Panorama: Poor America [BBC - 12/2/2012]

[Gob]

"We ask, what happened to President Obama's vision for America?"

[Gob]

For those without flash view.

America's homeless resort to tent cities

Panorama's Hilary Andersson comes face to face with the reality of poverty in America and finds that, for some, the last resort has become life in a tented encampment.

Just off the side of a motorway on the fringes of the picturesque town of Ann Arbor, Michigan, a mismatched collection of 30 tents tucked in the woods has become home - home to those who are either unemployed, or whose wages are so low that they can no longer afford to pay rent.

Conditions are unhygienic. There are no toilets and electricity is only available in the one communal tent where the campers huddle around a wood stove for warmth in the heart of winter.

Ice weighs down the roofs of tents, and rain regularly drips onto the sleeping campers' faces.

Tent cities have sprung up in and around at least 55 American cities - they represent the bleak reality of America's poverty crisis.


According to census data, 47 million Americans now live below the poverty line - the most in half a century - fuelled by several years of high unemployment.

One of the largest tented camps is in Florida and is now home to around 300 people. Others have sprung up in New Jersey and Portland.

In the Ann Arbor camp, Alana Gehringer, 23, has had a hacking cough for the last four months.

"The black mould - it was on our pillows, it was on our blankets, we were literally rubbing our faces in it sleeping every night," she said of wintering in a tent.

The camp is run by the residents themselves, with the help of a local charity group. Calls have come in from the hospital emergency room, the local police and the local homeless shelter to see if they can send in more.

"Last night, for example, we got a call saying they had six that couldn't make it into the shelter and... they were hoping that we could place them... So we usually get calls, around nine or 10 a night," said Brian Durance, a camp organiser.

Michigan's Republican-controlled state government has been locked into a programme of severe budget cuts in an attempt to balance its books.

The cuts have included benefits for many of the state's poorest residents.

Between the cuts and the economic conditions pinching, there is increased pressure on homeless shelters.

Michigan's Lieutenant Governor, Brian Calley, was asked about the reality of public agencies in his state suggesting the homeless live in tents.

"That is absolutely not acceptable, and we have to take steps and policies in order to make sure that those people have the skills they need to be independent, and it won't happen overnight," he said.

There are an estimated 5,000 people living in the dozens of camps that have sprung up across America.

The largest camp, Pinella's Hope in central Florida - a region better known for the glamour of Disneyworld - is made up of neat rows of tents spread out across a 13-acre plot.

The Catholic charity that runs it has made laundry available, as well as computers and phones.

Many of the camps are organised and hold regular meetings to divide up camp chores and agree on community rules. They have become semi-permanent homes for some residents, who see little prospect of getting jobs soon.

These tent cities - and this level of poverty - are images that many Americans associate with the Great Depression.

Unemployment in America today has not reached the astronomical levels of the 1930s, but barring a short spike in 1982, it has not been this high since the Depression era.

There are now 13 million unemployed Americans, which is three million more than when President Barack Obama was first elected.

The stark reality is that many of them are people who very recently lived comfortable middle-class lives.

For them, the economic downturn came too fast and many have been forced to trade their middle-class homes for lives in shelters, motels and at the far extreme, tented encampments.

Panorama: Poor America, BBC One, Monday, 13 February at 20:30 GMT

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/panora ... 694094.stm

also available on i-player.

[dales]

Thread Hijack Alert!

This is where one can live rent free in CALIFORNIA.

SLAB CITY

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/waters/slabcity.htm

[dgs49]

Back to Basics.

Most western democracies have made an overt policy decision to create what is often called a "social safety net." In its pure form, it provides, among other things, "cradle to grave" medical care, a minimum income level to prevent starvation and homelessness, generous and virtually unlimited unemployment benefits, a robust mass transit system, government-paid care for the infirm and elderly, and free or virtually-free education, through a university degree for those who show academic promise through competitive testing. Part and parcel of this social safety net is a very large public sector, employed to provide all these goodies, and, truth be known, simply to employ masses of people who wouldn't be employed otherwise.

And those western democracies have, at least in theory, accepted a level of taxation that supports the social safety net.

It can work, provided the society has a reasonably good work ethic (i.e., there are a minimum number of people who make their life choice to take advantage of The System), and economic times are reasonably good. It can also fail, as we see in Southern Europe, where the countries are, in all ways but formally, bankrupt. But those failures are the predictable result of a culture of tax evasion, coupled with a marginal work ethic.

THE UNITED STATES, BY ITS CONSTITUTION, HAS CHOSEN TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. The power of the Federal Government is (theoretically) limited by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Under the U.S. Constitution, it cannot provide free health care to all. It cannot provide a guaranteed minimum wage. It cannot provide free housing to everyone who needs it. It cannot provide free care to the infirm and elderly, or finance a college education for everyone who is "college material."
The states are free to do these things, but lacking the power to print money, they simply cannot afford to pay for them entirely.

And the level of taxation that we are willing to tolerate in the U.S. will not support the safety net that is prevalent in the social democracies of Europe.

