Rep. Barbara Lee's Statement on BLS May Jobs Report

First topic message reminder :

Forgive me in advance if this has already been posted somewhere on this forum. I just checked Barbara Lee's website and she released this statement on Friday, June 3rd. If you haven't seen it, thought I'd post it:

Barbara Lee: With Unemployment Rate Still High, We Must Reject
Drastic Republican Cuts to Programs That Help the Most Vulnerable and
Needy Populations

June 3, 2011 Media Contact: Joel Payne, (202) 225-2661 Washington, DC – Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) released the following statement this morning in reaction to the May jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

“While the overall economy may be showing signs of improvement, too many people are unable to find work and millions are still feeling a great deal of pain. Clearly there is still much work to do to ensure that our economic recovery is felt in every community.

The national unemployment rate rose to 9.1%. That number rises to 16.2% in the
African-American community and 11.9% in the Hispanic community, both increases from last month. And among teenagers, the unemployment rate is at 24%.

“This reality underscores the importance of the message that we relayed to the President yesterday at our White House meeting. We outlined to the President that we cannot accept a budget that penalizes the most vulnerable and needy populations with drastic cuts to important programs like WIC, food stamps, and job training.

Republicans have yet to create a single job in the 5 months since they’ve taken control of the House, yet they want to cut these programs that assist the most vulnerable. And they won’t even allow for a vote on the ‘99ers’ bill that I introduced with Congressman Bobby Scott to provide emergency aid for those who have exhausted their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

“The extreme Republican agenda of paying for tax cuts for millionaires and subsidies for oil companies on the backs of the low-income and the poor is hurting millions of people in a very real way. This jobs report should serve as a stark reminder that Republicans need to work with us and get serious about creating jobs, fostering new economic opportunities and providing pathways out of poverty.”

americatheneedy wrote:I can't help it folks and I won't be the only one!---Weiner showed his weiner on facebook and finally quit being a weiner and confessed!!

Yep! sure different message than what he spoke last week. Said it was hackers, and he confessed he made that up!!! Not good to let him fight for 589 ... better let stabenow! Whoops! I mean Lee!

[quote="exhaustedandtired/1208"]

gettheminNOVEMBER wrote:

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:

DesperateInRI wrote:Then give up, 1208! There is no time for the constant bashing of everything I say! You do realize that if this isn't addressed in the next 5 weeks we are screwed again. When they come back in September, the fight will start to extend the deadlines past 12/31 for the existing program and we will be thrown under the bus again.

WE HAVE 5 WEEKS! That is it! No time for the continual antagonistic comments to everything I post. Let's move on with this while we still have a slight chance of getting some help.

If you can think of anything better, please post it. I, for one, do not feel like sleeping in the streets this winter![/quote



I

Is Weiner such a good idea now????? After his confession!! Bet we would get laughed off the floor! Better stick to Lee !

Read this 1208 he was hacked by porn site moderators.

Hum! Wow! Well he is on the media right now apologizing about his mistake and he is sorry also he lied about hackers... Looks pretty serious to me as I watch him... Said he lied and has been doing this for 3 yrs...

Just getting caught up today. Too bad he did not write Pass 589 on it and send a pic. Wow we really need to just boot them all out. How dumb can you be.

If you are going to stand up to the right wing you better be clean.

Classic case of cry wolf. Breitbart is such a scumbag no one believes him anymore.

Well, X, back to the drawing board! How about Rep. Jackson Jr.?

@ Desperate in RI:

I believe your comment is absolutely “on target” regarding HR 589’s remaining “shelf life”. If nothing ensues between now and August when the House is scheduled to recess for a month until the fall, I think one can very confidently conclude that this campaign for moving this bill forward will then be permanently dead, perhaps only saved by events occurring that cause the economy to tank into a true “double dip” recession. Since the “window of opportunity” for this bill is seemingly getting smaller by the day, coupled with the recent developments suggesting that this bill really appears to now be on critical “life support”, is in part the bases for my previous post perhaps taking on the character of a “written filibuster” about this issue. The most important point of my previous post is that, now more than ever, adjustments need to be made to the tactical level for this ongoing support campaign, if this bill has a realistic chance of moving forward. I offered a number of suggestions that, if implemented, would enable some of those adjustments to occur. Also, I did bring up in my previous post the congressional excel grid sheet that you apparently put together some time ago. In your subsequent posting on this thread, it is good to see that you are resurrecting its use, as I think it will be a very useful tool for all concerned to use as source of guidance to help direct their future congressional communications more effectively.

