Unfinished Business from the Great March on Washington

If we want to honor the Great March on Washington that took place fifty years ago today, we shouldn’t limit ourselves to nostalgia and reciting speeches. We should work to fulfill the concrete economic justice demands of the marchers.

The news media and the public, across the political spectrum, have given tremendous attention in recent days to the historic event. This attention has included an anniversary march and rally at the Lincoln Memorial, frequent news clippings of Dr. King’s speech, interviews with civil rights movement heroes, and retrospectives on our nation’s progress towards racial inclusiveness.

But precious little attention has been paid to the fact the official policy goals of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom – as it was called at the time – were not only about civil rights and the end of racial discrimination.

Organizers of the March had set nine specific goals for the actions that the federal government should take to address “Jobs and Freedom.” Six of these goals were explicitly about civil rights, and have, over the past half-century, been largely achieved.

But the March on Washington explicitly called for three other goals that were aimed at basic economic opportunity for all Americans. These remain largely unfulfilled.

1.      A $2-an-hour minimum wage nationwide.

Yes, I suppose the Marchers succeeded. The minimum wage, which was $1.25 per hour at the end of 1963, finally reached $2.00 eleven years later. Today, it is a whopping $7.25 which, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, is equivalent to $0.95 in 1963. Adjusted for inflation, the $2.00/hour demand of the Marchers fifty years ago would equal $15.25 now. Just slightly more than the $15.00 demanded at recent rallies and strikes targeting the fast food industry. The protesters at the McDonald's in Pittsburgh and across the nation are the heirs of the marchers, continuing the unfinished business of 1963. Imagine if they were joined by 250,000 companions at the mall in Washington, with headlines and live TV network coverage for their demand for a $15.25 minimum wage. Perhaps just like in 1963, their opposition in Congress would smear the march as "communist-inspired."

2.      A broadened Fair Labor Standards Act to currently excluded employment areas.

The news is not too bad here, as many farmworkers received Fair Labor Standards Act protection in 1966 and many domestic service workers won FLSA coverage in 1974. But farmworkers who are “traditionally” paid piecemeal for their work still get no overtime. Some home health aides defined by the law as providing “companionship” services have no minimum wage or overtime rights. And untold thousands of workers are routinely exploited by workplaces abuses such as falsified timecards and being misclassified as "independent contractors" in jobs from child care to trucking to construction.

3.      A program of public works, including job training, for the unemployed.

Direct government hiring of unemployed people to do Public Works hasn’t happened since the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Not even today’s “liberals” in Congress dare to put such an extreme measure on the agenda. In August 1963, the official unemployment rate was 5.4%. Today, it is 7.4%. Instead of celebrating that it is down from its Great Recession peak of 10.0%, why doesn’t the Obama administration propose a massive public employment program? And instead of arguing that the "stimulus didn’t work" – despite the fact that  unemployment DID decline significantly as a result – why won’t Republicans,  who claim to support the work ethic and the American dream of self-sufficiency, support such a stimulus plan? After all, some of them now want to impose work requirements on food stamp recipients. What part of “7.4% unemployment” don’t they understand? And to those who argue that public works are a waste of money, I invite you to come for a walk with me some evening at the beautiful Highland Park Reservoir. Right there on the walkway to one of Pittsburgh’s great quality-of-life public assets is the stone inscription: “Built by the WPA.”

Yes, there is much unfinished business from August 28, 1963. After half a century, it is no longer time for dreams, but time to make real a day when our children will be judged by the content of their character, not by the contents of their wallets. The best way to honor the marchers is to join their fight to end all inequality.

--Ken Regal, Executive Director

Local advocates join to urge state legislators to vote against slashing our programs in the State Budget

A group of seven Just Harvest staff and interns joined PCRG, Bloomfield-Garfield Corporation, Neighborhood Legal Services and The Housing Alliance on July 16^th on a trip to Harrisburg and spoke out to our state legislators to oppose the proposed state budget cuts presented in SB 850 and HB 1416. So far, we haven’t seen a budget proposal we’re happy with—one that includes workable plans of raising revenue over slashing funds to our most important human service programs including: childcare, legal aid, libraries, the Department of Public Welfare and economic development.

Along with protesting these proposed cuts with our legislators and their aides, the group provided ideas for raising revenue, primarily endorsing the option of a temporary increase in the PIT (personal income tax). Although receptive in our dialogue, many legislators hesitated on acting on such a controversial issue—the demon of raising taxes. Reelection and party affiliation should be set aside in this matter; we elect our representatives to make these hard decisions, not to abandon leadership at a time when we need them the most.