So we have a bastardized "social safety net," that combines unconstitutional Federal programs with marginally funded state programs and, more and more, Federal and state "mandates," that require (mainly) employers to pick up the slack. "We" have even proposed mandating that individual citizens buy their own health insurance, to shore up a major hole in the "net." Barring a spate of instantaneous insanity in our Supreme Court, this mandate will soon go the way of the Yugo.

The pending Presidential Election pits the two diametrically-opposed paradigms of central government: One side wishes to expand on the unconstitutional Federal role, so that it more and more behaves like the social democracies of Europe, and the other side wishes (at least they pretend to wish) to retract the Federal government's role to something that more closely approximates the plan described by the United States Constitution. The polarization of these two camps is the reason why compromise seems more and more rare in our Congress and political world. There is simply little room to compromise when the two camps have completely different views of the appropriate role of the Federal government.

And that is why it is possible to see pockets of poverty and wretchedness in America that one might not see in, say, Germany.

Sorry. If you don't like it, stay away.

[Grim Reaper]

If it really was unconstitutional, do you honestly think the Republicans wouldn't have found a way to bring it before the Supreme Court by now?

[Liberty1]

unfortunately the republicans are largely progressive-lite

Thus the emergence of the tea party

[Lord Jim]

bring it before the Supreme Court

I believe that how the Supreme Court rules is of little moment to Dave when it comes to his pronouncing something "unconstitutional"...

[dgs49]

Jimmy, the Pope is infallible. The United States Supreme Court, however, has made incredible, intentional errors when "interpreting" the Constitution over the past 50 years, as any actual Conservative understands. Most of what I write on this BBS is consistent with the opinions of such jurists as Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, et all.

So I reserve the right to read and interpret the Constitution as it was written, just as those august jurists have done, and continue to do.

As a nominal Republican, I would expect you to understand this principle. I can only assume your mind has been addled by drinking too much California tap water.

[Grim Reaper]

Jimmy, the Pope is infallible.

Only because he says he is, which takes about two seconds of rational thought to realize is complete and utter bunk. It's like a car salesman saying "trust me".

Let's ask Galileo how "infallible" the Pope is. Or the victims of the various Crusades. How about the Knights Templar?

The United States Supreme Court, however, has made incredible, intentional errors when "interpreting" the Constitution over the past 50 years, as any actual Conservative understands.

Translation: as I understand. It's cute how you think there's some grand conspiracy going on in the Supreme Court that only you understand.

[Crackpot]

Actually the Pope is only considered infallable under certain circumstances. Not that many practicing Catholics actually know that.

[Rick]

Actually the Pope is only considered infallable under certain circumstances. Not that many practicing Catholics actually know that.

Per CP here's the skinny, I'm not catholic so it's all mumbo to me

[dales]

If the pope is infallible I want the latest lotto numbers.

[Joe Guy]

The Pope only plays Bingo.

[dgs49]

For those who give a shit, and I'm not sure even I do,

The Pope is only believed to be "infallible" when making formal pronouncements (i.e., speaking ex cathedra) on matters of faith and morals. Since the dogma was articulated more than a hundred years ago, the Pope has made exactly one (1) such pronouncement, having to do with Mary.

The Catholic doctrine of infallibility is entirely consistent with the Bible, in which Jesus tells his Disciples that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the Church after He is gone.

Galileo was not excommunicated for disagreeing with the Bible on his description of the solar system; he was excommunicated for claiming that that the difference between the scientific and biblical explanations proved the Bible to be false. And as we now understand that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific treatise, Galileo was wrong and was rightly excommunicated.

Grim Reaper, thank you for confirming yet again what an idiot you are.

[Crackpot]

Wrong on both counts.

there is no conferment of infaliblity via the holy spirit else every beliver would be inflable.

Galleleo never claimed to invalidate the bible but the church made the claim that his claim of a helio-centic universe did so.

[Scooter]

Galileo was not excommunicated for disagreeing with the Bible on his description of the solar system; he was excommunicated for claiming that that the difference between the scientific and biblical explanations proved the Bible to be false. And as we now understand that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific treatise, Galileo was wrong and was rightly excommunicated.

You attempted to peddle this bullshit on the CSB and were handed your ass. I'm happy to do so again.

Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. He believed that the writers of the Scripture merely wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, from that vantage point that the sun does rise and set. Another way to put this is that the writers would have been writing from a phenomenological point of view, or style. So Galileo claimed that science did not contradict Scripture, as Scripture was discussing a different kind of "movement" of the earth, and not rotations.

Clearly, Galileo never claimed that the scientific evidence proved the Bible to be false. Far from it, he attempted to reconcile heliocentrism with the Bible by positing that biblical writers were describing a different kind of motion, that from an earthly vantage point, and that from that point of view, what they were describing was correct.

It was the Church, not Galileo, that declared heliocentrism itself to be contrary to scripture:

By 1616 the attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus' ideas. , and suspending Copernicus's De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture"Acting on instructions from the Pope before the decree was issued, Cardinal Bellarmine informed Galileo that it was forthcoming, that the ideas it condemned could not be "defended or held", and ordered him to abandon them.

