to have a doctor or health insurance than residents of nearly all other states as of 2012. 7. Missouri > Low food security homes: 16.7% > Very low food security homes: 7.6% (2nd highest) > Median household income: $45,247 (15th lowest) > Pct. obesity: 27.2% (21st highest) According to a 2012 Gallup-Healthways survey, residents of just two other states were less likely than Missourians to eat healthily. The falling food security of many of the state's residents may play a role in their poor diets. Nearly 8% of households faced very low food security, the second highest percentage in the nation. This was up significantly from 3.3% in 2002, and the largest increase in the nation over the to-year period. 6. Georgia > Low food security homes: 16.9% > Very low food security homes: 6.5% (10th highest) > Median household income: $46,007 (18th lowest) > Pct. obesity: 28.6% (14th highest) Several factors likely contribute to food insecurity in Georgia. Georgia had one of the nation's highest poverty rates in 2011, at 19.1% of all residents. Similarly, 6.4% of families earned less than $10,000 annually as of 2011, one of the highest proportions in the nation. According to a 2012 Gallup survey, Georgia residents were among the most likely in the nation to have lacked money for food at some point. They also were more likely than most Americans to not have a doctor or health insurance coverage. 5. North Carolina > Low food security homes: 17.0% > Very low food security homes: 5.5% (24th highest) > Median household income: $43,916 (12th lowest) > Pct. obesity: 28.9% (12th highest) While there are some prosperous regions of the state, North Carolina still has a substantial poverty problem. In 2011,17.9% of residents were living below the poverty line, the 13th highest rate in the country. More than one in five people surveyed in 2012 by Gallup-Healthways said they had not had enough money to buy food their family needed in the past 12 months. North Carolina's food security problems have worsened during the recession. In 2009,14.8% of families had low or very low food security. In 2012, it was 17% of families. EFTA01133284 4. Alabama > Low food security homes: 17.9% > Very low food security homes: 6.8% (7th highest) > Median household income: $41,415 (5th lowest) > Pct. obesity: 30.4% (5th highest) Alabama residents practiced less healthy behavior than most Americans as of 2012. Residents were among the most likely to smoke and the least likely to exercise and eat healthy all day. The lack of healthy eating habits may have been driven by low food security, which results in households reducing "the quality, variety, and desirability of their diets," according to the USDA. The combination of unhealthy behaviors and limited food access likely has led to Alabama residents being among the most overweight and unfit in the country. According to Gallup, just four states had higher obesity rates than Alabama in 2012. 3. Texas > Low food security homes: 18.4% > Very low food security homes: 6.2% (13th highest) > Median household income: $49,392 (25th highest) > Pct. obesity: 28.9% (12th highest) In 2002, close to 15% of Texas households faced low food security each year. By 2012, 18.4% of Texas households experienced low food security. For many residents, low incomes likely prevent access to healthy food. As of 2011, Texas had a poverty rate of 18.5%, among the higher rates in the nation. Additionally, many residents in Texas lack the skills to work a high-paying job. Nearly DA of the state's population over age 25 had less than a high school diploma, tying Texas with Mississippi for the highest percentage of any state. 2. Arkansas > Low food security homes: 19.7% > Very low food security homes: 8.1% (the highest) > Median household income: $38,758 (3rd lowest) > Pct. obesity: 31.4% (3rd highest) Last year, Arkansas had proportionally more households with very low food security than any other state in the nation, averaging 8.1% of all households. Making it difficult for many residents to afford proper food, Arkansas was one of the nation's poorest states as of 2011. That year, the median household income was less than $39,000 and one of the lowest in the country. Meanwhile, nearly 20% of the state's residents lived below the poverty line. With limited, irregular access to nutritious and balanced food, residents were among the most likely to be overweight, based on the results of a 2012 Gallup survey. 