Friday, August 28, 2015


News Clips For The Day


TRUMP TRUMPED – TWO ARTICLES


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/26/434836996/univisions-jorge-ramos-ive-never-been-kicked-out-of-a-press-conference

Univision's Jorge Ramos: Journalists Must 'Denounce' Trump's 'Dangerous Words'
Eyder Peralta
AUGUST 26, 2015

Photograph -- A security guard for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump removes Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a news conference on Tuesday in Iowa.
Charlie Neibergall/AP


Jorge Ramos, one of the most influential journalists in the United States, says he had never been thrown out of a press conference before last night, when GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump ejected him.

"This is the first time," the news anchor told his network. "It's never happened anywhere in the world. I've never been forcibly removed from a press conference or an interview."

If you went to bed early last night, you may have missed the clash. Ramos, who has been publicly seeking an interview with Trump to no avail, showed up at a press conference in Dubuque, Iowa.

After a couple of journalists had asked questions, Ramos stood up to ask his. Trump had none of it. He told him that he needed to be called on first, and as Ramos tried to wedge in a question, Trump said, "Go back to Univision." He then motioned for a security guard to escort Ramos out of the room.

Ramos said that the use of force to "suppress freedom of expression" worried him. He also defended his aggressive approach at the press conference.

"My job as a journalist is to ask questions from the powerful, and that's what we tried to do," Ramos said, adding that he had on various previous occasions tried to set up an interview with the presidential candidate. (Trump posted a picture of a handwritten note from Ramos to his Instagram account. The note included Ramos' phone number.)

In an interview with ABC, Ramos said that another responsibility of being a journalist is to "denounce" the "dangerous words and extreme behavior of Donald Trump."

Ramos was asked what he would say to critics who say he is more of an advocate than a journalist.

"I think the best journalism happens when you take a stand, and when it comes to racism, discrimination, corruption, public life, dictatorship or human rights, as journalists, we are not only required but we are forced to take a stand, and clearly when Mr. Trump is talking about immigration in an extreme way, we have to confront him, and I think that's what I did yesterday," he said.

Last night, Univision posted video of what happened after Ramos was escorted into a hallway. A Trump supporter tells Ramos, "You were very rude. It's not about you. Get out of my country."

YouTube
Ramos, for the record, is a U.S. citizen.

The Univision anchor was eventually let back into the press conference to ask a series of questions.

Here is that exchange: Go to website to view video of news conference.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jorge-ramos-slams-donald-trump-tossing-out-news-conference/

Jorge Ramos slams Donald Trump for tossing him from news conference
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
August 26, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Trump boots Univision anchor from presser, defends Kelly criticism
Play VIDEO -- Donald Trump, Fox News feud escalates

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos is blasting Donald Trump for his treatment at Trump's Iowa press conference Tuesday.

When Ramos tried to ask Donald Trump the first question, Trump tried to shut him down, and eventually tossed him from the press conference. Trump was then asked by other reporters whether it was appropriate to rebuke Ramos like that, Trump said "certainly he was not chosen" to ask the first question. "He just stands up and starts screaming," he said. "If he wanted to come back in, I'd love to have him. ... He's obviously a very emotional person." Ramos was allowed to return later.

But Ramos, who appeared on "CBS This Morning" early Wednesday, refuted Trump's account.

"I waited for my turn, I asked the question, he didn't like the question, and he was clearly in control of that press room," Ramos told CBS News. "I've been a journalist for more than 30 years, I've been all over the world, and I've never been thrown out of any press conference from any interview."

Asked if he was in Iowa to pick a fight with the immigration hawk, Ramos said that "no, I was there to ask questions -- that's our job as journalists."

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists also condemned Trump for tossing Ramos, protesting that "Mr. Ramos was doing what journalists have done for decades - asking questions!"

The exchange with Ramos didn't seem to faze Trump supporters attending his rally following his press conference. Before Trump took the stage, one animated Trump fan leaned over to his friend to say that Trump had just "kicked out Hispanic journalist." His friend laughed.

One supporter at Trump's rally, Mary Horton -- a 72-year-old self-proclaimed "NASCAR nut" from East Dubuque, Illinois -- said that she appreciated the casino magnate's attitude.

"We need our own people to be taken care of for a change," Horton said. The great grandmother of four sported a Trump t-short layered over her pink and white collared shirt, topped with a sparkly Fourth of July-style boa. She arrived at the Grand River Center at 10:30 a.m. to ensure she'd get a place inside for the rally. Her early arrival made her the first person in line.

Horton wasn't alone in admiring Trump for his straight talk in Iowa.

"He is a damn good showman," explained Frank Kennedy, an Iowan artist who did a painting of Trump that he carried around with him at the rally.

Trump's inflammatory comments come on the heels of another brewing media feud -- this time, with conservative-leaning cable outlet Fox News.

Trump, who resumed his attacks against Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly earlier this week on Twitter by criticizing her first show after returning from vacation, and he also quoted a series of tweets insulting Kelly.

Fox News chairman Roger Ailes called Trump's comments "crude and irresponsible" on Tuesday. He added that "Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should."

At the news conference in Dubuque late Tuesday, when CBS News' Chip Reid asked Trump if he would apologize to Kelly, he refused.

"She actually should be apologizing to me," Trump said, adding that her attitude at the debate was "totally inappropriate."

Trump, who is leading in national Republican polls, has drawn considerable support from many influential figures in the conservative base. One potential supporter - according to Trump, anyway - was Anthony Scaramucci, Skybridge Capital founder and financial backer of Trump's primary opponent Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Scaramucci says that's not the case.

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the top Walker fundraiser met with Trump to discuss the possibility of leaving the Wisconsin governor's campaign, hours after Scaramucci had lambasted Trump as "a Democratic plant" for Hillary Clinton in an appearance on the Fox Business Network.

Trump was asked about the meeting during the presser, and he said of Scaramucci, "He said some negative things about me - then he comes up to my office two or three hours later, he wants to be part of my campaign," and added, "He wanted to leave Walker to support me."

Scaramucci, however, vehemently disagreed with Trump's comments, posting his reaction on Twitter. -- Anthony Scaramucci ✔@Scaramucci,
“Anybody that understand loyalty which I assume includes Mr. Trump knows that I would never do that.” https://twitter.com/philiprucker/status/636315336531296256 …
7:16 PM - 25 Aug 2015

The hedge fund founder said that it was, in fact, Trump's office who asked to meet with Scaramucci Monday.

On Sunday, Trump appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" and criticized "hedge fund guys," saying they're "getting away with murder."

CBS News Digital Journalist Kylie Atwood contributed to this report.




