Sockeye Blog

President Obama has been speaking out about the need for good infrastructure jobs. We need to do the same!

Join our partners at SEIU 503, SEIU 49 and We Are Oregon today at 5pm near the Lloyd Center.

The Tea Partiers almost get it right on Wall Street

For a brief, hope-inspiring period this weekend, it appeared some Tea Partiers had finally seen the light and were prepared to stand up to Wall Street greed by throwing their support behind the “Occupy Wall Street” protests that launched on Saturday.

Alas, before they could fully engage in the spot-on fight against Wall Street for draining their savings accounts, the Astroturf leaders of the Tea Party shut them down, frightening members by claiming that the protests were being organized by a “dangerous network of groups.”

Leading into the weekend, many Tea Party members began posting information about and support for the protests. From the LibertyNews Network:

But the Tea Party leadership responded to the interest with this alarmist email blast:

...

I guess the Tea Party leaders think it’s better to let corporations make trillions of dollars and dodge paying their fair share, while middle-class Americans can’t find jobs, afford their mortgages, or support their families – rather than band together with people who (gasp!) might identify as progressives.

Oh well. At least they almost got it right on Wall Street.

The Back Story: So what is going on on Wall Street?

On Saturday, September 17, a group of individuals launched “a modest call to action,” encouraging their fellow Americans to recognize and speak up about the out-of-control corporate influence in America. Very quickly, individuals signed on to their pledge and took to the streets to protest.

In New York, masses gathered on Wall Street. Most sources number the crowd between one and five thousand. The New York City Police (in the Wall Street Journal) have called the protest “peaceful.”  Protesters have largely suggested positive action, holding signs that read “"Corporations Run This Country -- Let's Do Something About It" and making comments that “If people don't get off the couch, nothing will get done."
And protesters even cited hope as their reason for gathering:

 "Optimism -- that's what brought us down here," said 40-year-old Dan Bryk, who was carrying his eight-month-old son, Henry, in a snuggly while holding a sign saying, "Oligarchy Is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things."

A wide spectrum of political thought could agree on their cause – and almost did -- to fight for a more democratic process and to end Corporate America’s undue economic and political influence.

For most Oregon families, the effects of this economic crisis are still very real. New census numbers show just how bad the recession has hit our state, but our analysis suggests that the situation is even more severe than the numbers show.

Oregonians see the impact of the crisis every day as they try to provide for their families, look for employment, and simply try to put food on the table. Unless our state and federal representatives can commit to investing in the vital services that protect the vulnerable, educate kids and create economic opportunity, these numbers are unlikely to budge.

The Census data shows that the number of people in the US living below the federal poverty line has grown to 1 in 6 people, or 15.1% of the country. That equals 46.2 million Americans living in poverty, or just about the total populations of California, Washington and Oregon combined.

In Oregon, about 14% of our residents -- or more than half a million Oregonians -- are living below the poverty line. More troubling is the disproportionate effect on children: a whopping 25% of Oregon kids under the age of six live below the threshold.

This data is based on a federal "poverty line" of $22,113 in annual income for a family of four. Most people understand that the effects of poverty are not discrete - living just above the poverty line doesn't mean your experience is substantially different than folks who are living just below. More than 18.5% of Oregonians live under 125% of the poverty line, yet they are not counted in these statistics. This leads to a flawed picture of how many and which folks are struggling – an important picture for our leaders to understand as they examine budget decisions in the coming months.

For a family of four, why is $22,000 considered poverty yet not $23,000?

In the 1960s, an absolute poverty line was determined by multiplying the average cost of food for an American family, which back then amounted to about 33% of the family budget. Today, that cost is closer to about 15% for the average family of four*.

By ignoring the changing expenses of modern life, the poverty measure drastically underestimates the prevalence of people living in poverty and results in disinvestment in social safety net programs such as food banks, education, healthcare services, employment opportunities and more. We're seeing this in Oregon right now. As demand for help grows - record numbers of Oregonians have been seeking assistance this year - and as resources shrink, our agencies and service organizations are incredibly overstretched as they try to help everyone. Many people fall through the cracks.

Assuming that the formula works, applying the amount Americans spend on food today - a drastically different percentage of our income than in the ‘60s - would almost double the “poverty line” income threshold for a family of four.