1. Mississippi > Low food security homes: 20.9% EFTA01133285 > Very low food security homes: 6.9% (5th highest) > Median household income: $36,919 (the lowest) > Pct. obesity: 32.2% (2nd highest) One in every five households experienced food insecurity in Mississippi. Residents of the state were among the poorest in the nation in recent years by numerous measures. In 2011, Mississippi had the lowest median household income in the nation, at $36,919, as well as its highest poverty rate, at 22.6% of all residents. Last year, one in four respondents to a Gallup survey stated they had, at some point, lacked the money necessary to feed their family. Even when residents could ensure they did not have to cut back on their meals because of low food security, many likely often had to eat nutritionally poor food. Mississippi residents had among the highest obesity rates in the country. ****** As Chris Matthews said last week on HARDBALL on MSMBC, there's something strange and frightening emerging in American politics. I don't think it's right to call it politics in the same sense. There are dozens on the right who are trying to jeopardize the American economy by defaulting on the debt. They want to basically kill the affordable care act in its crib. That's the threat, that's what the demand is, and it's now all out there for all to see. I can't remember when the political party did something like this. It could throw the market into a tailspin and whack our 401(k)'s into a fare thee well. So what justification does the right wing of this country have for the senseless assault on the credit rating which happened the last time they pulled this tactic? What's the end game in which the world watches us as the country defaces itself. It achieves nothing, kills whatever's in its path. This is how i look at it. And I hate to see what I see because I still believe despite this hard evidence in the rights of self-government. I would understand if the Republican opposition had a solution to fix America's disgusting healthcare inequality and broken healthcare system, but they don't. It appears all that they want to do is kill the President's signature accomplishment to nullify his Presidency. And if this wasn't bad enough, the Republican right in the House of Representatives are threatening to not raise the debt ceiling limit, that enables the government pay obligations that Congress approved. Two years ago when Republicans suggested that they would shut down the government the stock market lost 1760 points, the DOW just dived, hurting everyone's 401(k), which the Wall Street Journal in its lead editorial last week called "kamikaze politics." So why are they willing to shut down the government on October 1, 2013. Obamacare may not be perfect, (Ifor one would have like to seen national health singlepayer system) but at least it is heading in the right direction, so we have to truly ask why the Republican Right in Congress are willing to bring the government when they know that it will our weak economic recovery. They refuse to recognize that we have divided government. And they refuse to recognize that the Congress passed Obamacare, the Supreme Court said it was constitutional and they want to keep having this same fight over and over again, much like Bill Murray in the film, Ground Hog Day. You would also understand if they had the support of the American public, but in a recent CNN poll, a majority of Americans will blame republicans if congress, if the government is shut down. While only 33% will blame President Obama. Let's be honest here, at the core this is about race. In the way that Southerners often describe the sedition of the Southern states as noble, they are trying to paint everything and anything that President Obama does as sardonic. When the truth is that Obamacare is based on the highly successful health care legislation instituted by Mitt Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts, which was based on recommendations from the Republican think-tank, Heritage Foundation. And to hold the entire economy hostage in an attempt to kill it borders on sedition. My father was a proud Republican leader, who loved Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits and John V. Lindsey. The Republican Party was the political party of Abe Lincoln. Jackie Robinson, Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Booker T. Washington and Eldridge Cleaver were proud Republicans. Today, none of the above mention whites could get nominated in a Republican Primary nor would any of the notable Blacks would be attracted to the party. EFTA01133286  Bill O'Reilly Blames 'Fanaticism' For Obamacare Defunding Fight Web Link: Bill O'Reilly dismissed Republican attempts to defund Obamacare on his Thursday show, calling it an example of "fanaticism." The GOP has been riven by internal conflicts between members who want to vote to defund the health care program once again, and members who have said the effort is doomed. O'Reilly apparently agreed with the latter, as he made clear on his show. "Fanaticism on the right is also harming the country," he said, adding, "There is no way Obamacare is going to be defended. It is not going to happen." O'Reilly then spoke to Tea Party Express chair Amy Kremer, who wants to defund the program. "What you are trying to do...is impossible," he said. "Do you not know that?" He added, "Ijust think it's destructive to your cause." Last week, I included a op-ed in The Washington Post by Chris Cillizza — Compromise IS a dirty word - where he cites a poll that indicated that the word "compromise" — or "consensus" — amounts to capitulation in many peoples' minds. When ask, voter clearly say that they want leaders who listen and work together but reaching consensus somewhere in the middle ground between