NPR -- “Jorge Ramos, one of the most influential journalists in the United States, says he had never been thrown out of a press conference before last night, when GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump ejected him. …. "My job as a journalist is to ask questions from the powerful, and that's what we tried to do," Ramos said, adding that he had on various previous occasions tried to set up an interview with the presidential candidate. (Trump posted a picture of a handwritten note from Ramos to his Instagram account. The note included Ramos' phone number.) In an interview with ABC, Ramos said that another responsibility of being a journalist is to "denounce" the "dangerous words and extreme behavior of Donald Trump." Ramos was asked what he would say to critics who say he is more of an advocate than a journalist. "I think the best journalism happens when you take a stand, and when it comes to racism, discrimination, corruption, public life, dictatorship or human rights, as journalists, we are not only required but we are forced to take a stand, and clearly when Mr. Trump is talking about immigration in an extreme way, we have to confront him, and I think that's what I did yesterday," he said. …. "You were very rude. It's not about you. Get out of my country." YouTube. Ramos, for the record, is a U.S. citizen. The Univision anchor was eventually let back into the press conference to ask a series of questions. ….

CBS -- But Ramos, who appeared on "CBS This Morning" early Wednesday, refuted Trump's account. "I waited for my turn, I asked the question, he didn't like the question, and he was clearly in control of that press room," Ramos told CBS News. …. One supporter at Trump's rally, Mary Horton -- a 72-year-old self-proclaimed "NASCAR nut" from East Dubuque, Illinois -- said that she appreciated the casino magnate's attitude. "We need our own people to be taken care of for a change," Horton said. …. "He is a damn good showman," explained Frank Kennedy, an Iowan artist who did a painting of Trump that he carried around with him at the rally. …. Fox News chairman Roger Ailes called Trump's comments "crude and irresponsible" on Tuesday. He added that "Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should." …. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the top Walker fundraiser met with Trump to discuss the possibility of leaving the Wisconsin governor's campaign, hours after Scaramucci had lambasted Trump as "a Democratic plant" for Hillary Clinton in an appearance on the Fox Business Network. Trump was asked about the meeting during the presser, and he said of Scaramucci, "He said some negative things about me - then he comes up to my office two or three hours later, he wants to be part of my campaign," and added, "He wanted to leave Walker to support me." Scaramucci, however, vehemently disagreed with Trump's comments, posting his reaction on Twitter. -- Anthony Scaramucci ✔@Scaramucci, “Anybody that understand loyalty which I assume includes Mr. Trump knows that I would never do that.”

I did listen to the videos and Ramos was speaking clearly and audibly, and he did not sit down and stop talking when Trump demanded it, but he was not “screaming.” His words were moderate and well-considered. Trump has stated that he didn’t “know” Ramos, but he almost immediately said to him “Get back to Univision.” He purposely passed Ramos over for his chance to ask a question. Many people who are responsible and unbiased individuals don’t like or trust Trump, even though they are sometimes Republicans. He seems to me to say always the first thing that comes to his mind, and it is often “crude” as the head of Fox News stated. Mary Horton, a Trump fan, speaks of his support of “our own people,” which I assume means socially biased white Anglo Americans and their other ultraconservative cohorts. I still don’t think Trump will be able to win in a general election for President, no matter how much he huffs and puffs and struts around in front of the camera.




FLANAGAN SHOOTING – TWO ARTICLES


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-police-shooting-live-television-news-report/

Cops: Suspect in on-air attack shoots self
Apparently disgruntled former employee suspected of gunning down reporter, cameraman has shot himself
CBS/AP August 26, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Ex-ATF official on WDBJ shooting
Photograph -- brycewilliamsap966307663839crop.jpg -- In this framegrab from video posted on Bryce Williams' Twitter account and Facebook page, Williams, whose real name is Vester Lee Flanagan II, aims a gun at television reporter Alison Parker as she conducts a live on-air interview Aug. 26, 2015, in Moneta, Va. VESTER LEE FLANAGAN II/TWITTER VIA AP
Photograph -- vester-flanagan.jpg,


MONETA, Va. -- A suspect in the deadly shooting of a television reporter and cameraman during a live report Wednesday morning shot himself and later died at a Virginia hospital, authorities said.

Virginia State Police Sgt. Rick Garletts said that the suspect, identified as Vester Lee Flanagan II, 41, died at approximately 1:30 p.m. of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Earlier Wednesday, the state police said a vehicle belonging to the suspect was spotted at 11:30 a.m. on Interstate 66. Police attempted to pull the vehicle over, but it sped away, eventually running off the road and crashing.

Inside the vehicle, troopers found the suspect suffering from a gunshot wound, the state police said. He was taken to a hospital with life-threatening injuries.

Garletts said a license-plate reader alerted the troopers to the suspect's vehicle.

Authorities described the gunman as a disgruntled station employee. A second video of the shooting, apparently recorded by the killer, was posted on social media even as police tried to locate the suspect.

CBS Roanoke affiliate WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker was interviewing an economic development official about local tourism as eight shots rang out. She screamed, ran and could be heard saying "Oh my God," as she too was shot. Adam Ward's camera captured a fleeting image, including the face, of a man holding a handgun.

WDBJ quickly switched back to a shot of the anchor back at the station, her eyes large and jaw dropping as she said, "OK, not sure what happened there. We will of course let you know as soon as we find out what those sounds were from."

The station said Flanagan appeared on air as Bryce Williams.

In an interview with CBSN, WDBJ general manager Jeffrey Marks said Flanagan's name came to mind "instantly" when he heard about the shooting.

"He left here in a cloud ... We asked him to leave and that itself was difficult," Marks said.

Video of the shooting was later posted on the Twitter account and Facebook page of Bryce Williams, who was on the staff at WDBJ. It showed an outstretched arm holding the handgun and firing repeatedly at Parker as she tried to run away.

The shooter appeared to walk up to the victims and stand a few feet away from them while holding the weapon. The three, in the midst of a live TV interview, do not seem to notice the gunman, who doesn't start shooting until Ward points the camera at Parker and Gardner.

Parker is heard screaming and is seen running away as shots are fired. Roughly 15 shots can be heard, including several that were fired after the video goes dark.

Posts on the Twitter account said that a complaint was filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Parker over "racist comments." Other tweets said Ward went to the station's human resources office "after working with me one time."

Marks told CBSN the EEOC complaint was dismissed.

The Facebook and Twitter accounts have been suspended.

ABC News reported on its website that the network received a 23-page fax from someone claiming to be Williams. The network says the fax was turned over to authorities and did not elaborate on its contents.

Federal law enforcement was assisting, and federal officials said there was no indication of a connection to terrorism.