And it was precisely on this point that he was condemned as a heretic:

The sentence of the Inquisition was delivered on June 22. It was in three essential parts:

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.

He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.

His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

[Lord Jim]

Davey, here's my view on the Supreme Court:

Has it made decisions I disagree with?

Yes.

Has it made decisions that I believe to be wrong?

Yes.

Has it made decisions that are contrary to my reading of what the Constitution should require?

Yes.

Has it made decisions that were unConstitutional?

No. Absolutely not. As a practical, logical and legal matter it is an impossibility for the Supreme Court to render a decision which violates the Constitution because the very definition of what is and is not Constitutional is based upon what a majority of the Court holds to be the case, under the provisions of the Constitution itself:

"The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts that the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States and Treaties."

In other words, according to the Constitution itself, it is the task of the Supreme court to determine what laws are and are not Constitutional, so to it is oxymoronic to say, "the Supreme Court has made a decision that violates the Constitution" it simply cannot do so, by definition.

Any true Constitutional "strict constructionist" must recognize this.

Now, if folks are unhappy with a decision the SC makes, the Constitution of course provides several ways to redress a decision:

1.The Court can reverse itself, in whole or in part. This has happened a number of times, particularly when the results of the decision have not been what the court envisioned. (I suspect this may happen regarding Citizens United)

2. The Constitution may be amended to over rule the Court, (as happened regarding income tax, for example) either through the Congressional initiated process, or through a Constitutional Convention called for by the requisite number of states.

3. The Nuclear Option:

Article III, Section 2:"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

In theory, that would mean that the Congress could by simple majority vote incorporate language into a bill that would remove the Supreme Court's power to review cases challenging the Constitutionality of the law.

In modern times, both parties, for very understandable reasons (once that Genie is let out of the bottle there's no telling where it could lead) have completely avoided going down this road. In fact, according to the research I've done, it's only happened once:

In 1868, Congress revoked the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction to prevent it from deciding a specific case. The case involved a portion of the Reconstruction Acts, which were laws Congress passed after the American Civil War (18615) for bringing the Confederate States back into the United States. In March 1868, Congress feared the Supreme Court was going to use the case to strike down the Reconstruction Acts as unconstitutional. To prevent this, Congress passed a bill revoking the Supreme Court's power to review the kind of case the Court was considering.

The Supreme Court soon dismissed the case, saying it no longer had the power to decide it. In a unanimous written opinion, the Supreme Court said Congress had acted lawfully in revoking the Court's appellate power: "The power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is given by express words. . . . Without jurisdiction the Court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the Court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause."

http://www.enotes.com/judicial-branch-r ... ial-branch

[Lord Jim]

I can only assume your mind has been addled by drinking too much California tap water.

The tap water here is one of the best things about the place...

San Francisco's tap water is 100% High Sierra snow melt...quite tasty...

I'll put it up against whatever dreck they're providing in Western PA any time....

[Long Run]

LJ, good explanation on the constitutional/unconstitutional (and defense of San Francisco's water supply -- too bad San Jose didn't think to dam up Yosemite since its water is horrid ). My one quibble/pet peeve is when "strict constructionist" is confused with "original intent". I have heard Scalia and similar minded jurists describe themselves as the latter and place a pox on the strict constructionist.

The difference is this: a jurist who believes the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original intent, treats the Constitution like a statute, regulation or contract term. The jurist uses their legal training to understand the intent of the parties who created the provision and try to apply that intent to the current factual situation (which in most cases was never even considered by the drafters/enacters). In contrast, the strict constructionist seeks to limit the interpretation of a constitutional provision to what the parties at that time would have decided if the facts were in front of them.

In practice that difference can be illustrated with Brown v. Board of Education. For a jurist using the original intent approach, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to end racial discrimination by governmental entities. Separate but equal had been proven to be discriminatory, so ending separate but equal treatment was consistent with the original intent of the 14th Amendment to end governmental racial discrimination. In comparison, a strict constructionist would hold that separate but equal was constitutional since the drafters and enacters of the 14th Amendment clearly anticipated and practiced a separate delivery of governmental services to blacks.

This highlights that by using an "original intent" approach, the law can adapt usefully to new and changing factual situations. This is not possible with strict construction. It is worth noting that for the first 150 years or so of U.S. jurisprudence, the original intent interpretation model was the predominant model used by judges (replaced by a more expansive model of the "living Constitution"); the strict construction method was never popular among judges. End of pet peeve.

[Andrew D]

Scalia's approach is not "original intent". It is "original meaning". As he wrote in 2001:

What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended.

The difference matters. The current position is that if a crime carries a maximum possible penalty of no more than six months' imprisonment, the defendant is not constitutionally entitled to a jury trial. That position has prevailed under an "original intent" approach, but it could not prevail under an "original meaning" approach (if that approach were genuinely applied).