right and left is not good enough. They want candidates with new ideas that go beyond the stale and stalled partisan agendas of both sides. We have politicians who are willing to bomb Iran if it were to develop a nuclear weapon capability, yet these same politicians are willing to shut down the government. So in addition to compromise, we need common sense and we need to challenge our political leaders to go beyond their partisan bickering and work like Marines and in the worlds of Alexander Dumas, "Onefor All and Allfor One." THIS WEEK's READINGS EFTA01133287  mass shootings us When 13 people died in a shooting rampage at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., on Monday, the story made front page news. Yet many of the mass shootings that have happened since the massacre of elementary school students and teachers in Newtown, Conn., last December didn't. The FBI's definition of mass murder is the slaying of four or more people. There have been at least 17 such tragedies already this year where the victims were gunned down, but shootings related to drug or gang violence often get less attention than those perpetrated by a crazed gunman. The Huffington Post combed through a variety of news sources, including Reddit's community- generated database of mass shootings, and came up with this graphic, which may be incomplete. Killing sprees that occurred in more than one location were counted, but mass shootings that unfolded over more than one day, such as the string of homicides committed by ex-cop Christopher Dormer in Los Angeles, were not. This is just one small and somewhat arbitrary measure of gun violence, but it shows that mass shootings have become too common for each to be treated as a national event. Guns have killed about 24,580 Americans since Newtown, according to Slate's estimate based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mass Shootings Since Newtown Sept. 16, 2013 - Washington, D.C. -13 dead (including gunman) Defense contract employee and former Navy reservist Aaron Alexis, 34, allegedly opened fire shortly after 8 a.m. inside building 197 in the Washington Navy Yard, killing 12 people and wounding more than a dozen others. Alexis was slain in a gun battle with police. EFTA01133288 Sept. 11, 2013 - Crab Orchard, Tenn. - 4 dead Jacob Allen Bennett, 26, was arrested in the shooting deaths of a woman and three teenagers. Their bodies were found in a car about 5o miles west of Knoxville, Tenn. August 14, 2013 - Oklahoma City, Okla. - 4 dead Daniel Livingston Green, 40, was arrested on four counts of first-degree murder, after his mother, sister and her two children were discovered fatally shot inside their home. August 11, 2013 - Omaha, Neb. - 4 dead Nikko Jenkins, 26, was arrested for allegedly shooting four people in the head. Police say three of the four victims had no connection to Jenkins. July 26, 2013 — Hialeah, Fla. -- 7 dead (including gunman) Shooter Pedro Vargas killed six neighbors in a rampage after setting fire to his apartment complex. He was later shot and killed by police. June 7, 2013 — Santa Monica, Calif. — 6 dead (including gunman) Shooter John Zawahri killed his father and brother before going on a shooting spree on and around the campus of Santa Monica College that claimed the lives of four more and injured others. April 24, 2013 — Manchester, Ill. — 5 dead A shooter rocked the small town of Manchester when he killed five, including two children, at a federal housing complex. The gunman later died of gunshot wounds sustained during a shootout with police. April 21, 2013 — Federal Way, Wash. — 5 dead (including gunman) After shooting and killing his girlfriend, a gunman gunned down three more neighbors in an apparent attempt to eliminate all witnesses. He was later killed by police. March 13, 2013 — Herkimer County, N.Y. — 5 dead (including gunman), one FBI K-9 dead Kurt Myers, 64, shot six people, killing four, before holing up in an abandoned building. He later killed an FBI K-9 officer during a shootout in which he was eventually killed. Dec. 14, 2012 -- Newtown, Conn. — 27 dead (including gunman) The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary was the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, leaving 27 dead -- including 20 young children. EFTA01133289  A HUFFINGTON POST GRAPHIC H The Year In Mass Shootings Since Newtown, there have been at least 17 mass shootings, each killing four or more people other than the shooter. The Navy Yard shooting Monday was the deadliest. Washington. D.C. 12 Gab Orcard. Manchester, Ill. Fernley. Nev. Hialeah, Fla. Omaha, Neb. Tenn. 5 5- 6 t 4 4 Wuergue. Federal Santa Monica. Oklahoma 41 Way, Wash. Calif. Dallas City 5 4 4 41 4 7 4, 41 Tulsa. Herkimer Nana, Waynesville, Clarksburg, I Chicago 41 Olda. County, N.Y. Ohio Ind. • W. Va. 4 7 • 4. 4 40 4 4 • 41 • • • • 40 41 41 • • 41 • • • 41 41 • • II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41 JAN. boil r JULY AUG sari 9 0 4 13 9 4 10 17 16 Total mom* latatties in red number Federal • Way Wash. Hetki or i CouM .Y. Akron, Ohio Or Omaha, Neb. • Manchester, WS Oa. Waynesville, Mr