The shooting happened around 6:45 a.m. at Bridgewater Plaza in Franklin County, as Parker interviewed Vicki Gardner about the upcoming 50th anniversary festivities for Smith Mountain Lake, a local tourism destination. Gardner also was shot and hospitalized.

Both the victims were romantically involved with other employees at the station, according to Parker's boyfriend, WDBJ anchor Chris Hurst.

Parker had just turned 24. She had just completed a special report on child abuse for the station, where she had worked as an intern. She attended James Madison University, where she was the editor of the school's newspaper, The Breeze. According to her Facebook page, Parker spent most of her life outside Martinsville, Virginia. She was an avid kayaker and attended community theater events in her spare time.

Hurst said they hadn't shared their relationship publicly but "were very much in love." He said they had just moved in together and wanted to get married. "I am numb," he said.

Ward, 27, graduated from Virginia Tech University and was engaged to a producer at the station, Melissa Ott, said WDBJ spokesman Mike Morgan.

"Adam was our go-to guy. He pretty much was available to do anything that we asked," Morgan said. "He did live shots during our morning show for several years."

The station is based in Roanoke, Virginia, and serves the southwest and central part of the state. The shopping mall where the incident happened is just off Smith Mountain Lake in Moneta, about 25 miles southeast of Roanoke.



http://heavy.com/news/2015/08/lester-lee-flanagan-flanighan-flanigan-wdbj-tv-disgruntled-employee-virginia-shooting-suspect-cameraman-photos-video-chase-gun-gunman-arrested/

Vester Lee Flanagan: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
By Tom Cleary
August 26, 2015


Photograph -- vester lee flanagan, bryce williams
Flanagan posted this photo of a newspaper article about the lawsuit to Twitter just days before the shooting. (Twitter)


A disgruntled former employee of a Virginia TV station stalked and ambushed a news crew during a live interview Wednesday morning before opening fire, killing a reporter and photographer and wounding the woman being interviewed.

Vester Lee Flanagan II, 41, who went by the name Bryce Williams while working at the station, WDBJ, has been identified as the suspect. His name was initially reported as Lester Lee Flanagan.

Flanagan shot himself after being confronted by police, WHSV reports. He was taken to the hospital and died at about 1:25 p.m.

The gunman opened fire during a live interview with a member of the local Chamber of Commerce. Cameraman Adam Ward, 27, and reporter Alison Parker, 23, of WDBJ 7 TV, were killed. The woman being interviewed, Vicki Gardner, was also shot and wounded, the Roanoke Times reports. She is in surgery after being shot in the back. Gardner is the executive director at the Smith Mountain Lake Regional Chamber of Commerce.

He was later confronted by police in Fauquier County, about three hours away from where the shooting occurred.

Here’s what you need to know:

1. He Posted Video He Recorded of the Shooting on Social Media
He posted video of the shooting on his Facebook and Twitter pages. The video shows him approaching the victims, and pointing a gun at them. He is behind them for several moments as Parker interviews Gardner. He holds the gun out until Ward turns the camera back toward Parker and Gardner, and then begins firing. The camera then shakes and drops as he opens fire. The camera continues recording, with a black screen, as screams and several more gunshots are heard.

WARNING: The video below shows the gunman opening fire. Viewer discretion is advised.

The shooting happened at about 6:45 a.m. Virginia State Police said his vehicle was spotted on Interstate 66 and tried to make a traffic stop.

“The suspect vehicle refused to stop and sped away from the trooper. Minutes later, the suspect vehicle ran off the road and crashed,” state police said in a statement. “The troopers approached the vehicle and found the male driver suffering from a gunshot wound. He is being transported to a nearby hospital for treatment of life-threatening injuries.

He also posted his apparent motive for the shootings on Twitter: Allyson made racist comments.

2. He Told ABC News He Was Inspired by the Charleston Church Shooting & Was a ‘Powder Keg’
On his Twitter account, he said Parker made racist comments. He also said Adam Ward went to human resources on him.

ABC News said it received a 23-page fax from someone named Bryce Williams after the shooting. ABC said it has shared the fax with police, and posted some of its contents Wednesday afternoon. The fax came about two hours after the shooting. He also called ABC twice in the hours after the shooting.

In the fax, Flanagan wrote, “Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15 … What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.”

He also referenced Virginia Tech shooter Seuing Hui Choi, calling him “his boy,” and expressed admiration for the Columbine High School shooters.

Flanagan wrote that he suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work, because he was a gay black man.

“Yes, it will sound like I am angry…I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace,” he wrote. “The church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily…I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!”

3. He Was Fired by WDBJ in 2013 & Was Escorted From the Building by Police

(Twitter)
Flanagan, often using the on-air name Bryce Williams, has worked at several news stations around the country, according to his LinkedIn page.

He worked at WDBJ from March 2012 to February 2013.

“Vester was an unhappy man. We employed him as a reporter and he had some talent in that respect and some experience,” WDBJ General Manager Jeff Marks said on the air. “He quickly gathered a reputation of someone who was difficult to work with. He was sort of looking out to people to say things he could take offense to. Eventually, after many incidents of his anger, we dismissed him. He did not take that well. We had to call police to escort him from the building.”

Video from his career as a reporter was posted on YouTube:
Flanagan is originally from California and graduated from San Francisco State University. He previously worked at WNCT-TV as a reporter and anchor, WTWC-TV, WTOC-TV, KMID-TV and KPIX-TV.

4. He Was a Jehovah’s Witness & Worked as a ‘High Paid Companion’

Flanagan posted this just days before the shooting. (Twitter)

Flanagan was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness, according to his Twitter page.

He also said he once worked as a “high paid companion,” tweeting, “Hell yeah I’ve been a high paid ‘companion.’ You wish u could too!! Lol” Flanagan joined Twitter on August 12 and posted pictures from his high school graduation, from his time as a model and from other jobs he has held, in the days leading up to the shooting.

His father, Vester Flanagan Sr., played professional. football. He was a lineman at Humboldt State University and was drafted by the Green Bay Packers in 1960, TMZ Sports reports.

5. He Sued a Station Where He Previously Worked for Racial Discrimination

Flanagan posted this photo of a newspaper article about the lawsuit to Twitter just days before the shooting. (Twitter)
Flanagan previously sued a news station where he worked for racial discrimination.

According to federal court records, he sued WTWC-TV, a Tallahassee, Florida station, in 2000 for “discrimination and retaliation.” The case was settled, but details of the settlement weren’t immediately available.