Please join us in this fight—tell your elected officials you’re willing to pay (.68 cents a day) for the PIT increase. Otherwise, without a statewide PIT increase, we will be looking at increased local and property taxes in our near future.

TAKE ACTION: Call your state officials today and tell them we can’t balance the budget on cuts alone; we can’t balance the budget on the backs of poor people. To find your state legislators, visit: www.votesmart.org and type in your zip code.

For more information on how these cuts will affect us, check out the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center's "30 Ways in 30 Days Service Cuts will hurt Pennsylvania" and browse the PBPC website for more interesting articles. For in depth analyses, visit the Keystone Research Center.

Thoughts on the Economic Stimulus Tax Rebate

By Ken Regal, Co-Director of Just Harvest

Many of us have just received or will soon be receiving a “tax rebate” check from the federal government as a part of the Economic Stimulus bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush earlier this year.

My question is why do we so readily accept the idea that this money is a "tax rebate" or a "tax refund"? When the government decides to pass out checks to poor people who fill out vast paperwork, jump through incredible numbers of bureaucratic hoops, and put up with all sorts of indignities and verification procedures, we call it "welfare." Right-wing politicians score political points deriding those who are allegedly getting a free ride on the backs of "hard-working Americans."

But when the same government decides to pass out checks to just about everybody except those at both extreme ends of the income distribution curve, printing the checks just as fast as they can, and requiring no more paperwork than the tax returns we file anyway, then it's "a tax rebate" or (even worse), the "Bush tax rebate." Let's call it what is really is: welfare-for-just-about-everybody. Then when we're standing behind somebody affluent in line at the grocery store who is buying junk food with cash, we can sneer at them and think "Hey, how dare you! That's my tax money you're wasting on soda and potato chips!"

Now, some have argued that the “tax rebate” is different because it reflects a return of what a taxpayer has already earned. But let’s consider what it means to “earn” a check from Uncle Sam:

Under federal welfare rules, essentially everyone who gets cash assistance from TANF must be caring for dependent children and, with exceptions that vary from state to state, most must be working or in a state-approved "work activity" for a specific number of hours per week.

In contrast, think about the rules of the current economic stimulus rebate: A person who sits on his patio drinking gin and tonic all day and who receives $75,000 in income from interest, dividends, or capital gains will get a $600 "rebate." But the guy he pays $50 every week in the summer and fall to mow his lawn makes less than the required $3,000 to qualify and gets no rebate.

My question remains: among Ms. TANF mom, Mr. Lawn Mower, and Mr. Gin-and-Tonic, who's on "welfare" and who is "earning" what they receive?

So, whether you’ve earned your recent “welfare-for-just-about-everybody” check or not, consider donating part or all of it to Just Harvest and help us keep up the fight against hunger, poverty, and economic injustice.

Humanity and homelessness

As a culture, Americans tend to expect people, like machines, to function. According to this hidden logic, we find purpose through our function, and by working we become valuable to the rest of society. This simple idea may help a parent instill a work ethic into her children, or it might help a teacher explain to his students the value of working toward goals.

Unfortunately, this logic also turns people into appliances, and useless appliances are worthless. Imagine how much unnecessary kitchen machinery is discarded annually. A quick jaunt through any flea market will give you a glimpse of the few things vendors believe to be salvageable, but the vast majority of such "labor-saving devices" find their way into landfills.

The same logic can make "unproductive" people seem useless and worthless. But people aren't appliances; they're members of our families and communities. One shouldn't need to be reminded of human beings' intrinsic worth. But the National Coalition for the Homeless' recent report on violence and victimization makes clear this reminder is necessary.

Homeless men and women continue to be targets of violence because "productive" people have internalized this idea that people who aren't (or don't appear to be) working lack value.

Consider this incident from last year:

York City, Pennsylvania
Homeless Man Attacked By a Group of Teens
August 8: At around 12:00 pm, David Wright, a 38-year-old homeless man, was
fishing near Codorus Creek when he was brutally attacked by three to five
boys. Wright reports the teens punched, kicked, and scratched him.
He was taken to the hospital and was treated for contusions and may have a
broken hand.

In the U.S., the number of attacks like this has risen by 13 percent in the last year, with more than half of the attacks having been committed by teenagers.

Clearly, we need a reminder about peoples' intrinsic worth -- especially as the housing crisis (instigated by many hard-working scam artists) threatens to increase the number of homeless people living on the streets. In the press release for the report, David Pirtle, a formerly homeless victim of violence and NCH Board member, calls for a solution: "If the federal government adequately funds permanent affordable housing, fewer people will be on the street, and fewer men and women will be attacked."