Much larger numbers of Oregonians can't afford their basic needs than the numbers suggest.

We call ourselves a progressive leader in the nation, but our kids are the most food insecure of any state. Many of our residents are without health care, putting themselves and their families at risk. We’ve got shockingly high unemployment that has persisted without change for months.

Meanwhile, our corporate taxes are in the bottom five in the nation, according to the Council on State Taxation.

What do we need?

Too many children and families are suffering in poverty while corporations and the rich enjoy low taxes and record profits. We need action that protects and bolsters the middle-class (funding schools, critical services) not more handouts to the wealthy.

We must more fully fund schools, social services, and public safety. We must maintain the services that help our most vulnerable while providing economic opportunities to move our state out of this economic crisis. Otherwise, more and more Oregonians will fall through the cracks.

As a nation, we should hear the strong sense of urgency in the case for a new jobs bill – and act quickly. The Register Guard released its summary of the direct assistance Oregon would receive from President Obama’s jobs bill.

We must lean on our representatives to guide us through this crisis, beginning with the legislative session in February and the Legislature’s ability to create a budget that protects the middle class instead of dismantling vital assistance for Oregon folks, many of whom never thought they would worry about where their next meal would come from.

Oregonians are hurting, and we need direct investment now, not continued record-low taxes for big corporations and the wealthiest among us.

*The "Orshansky Poverty Threshold" was created in 1964 by Mollie Orshansky, a woman working at the Social Security Administration, to determine an "absolute level" of poverty. At that time, the Department of Agriculture determined that families of three or more spent about one third of their income on food. To determine an absolute poverty line, Mollie Orshansky simply multiplied that number by three.

That method of determining the poverty line has remained almost exactly the same for the last forty-five years, despite the fact that that food now accounts for somewhere around 15% of the family budget (some say closer to 10%). Housing, transportation, medical costs and utilities take up much more of the family budget than ever before. Forbes Magazine said in 2006 that housing is the largest expense for Americans of all income levels.

SOS Office Orders Clackamas County Clerk Sherry Hall to Reopen Signature Review on Urban Renewal Initiative

Official review finds errors in procedure and multiple signatures that should not have been accepted

After questions raised by Our Oregon in a letter of inquiry, the Oregon Secretary of State’s office is requiring Clackamas County Clerk Sherry Hall to reopen the signature verification process on a recent Tea Party-backed county initiative petition.

The Secretary of State’s Office is sending a representative to oversee the county’s additional review of the petition signatures “[i]n order to provide the public and everyone involved with confidence that the proper procedures have been followed and that the number of valid petition signatures is accurate.” That process will begin at 9am Tuesday at the Clackamas County Elections Office.

“The response from the Secretary confirms that Sherry Hall accepted signatures she shouldn’t have accepted, and then erred by stopping as soon as she thought she had enough,” says Patrick Green.

“Sherry Hall’s process appeared all along to be politically motivated and her statements after the fact seemed to confirm that. The Secretary of State agreed that her comments were imprudent,” Green continued. “Clackamas County voters should be able to trust that their elections officer is able to do her job without political bias. The Secretary of State shouldn’t have to step in to restore trust in the office, but we’re glad they’re taking this seriously.”

On September 1, Our Oregon filed a letter with the SOS office asking for a comprehensive review of the signature verification process undertaken by Hall on an urban renewal initiative circulated by Tea Party group Americans For Prosperity. Our Oregon’s review of the signatures found a number of questionable signatures that had been accepted by the office.

The Secretary of State has agreed that three of the signatures that were accepted should not have been. Two of the signatures didn’t match voter records, and one was signed when the signer was an inactive voter, making the signature invalid.

Some of the procedures were also suspect—instead of finishing a full review of the signatures, Hall’s office certified the initiative as soon as they found just one more valid signature than needed.

The Secretary of State’s office determined that Hall erred in not giving all of the rejected signatures a senior-level review. The SOS office will oversee a review of the remaining 175 signatures.

The state’s response also addresses questions about statements County Clerk Sherry Hall has made to the press. In August, Hall told the Clackamas Review, “It's all political, because these liberal groups don't want citizens to exercise their right to put something on the ballot.”

In their letter, the SOS said, “Some of her statements in the press, if accurately reported, could lead people to question her impartiality. We encourage Ms. Hall to be more thoughtful when making statements to the press.”