An allegation made in a lawsuit by Vester Lee Flanagan. -- He posted a photo of a newspaper article about the lawsuit on his Twitter page just days before the shooting. Flanagan claimed in the lawsuit that he encountered racism while at the news station. He said he was called a “monkey” by a producer in 1999, and that another black tape operator was told to “stop talking ebonics.”

Read the lawsuit below: Available on website.
Flanagan had also filed an EEOC complaint against WDBJ after he was fired, seeking $15,000 in damages, but that was dismissed.

Read more about Vester Lee Flanagan in Spanish on AhoraMismo.com:

Tom Cleary is a reporter and editor for Heavy.com. Tom was a breaking news reporter at the Connecticut Post and an editor at the Register Citizen and New Haven Register. He can be reached by email at Tom.Cleary@Heavy.com. Follow him on Twitter @tomwcleary.




“He worked at WDBJ from March 2012 to February 2013. “Vester was an unhappy man. We employed him as a reporter and he had some talent in that respect and some experience,” WDBJ General Manager Jeff Marks said on the air. “He quickly gathered a reputation of someone who was difficult to work with. He was sort of looking out to people to say things he could take offense to. Eventually, after many incidents of his anger, we dismissed him. He did not take that well. We had to call police to escort him from the building.” …. An allegation made in a lawsuit by Vester Lee Flanagan. -- He posted a photo of a newspaper article about the lawsuit on his Twitter page just days before the shooting. Flanagan claimed in the lawsuit that he encountered racism while at the news station. He said he was called a “monkey” by a producer in 1999, and that another black tape operator was told to “stop talking ebonics.”

The heavy.com article gives the best background information on Flanagan. It’s another sad story of a man apparently subject to depression and a more extreme mental disorder. Depressed people rarely assassinate anyone without a worse condition, although I have noticed from news reports that most if not all of these shooting episodes involve men. One woman several years ago did kill her children when diagnosed with post-partum depression. Associated with racial stress on a number of TV news service jobs where he worked, he mentions the use of the term “monkey” and the phrase “stop talking ebonics,” at a prior job; and he accused Parker of using racist slurs. He also mentions the recent black church shooting in Charleston SC as a trigger. Before the shooting he was fired from his last job as being “angry” and presumably considered dangerous, or at least being unable to get along with co-workers. Of course if he were being called racist names that makes a certain amount of sense. Unfortunately instead of seeking psychiatric help when he became so angry, he “snapped” and started shooting. I do wish more people in this country would “believe in” good mental health treatment and go for help rather than buying a gun.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/back-on-the-trail-clinton-presents-rural-policy/

Back on the trail, Clinton presents rural policy
By HANNAH FRASER-CHANPONG
CBS NEWS
August 26, 2015

Photograph -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a town hall meeting Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2015, in North Las Vegas, Nev. The stop was the first of three in the Las Vegas area on Tuesday. (AP Photo/John Locher) JOHN LOCHER, AP


NEW YORK -- Hillary Clinton is set to roll out her plan to strengthen rural communities across the country Wednesday in Iowa, where Clinton will attend three campaign events after taking a few days off of the campaign trail for her family vacation.

Clinton's policy plan, described in a detailed fact-sheet shared by her campaign Wednesday morning ahead of her first appearance in Ankeny, Iowa is a four-part proposal to ensure that rural communities get to share in the nation's economic growth.

"We must do more to ensure the vitality of our rural areas," it reads, "not only because America's 46 million rural residents make up nearly 15 percent of our population, but also because rural America provides the foundation for the entire country's economic success."

Clinton's plan focuses first on encouraging investment in farms and other rural businesses. According to the fact-sheet, Clinton will propose making it easier for rural business owners to access capital by increasing the number of Rural Business Investment Companies creating "capital networks" outside urban centers and simplifying regulations on the small community banks that a majority of people in rural areas rely on. In addition, Clinton will propose permanently expanding the New Markets Tax Credit, which rewards investment into businesses and projects in low-income communities, and creating new credits for communities experiencing economic hardship.

Specifically for farms, Clinton will say she will double funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development program, which provides training and assistance to the next generation of farmers and ranchers. She will also expand funding for and encourage programs that increase farmers' access to additional markets for their products, including schools, retailers, wholesalers and farmers markets.

Clinton will be joined in Des Moines by former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, who currently serves as the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. Vilsack offered his official endorsement to Clinton in an op-ed published Wednesday in the Cedar Rapids Gazette.

"Hillary Clinton understands that some of the deepest and most pronounced poverty exists in rural areas of the country," Vilsack wrote. "Her strong support for the Renewable Fuel Standard and bio-based manufacturing as important parts of a revitalized rural economy makes clear she will work hard to promote meaningful economic opportunity throughout the country."

Fuel Standard and further incentivizing the creation and use of renewable energy. The final piece of her plan aims to provide greater opportunity for those who grow up and live in rural communities, by ensuring access to high quality, affordable education programs at every level of schooling, better healthcare that leverages new technology and access to care for those suffering from mental health problems and substance abuse issues.

Clinton's plan draws in part from stories and insights that she has collected from people she has met on the campaign trail. On her second trip to South Carolina in June, Clinton hosted a meeting with South Carolinians from the surrounding rural areas in Santee, where she discussed ways to improve rural infrastructure, expand broadband Internet access, and bring early childhood education to rural areas. While campaigning in Hopkinton, New Hampshire, more recently, Clinton visited a local farm stand and peppered the farm's owner, Jane Presby, with questions about farming education programs and lectures.

Woven through her four-part rural policy plan are pieces of other proposals that Clinton has announced in recent weeks, like her plan to lower the cost of going to college and relieve student debt, and other promises, like her pledge to fight for comprehensive immigration reform.

Clinton's intense focus on policy comes as questions about her and her staff's use of private email and increased interest in a possible run by Vice President Joe Biden threaten to throw the Democratic frontrunner's campaign off course.




“Clinton's policy plan, described in a detailed fact-sheet shared by her campaign Wednesday morning ahead of her first appearance in Ankeny, Iowa is a four-part proposal to ensure that rural communities get to share in the nation's economic growth. "We must do more to ensure the vitality of our rural areas," it reads, "not only because America's 46 million rural residents make up nearly 15 percent of our population, but also because rural America provides the foundation for the entire country's economic success." …. Clinton's plan focuses first on encouraging investment in farms and other rural businesses. According to the fact-sheet, Clinton will propose making it easier for rural business owners to access capital by increasing the number of Rural Business Investment Companies creating "capital networks" outside urban centers and simplifying regulations on the small community banks that a majority of people in rural areas rely on. In addition, Clinton will propose permanently expanding the New Markets Tax Credit, which rewards investment into businesses and projects in low-income communities, and creating new credits for communities experiencing economic hardship. …. Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development program, which provides training and assistance to the next generation of farmers and ranchers. She will also expand funding for and encourage programs that increase farmers' access to additional markets for their products, including schools, retailers, wholesalers and farmers markets. …. "Hillary Clinton understands that some of the deepest and most pronounced poverty exists in rural areas of the country," Vilsack wrote. …. The final piece of her plan aims to provide greater opportunity for those who grow up and live in rural communities, by ensuring access to high quality, affordable education programs at every level of schooling, better healthcare that leverages new technology and access to care for those suffering from mental health problems and substance abuse issues. …. rural areas in Santee, where she discussed ways to improve rural infrastructure, expand broadband Internet access, and bring early childhood education to rural areas. …. pieces of other proposals that Clinton has announced in recent weeks, like her plan to lower the cost of going to college and relieve student debt, and other promises, like her pledge to fight for comprehensive immigration reform.”

It is true that rural areas, which when I was young were primarily Democratic – of course they also were too frequently racist were also full of poor whites and blacks alike. Government just hasn’t tended to support farming much since the 1930s. Then when the Civil Rights legislation went through in the 1960s they began to turn Republican. The “Solid South” was no longer a Democratic power enclave. At the same time, Democrats went to blacks and other ethnic groups including labor unions for their primary support. That was because they still had votes there, but it shouldn’t have occurred in that way. Unfortunately rural areas didn’t get the government help for their poor that cities did.

That political trend was not only unfair – many whites have been poor as long as I can remember and before – but it was not well considered politically. FDR’s New Deal didn’t make that mistake. I have a friend who stated that she and her husband who were living within the city of Jacksonville at the time were turned away by an aide organization because her husband lived with her. Unfortunately he had been unable to get work, as had she. Rules like that make government poverty programs suspect, and over time the radical right has been growing, especially rural in areas. Poor people are not all black and not all men are able to work, for a number of reasons. City people of all races tend to have more governmental help than country people do, and have had, again, “for years” because there are so few factories and union jobs in the rural areas. A program that changes the nature of the rural economic landscape, which is happening slowly anyway as city areas expand their territories, to bring in reliable jobs for the relatively undereducated is a very wise decision on Hillary’s part.

Clinton needs to help the power of unions to come back also, because as people get better salaries and more jobs they will tend to join the “liberal” Democratic Party in greater numbers once again. Life in the US is a practical matter. More food on the table will bring more loyalty, I do believe. White people weren’t so “conservative” (read that as “radical”) when I was young, because they were often union members who could afford to buy a modest house and send their kids to a state-supported college, their religious affiliations were not so fundamentalist and politically activist as they are now, and there was no radical and half crazy Tea Party stirring up an active case of racial hatred. When we sat at my grandfather’s table in my young years, we had a “healthy” discussion over the Republicans versus the Democrats. My grandfather was still a Republican but he didn’t call my father a “Communist.” Also, Grandpa wasn’t one who made ugly comments about blacks. He was an independent on that matter, and his grandfather had run away from the Confederate army because he didn’t believe in slavery. My father’s grandfather did, too, but he stated it was because the Civil War was “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” The south was not as “solid” in those days as we might think. There was a big difference between poor whites and rich, slave-owning ones.

I still have little enough hope for Clinton’s presidential race, but I support her in this plan for rural America and if she does end up as our candidate I will certainly vote for her.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dod-manual-allows-journalists-to-be-held-as-belligerents/

DoD manual allows journalists to be held as "belligerents"
AP August 26, 2015

Photograph -- Defense Secretary Ash Carter speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon, Aug. 20, 2015. New Defense Department guidelines allow commanders to punish journalists and treat them as "unprivileged belligerents" if they believe journalists are sympathizing or cooperating with the enemy. AP PHOTO/MANUEL BALCE CENETA


WASHINGTON - New Defense Department guidelines allow commanders to punish journalists and treat them as "unprivileged belligerents" if they believe journalists are sympathizing or cooperating with the enemy.

The Law of War manual, updated to apply for the first time to all branches of the military, contains a vaguely worded provision that military commanders could interpret broadly, experts in military law and journalism say. Commanders could ask journalists to leave military bases or detain journalists for any number of perceived offenses.

"In general, journalists are civilians," the 1,180 page manual says, but it adds that "journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents."

A person deemed "unprivileged belligerent" is not entitled to the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention so a commander could restrict from certain coverage areas or even hold indefinitely without charges any reporter considered an "unprivileged belligerent."

The manual adds, "Reporting on military operations can be very similar to collecting intelligence or even spying. A journalist who acts as a spy may be subject to security measures and punished if captured." It is not specific as to the punishment or under what circumstances a commander can decide to "punish" a journalist.

Defense Department officials said the reference to "unprivileged belligerents" was intended to point out that terrorists or spies could be masquerading as reporters, or warn against someone who works for jihadist websites or other publications, such as al-Qaida's "Inspire" magazine, that can be used to encourage or recruit militants.

Another provision says that "relaying of information" could be construed as "taking a direct part in hostilities." Officials said that is intended to refer to passing information about ongoing operations, locations of troops or other classified data to an enemy.

Army Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, a Pentagon spokesman, said it was not the Defense Department's intent to allow an overzealous commander to block journalists or take action against those who write critical stories.

"The Department of Defense supports and respects the vital work that journalists perform," Sowers said. "Their work in gathering and reporting news is essential to a free society and the rule of law." His statement added that the manual is not policy and not "directive in nature."

But Ken Lee, an ex-Marine and military lawyer who specializes in "law of war" issues and is now in private practice, said it was worrisome that the detention of a journalist could come down to a commander's interpretation of the law.

If a reporter writes an unflattering story, "does this give a commander the impetus to say, now you're an unprivileged belligerent? I would hope not," Lee said.

"I'm troubled by the label 'unprivileged belligerents,' which seems particularly hostile," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's executive editor. "It sounds much too easy to slap that label on a journalist if you don't like their work, a convenient tool for those who want to fight wars without any outside scrutiny."

The history of war is replete with tension between military commanders and the journalists who cover them. War reporting is meant to train an independent eye on combat - its horrors as well as its heroics, as close as possible to the action without interference from commanders. That can place journalists, who sometimes rely on the military for their own security, at odds with officers who may see openness and access as potential threats to their troops' security and to battlefield success.

The nature of the problem has evolved over time. In conflicts like World War II, in which each side fought under generally accepted rules like wearing uniforms, the U.S. military and the media worked out guidelines for coverage, which included official censorship. Today's battlefields in Iraq and elsewhere are more complex and fluid, with front lines less well defined, greater ability for remote and instant communication, and combatants who are not always distinguishable from civilians.

A system of "embedding" journalists with U.S. military units was formalized during the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, providing a measure of security for the journalists while imposing security restrictions and giving commanders control over the journalists' movements. It's unclear whether the Pentagon's amended Law of War manual will change that relationship; Pentagon officials insist it should not.

Journalists working for The Associated Press and other news organizations have been detained or thrown out of embed arrangements for stories, video or photographs that the military found unflattering, even before the new manual was published on June 21. But the manual has raised concerns that commanders would feel even more free to find fault with reporting - or that other governments might use the U.S. rules to mistreat reporters working on their soil.

The Law of War manual pulls together all international laws on war applicable to the U.S. armed forces, and is designed as a reference guide for the military.

Defense officials said the manual describes the law for informational purposes and is not an authorization for anyone to take any particular action regarding journalists. The manual notes that journalists captured by the enemy are supposed to be given the rights of prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.

"At a time when international leadership on human rights and press freedom is most needed, the Pentagon has produced a self-serving document that is unfortunately helping to lower the bar," wrote Frank Smyth, senior adviser for journalist security at the Committee to Protect Journalists.




“New Defense Department guidelines allow commanders to punish journalists and treat them as "unprivileged belligerents" if they believe journalists are sympathizing or cooperating with the enemy. The Law of War manual, updated to apply for the first time to all branches of the military, contains a vaguely worded provision that military commanders could interpret broadly, experts in military law and journalism say. Commanders could ask journalists to leave military bases or detain journalists for any number of perceived offenses. …. A person deemed "unprivileged belligerent" is not entitled to the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention so a commander could restrict from certain coverage areas or even hold indefinitely without charges any reporter considered an "unprivileged belligerent." …. "Reporting on military operations can be very similar to collecting intelligence or even spying. A journalist who acts as a spy may be subject to security measures and punished if captured." It is not specific as to the punishment or under what circumstances a commander can decide to "punish" a journalist. …. Another provision says that "relaying of information" could be construed as "taking a direct part in hostilities." Officials said that is intended to refer to passing information about ongoing operations, locations of troops or other classified data to an enemy. …. War reporting is meant to train an independent eye on combat - its horrors as well as its heroics, as close as possible to the action without interference from commanders. …. . In conflicts like World War II, in which each side fought under generally accepted rules like wearing uniforms, the U.S. military and the media worked out guidelines for coverage, which included official censorship. …. providing a measure of security for the journalists while imposing security restrictions and giving commanders control over the journalists' movements. It's unclear whether the Pentagon's amended Law of War manual will change that relationship; Pentagon officials insist it should not. …. "At a time when international leadership on human rights and press freedom is most needed, the Pentagon has produced a self-serving document that is unfortunately helping to lower the bar," wrote Frank Smyth, senior adviser for journalist security at the Committee to Protect Journalists.

“DoD manual allows journalists to be held as "belligerents." Does this scare anybody else as much as it does me? Those who value our constitutional rights need to stand to attention and step up in what looks quite a bit like a cultural war that can lead in a radical political scenario to a civil war here in this country. I’m sorry to say that this is happening under Obama’s watch. Does he have nothing to say about this? Who oversees the military really – is it Congress? The president is the “Commander-in-chief,” but is he empowered with making the rules which govern the military? They probably have to go to the Constitution for the authority. Who 1) made these changes apply to all military branches and 2) gave the Pentagon this permission basically to rearrange government’s powers? I wonder what the Supreme Court might have to say about this if the Pentagon were sued.

“Army Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, a Pentagon spokesman, said it was not the Defense Department's intent to allow an overzealous commander to block journalists or take action against those who write critical stories.” That may not be the DOD’s “intent,” but it clearly could be the result of those words. The reporter who filmed US soldiers in Vietnam using a cigarette lighter on a hut in a village which at the time had no soldiers there could probably be thrown into the local military prison for doing that, it seems to me. “Sowers said. "Their work in gathering and reporting news is essential to a free society and the rule of law." His statement added that the manual is not policy and not "directive in nature." What the bleep is the DOD manual then? Does it serve a useful purpose?

“If a reporter writes an unflattering story, "does this give a commander the impetus to say, now you're an unprivileged belligerent? I would hope not," Lee said. "I'm troubled by the label 'unprivileged belligerents,' which seems particularly hostile," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's executive editor. "It sounds much too easy to slap that label on a journalist if you don't like their work, a convenient tool for those who want to fight wars without any outside scrutiny." This may not be done with the “intention” to cause trouble by the DOD, but it sure is riling a lot of people up who are just educated good citizens. Ex-Marine Lee and the executive editor of the Associated Press are not, I don’t believe, radical leftists, or radically anything. They are talking about the basic principles of our freedom based governmental bodies and what may be, though I hope not, a problematic Executive. Where is President Obama here? I will look for more on this matter.

“Journalists working for The Associated Press and other news organizations have been detained or thrown out of embed arrangements for stories, video or photographs that the military found unflattering, even before the new manual was published on June 21.” I had never heard of this conflict between the press and the military coming up before, though it would be surprising if it weren’t the case, especially in situations like Vietnam and Iraq where disorder was the prevailing situation, however I just missed the story about US torture in Iraq. The “whistleblower” of the Iraq torture story was imprisoned for his actions, while all of the torturers, though known to authorities, went unpunished. That’s just par for the course, I guess.

See the article below on this matter -- http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/whistle_blowing_us_torture/, “Whistle-blowing US torture,” by Peter Van Buren, TomDispatch.com. Tuesday, Sep 11, 2012

John Kiriakou exposed the CIA's dark dealings, and as a reward, he's facing 45 years in prison.

This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch.

Here is what military briefers like to call BLUF, the Bottom Line Up Front: no one except John Kiriakou is being held accountable for America’s torture policy. And John Kiriakou didn’t torture anyone, he just blew the whistle on it.

In a Galaxy Far, Far Away

A long time ago, with mediocre grades and no athletic ability, I applied for a Rhodes Scholarship. I guess the Rhodes committee at my school needed practice, and I found myself undergoing a rigorous oral examination. Here was the final question they fired at me, probing my ability to think morally and justly: You are a soldier. Your prisoner has information that might save your life. The only way to obtain it is through torture. What do you do?

At that time, a million years ago in an America that no longer exists, my obvious answer was never to torture, never to lower oneself, never to sacrifice one’s humanity and soul, even if it meant death. My visceral reaction: to become a torturer was its own form of living death. (An undergrad today, after the “enhanced interrogation” Bush years and in the wake of 24, would probably detail specific techniques that should be employed.) My advisor later told me my answer was one of the few bright spots in an otherwise spectacularly unsuccessful interview.

It is now common knowledge that between 2001 and about 2007 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sanctioned acts of torture committed by members of the Central Intelligence Agency and others. The acts took place in secret prisons (“black sites”) against persons detained indefinitely without trial. They were described in detail and explicitly authorized in a series of secret torture memos drafted by John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury, senior lawyers in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. (Office of Legal Counsel attorneys technically answer directly to the DOJ, which is supposed to be independent from the White House, but obviously was not in this case.) Not one of those men, or their Justice Department bosses, has been held accountable for their actions.

Some tortured prisoners were even killed by the CIA. Attorney General Eric Holder announced recently that no one would be held accountable for those murders either. “Based on the fully developed factual record concerning the two deaths,” he said, “the Department has declined prosecution because the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Jose Rodriguez, a senior CIA official, admitted destroying videotapes of potentially admissible evidence, showing the torture of captives by operatives of the U.S. government at a secret prison thought to be located at a Vietnam-War-era airbase in Thailand. He was not held accountable for deep-sixing this evidence, nor for his role in the torture of human beings.

John Kiriakou Alone

The one man in the whole archipelago of America’s secret horrors facing prosecution is former CIA agent John Kiriakou. Of the untold numbers of men and women involved in the whole nightmare show of those years, only one may go to jail.

And of course, he didn’t torture anyone.

The charges against Kiriakou allege that in answering questions from reporters about suspicions that the CIA tortured detainees in its custody, he violated the Espionage Act, once an obscure World War I-era law that aimed at punishing Americans who gave aid to the enemy. It was passed in 1917 and has been the subject of much judicial and Congressional doubt ever since. Kiriakou is one of six government whistleblowers who have been charged under the Act by the Obama administration. From 1917 until Obama came into office, only three people had ever charged in this way.

The Obama Justice Department claims the former CIA officer “disclosed classified information to journalists, including the name of a covert CIA officer and information revealing the role of another CIA employee in classified activities.”

The charges result from a CIA investigation. That investigation was triggered by a filing in January 2009 on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo that contained classified information the defense had not been given through government channels, and by the discovery in the spring of 2009 of photographs of alleged CIA employees among the legal materials of some detainees at Guantanamo. According to one description, Kiriakou gave several interviews about the CIA in 2008. Court documents charge that he provided names of covert Agency officials to a journalist, who allegedly in turn passed them on to a Guantanamo legal team. The team sought to have detainees identify specific CIA officials who participated in their renditions and torture. Kiriakou is accused of providing the identities of CIA officers that may have allowed names to be linked to photographs.

Many observers believe however that the real “offense” in the eyes of the Obama administration was quite different. In 2007, Kiriakou became a whistleblower. He went on record as the first (albeit by then, former) CIA official to confirm the use of waterboarding of al-Qaeda prisoners as an interrogation technique, and then to condemn it as torture. He specifically mentioned the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah in that secret prison in Thailand. Zubaydah was at the time believed to be an al-Qaeda leader, though more likely was at best a mid-level operative. Kiriakou also ran afoul of the CIA over efforts to clear for publication a book he had written about the Agency’s counterterrorism work. He maintains that his is instead a First Amendment case in which a whistleblower is being punished, that it is a selective prosecution to scare government insiders into silence when they see something wrong.

If Kiriakou had actually tortured someone himself, even to death, there is no possibility that he would be in trouble. John Kiriakou is 48. He is staring down a long tunnel at a potential sentence of up to 45 years in prison because in the national security state that rules the roost in Washington, talking out of turnabout a crime has become the only possible crime.

Welcome to the Jungle

John Kiriakou and I share common attorneys through the Government Accountability Project, and I’ve had the chance to talk with him on any number of occasions. He is soft-spoken, thoughtful, and quick to laugh at a bad joke. When the subject turns to his case, and the way the government has treated him, however, things darken. His sentences get shorter and the quick smile disappears.

He understands the role his government has chosen for him: the head on a stick, the example, the message to everyone else involved in the horrors of post-9/11 America. Do the country’s dirty work, kidnap, kill, imprison, torture, and we’ll cover for you. Destroy the evidence of all that and we’ll reward you. But speak out, and expect to be punished.

Like so many of us who have served the U.S. government honorably only to have its full force turned against us for an act or acts of conscience, the pain comes in trying to reconcile the two images of the U.S. government in your head. It’s like trying to process the actions of an abusive father you still want to love.

One of Kiriakou’s representatives, attorney Jesselyn Radack, told me, “It is a miscarriage of justice that John Kiriakou is the only person indicted in relation to the Bush-era torture program. The historic import cannot be understated. If a crime as egregious as state-sponsored torture can go unpunished, we lose all moral standing to condemn other governments’ human rights violations. By ‘looking forward, not backward’ we have taken a giant leap into the past.”

One former CIA covert officer, who uses the pen name “Ishmael Jones,” lays out a potential defense for Kiriakou: “Witness after witness could explain to the jury that Mr. Kiriakou is being selectively prosecuted, that his leaks are nothing compared to leaks by Obama administration officials and senior CIA bureaucrats. Witness after witness could show the jury that for any secret material published by Mr. Kiriakou, the books of senior CIA bureaucrats contain many times as much. Former CIA chief George Tenet wrote a book in 2007, approved by CIA censors, that contains dozens of pieces of classified information — names and enough information to find names.”

If only it was really that easy.

Never Again

For at least six years it was the policy of the United States of America to torture and abuse its enemies or, in some cases, simply suspected enemies. It has remained a U.S. policy, even under the Obama administration, to employ “extraordinary rendition” — that is, the sending of captured terror suspects to the jails of countries that are known for torture and abuse, an outsourcing of what we no longer want to do.

Techniques that the U.S. hanged men for at Nuremburg and in post-war Japan were employed and declared lawful. To embark on such a program with the oversight of the Bush administration, learned men and women had to have long discussions, with staffers running in and out of rooms with snippets of research to buttress the justifications being so laboriously developed. The CIA undoubtedly used some cumbersome bureaucratic process to hire contractors for its torture staff. The old manuals needed to be updated, psychiatrists consulted, military survival experts interviewed, training classes set up.

Videotapes were made of the torture sessions and no doubt DVDs full of real horror were reviewed back at headquarters. Torture techniques were even reportedly demonstrated to top officials inside the White House. Individual torturers who were considered particularly effective were no doubt identified, probably rewarded, and sent on to new secret sites to harm more people.

America just didn’t wake up one day and start slapping around some Islamic punk. These were not the torture equivalents of rogue cops. A system, a mechanism, was created. That we now can only speculate about many of the details involved and the extent of all this is a tribute to the thousands who continue to remain silent about what they did, saw, heard about, or were associated with. Many of them work now at the same organizations, remaining a part of the same contracting firms, the CIA, and the military. Our torturers.

What is it that allows all those people to remain silent? How many are simply scared, watching what is happening to John Kiriakou and thinking: not me, I’m not sticking my neck out to see it get chopped off. They’re almost forgivable, even if they are placing their own self-interest above that of their country. But what about the others, the ones who remain silent about what they did or saw or aided and abetted in some fashion because they still think it was the right thing to do? The ones who will do it again when another frightened president asks them to? Or even the ones who enjoyed doing it?

The same Department of Justice that is hunting down the one man who spoke against torture from the inside still maintains a special unit, 60 years after the end of WWII, dedicated to hunting down the last few at-large Nazis. They do that under the rubric of “never again.” The truth is that same team needs to be turned loose on our national security state. Otherwise, until we have a full accounting of what was done in our names by our government, the pieces are all in place for it to happen again. There, if you want to know, is the real horror.

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.


Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. A TomDispatch regular, he writes about current events at his blog, We Meant Well. His new book, Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent, has just been published.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-money-do-us-families-need-to-get-by/

How much money do U.S. families need to get by?
By AIMEE PICCHI MONEYWATCH
August 26, 2015

Play VIDEO -- U.S. states, cities raising minimum wage

How much money do Americans need to maintain a modest standard of living, where families don't struggle to put food on the table or pay the rent?

In most large U.S. cities, meeting that basic level of economic security requires income that's far beyond the federal poverty line, which is often used to measure what families need to survive, according to a new study from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

Indeed, the federal poverty line is increasingly outdated, no longer accurately marking the boundary between getting by and financial hardship, according to EPI senior economist Elise Gould, one of the researchers who worked on the project to assess what families today need to meet a modest standard of living. The poverty threshold fails to take into account geographical differences, such as the higher rents in cities such as San Francisco, and also hasn't kept up with the rising cost of health care, among other issues, Gould contends.


Take the federal poverty cutoff for a family of four, which stood at $23,850 last year. That income level is about half of what a family of four would need to get by in the country's least expensive metropolitan area -- Morristown, Tennessee. The researchers estimate that a two-parent, two-child family in the town of roughly 30,000 would require gross income of $49,114 simply to cover rent, taxes, food, transportation, child care and other basics.

For families of four living in the 10 largest family budget areas (see chart below), the U.S. median household income of $53,046 would fall short in every location, EPI found. The most expensive city, not surprisingly, is New York, where a family of four needs $98,722 to afford their basic needs. The median household income in the Big Apple stands at only $58,003.

"Getting by" doesn't necessarily mean a middle-class lifestyle. The EPI's calculations assume that a family will simply have enough income to cover their bills, but there's no extra fat in the budgets that would allow for vacations or even putting aside money for an emergency. Given the gap between the country's median income and the EPI's budget estimates, it's no surprise that almost half of Americans don't have the resources to cover a $400 emergency expense.

"What we're thinking about is a secure but modest life; it's not actually a middle-class lifestyle," Gould said. A middle-class income would provide for "the ability to be more forward-looking -- to be able to save for your children's college, and being able to save for retirement, aside from just Social Security contributions, being able to have a little in the bank in case a rainy day comes up. This is not these families."

The discussion of what households require to afford the basics comes at a tough time for many Americans, given that real wages have been treading water for decades. Adjusted for inflation, the average U.S. hourly wage peaked in 1973, according to Pew Research. In the meantime, costs for everything from health care to housing have surged.

Among those costs is the price of child care, which the EPI found represents a significant portion of families' budgets in most U.S. cities. In fact, child care costs are higher than rent in 500 out of the 618 metropolitan areas included in the study. That result was "really striking," Gould said.

"Families can meet their budgets in other ways," such as by relying on family members and friends to provide child care, she noted.

The findings suggest the increasing need for child care reform, especially given the importance of early childhood education and the financial strain felt by many families, Gould says. In some states, the cost of child care is higher than the annual tuition at a public university, and both mothers and fathers have said they've given up work opportunities, quit or switched jobs to cope.




“How much money do Americans need to maintain a modest standard of living, where families don't struggle to put food on the table or pay the rent? In most large U.S. cities, meeting that basic level of economic security requires income that's far beyond the federal poverty line, which is often used to measure what families need to survive, according to a new study from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. …. The poverty threshold fails to take into account geographical differences, such as the higher rents in cities such as San Francisco, and also hasn't kept up with the rising cost of health care, among other issues, Gould contends. …. For families of four living in the 10 largest family budget areas (see chart below), the U.S. median household income of $53,046 would fall short in every location, EPI found. …. Given the gap between the country's median income and the EPI's budget estimates, it's no surprise that almost half of Americans don't have the resources to cover a $400 emergency expense. "What we're thinking about is a secure but modest life; it's not actually a middle-class lifestyle," Gould said. …. The findings suggest the increasing need for child care reform, especially given the importance of early childhood education and the financial strain felt by many families, Gould says. In some states, the cost of child care is higher than the annual tuition at a public university, and both mothers and fathers have said they've given up work opportunities, quit or switched jobs to cope.”

This article stresses childcare expenses as being very difficult, but doesn’t even mention food, housing and medical attention. Okay, we need to improve the child care situation but we also need to raise the minimum wage nationally to $15.00 per hour as Obama recommended, and the federal poverty line as well, which is used to decide which households qualify for government aid. Somehow, we need to raise the median income on the family of four well above a mere $53,000, which falls far short in the top ten cities chosen in the article. The chart covers NYC, Philadelphia, LA, Chicago, San Bernardino, Phoenix, Detroit, Atlanta, Dallas and Houston, and the figures run between $98,722 at the top to $60,608 in Texas. The New York cost of living lies $20,000 higher than the next lower city of Philadelphia, the next three are in the $70,000 range and the rest are in the $60,000s.

The rural poor, mentioned earlier today, have one advantage over most city dwellers. A shovel, a hoe and a dozen or so packets of seeds will help country people a great deal, because they do not tend to live in apartments with nowhere to plant a garden. I’ve never seen an apartment house in the country. It’s unfortunate that poor people sometimes turn to selling drugs or worse to make money, but it’s not surprising either. That group of people does include both city and rural populations, however, with their hidden patch of ground out in the woods behind the house covered in a healthy green plant – marijuana. When I was growing up it was moonshine whiskey. Underground economies can be as lucrative, or more so, than the stock market. I’m not saying I think this is good, just “understandable.”