@mj33:

I appreciate that you were apparently able to read through the entirety of my previous post and found that you could recognize, relate and identify with many of the things that were articulated. I realize, relatively speaking, that in comparing my previous post to the general rung of forum posts that it was a long post, but I might add, not unlike the length found in many newspaper or website articles that likely many forum members routinely peruse on a daily basis. In that previous post, my message was predicated not only on the content of the ideas that were conveyed, but also on how it was said and the length of what was said; so it was purposeful in its tone and thought out in that regard. However, I did warn any potential readers at the outset of how this post was designed, being an analysis and assessment. So one has the opportunity at that juncture, to either elect to read on, or abort their effort to engage that post any further.

In terms of your substantive comments, I don’t expect everyone to agree with everything that was said in that post. You certainly have a right to object to views that do not necessarily comport with your own observations, and I can respect that. However, with that said, I do stand by with everything that I have previously said. Therefore, I offer to you a rebuttal for your further consideration.

Specifically, in the C-SPAN interview with Representative Lee last week, I recall that the moderator said, prior to Rep Lee coming on, that today’s Washington Journal show was going to be strictly dedicated or focused on discussing the economy. Up until the time Lee came on for her 45 minute interview that indeed appeared to be the tone of the show. When Lee finally did come on, she had a potpourri of things she was discussing, many of which did not really fit into the theme for the show as it was advertised at the outset. It took almost a half hour before the HR 589 issue finally came up, and for that, it lasted at best for approximately 5 minutes. So here we have a very small fraction of the entire show allocating what appears to equate to nothing more than a few sound bites about HR 589 in which the discussion was supposed to be about the economy, not foreign policy or any number of the other issues that Lee discussed. The way this played out, it gave the appearance that HR 589 was just relegated to a long “grocery list” of items with no real priority given to it above anything else Lee discussed. On a show that is supposed to be primarily about the economy, one would expect that Lee would have taken the opportunity to really spend some serious air time on this issue than what she ended up giving it. From my vantage point, that interview, taken in its entirety, certainly left me with the impression that Lee has allot on her plate and HR 589 has no more priority on her CBC agenda than many other political matters that are of interest to her right now. Moreover, C-SPAN is a non-commercial network. So it is run much looser than your typical media outlet, which allows for the guests to expand on their topics much more easily than they are usually allowed, when they are on a more mainline commercial based news station.

In my view, that interview was a real disappointment in terms of the level of media exposure that was allocated to this subject matter in this particular instance, given what it could have been. I would think of all the items Lee discussed, that there would be no more pressing matter from a humanitarian standpoint, than discussing a matter which is in a state of current crisis that would give aid to millions of destitute unemployed souls, who are desperate and in dire need at the moment. Are Lee’s priorities straight? This interview certainly did not convey that impression to me. The bottom line after viewing the way this interview played out is that I seriously question Representative Lee’s degree of interest and commitment to this cause for HR 589. Since Lee has elected to take this issue up and the outcome directly not only affects my interest but millions of others as well, then it becomes my business and right to evaluate how her handling of this matter proceeds. If Representative Lee is going to put herself in the “lime light” for this issue then she becomes a candidate for both the praise and constructive criticism that goes with the territory.

Now, I recall you had a specific objection with respect to my concern regarding the adequacy of the Lee/Scott and CBC’s advocacy of this matter. I ask you to try and view it from this vantage point. Certainly, we’re all extremely grateful to them for even taking up this bill. However, after all this time, we should all be long past the point of just being grateful this bill just exists. I think by putting Lee on a pedestal, perhaps making her and the CBC above reproach, just out of one’s gratitude, is a dangerous proposition. The reality is any congressman can introduce a bill. As of now, this HR 589 bill is no further along the road to becoming law than any of its’ predecessor bills were to expand unemployment benefits that were introduced last year by other congressman that have since fallen by the wayside.

Moreover, pointing to all the recent developments that have been detrimental to this current bill, it now appears to be in serious jeopardy of having the same fate as all the previous similar bills have had in that regard. I would agree with you but only to an extent, the capability of the Lee/Scott CBC advocacy is adequate in some respects but it has also proven to be limited with various short comings that should at least be acknowledged. Remember, they are just a small faction, being a minority caucus within the Democratic Party trying to carry a huge “political football” to the goal line that other democratic congressman previously took up and eventually dropped like a “hot potato” because it was too much for them to handle. If the house chamber were still a democratic majority, than I would be much more confident in the exclusive Lee/Scott leadership in taking this HR 589 bill to the “promised land”. The advocacy for this bill now needs a serious transfusion of additional congressional blood to carry the burden forward. Continuing to promote this bill in the manner that it has been to date will likely not take it past the point of being stuck in a committee for its duration. Certainly, as everyone as observed, the GOP presents a tremendous force of opposition to overcome, for this bill to ever see the light of day. Because of that, I don’t believe the political base of the CBC is strong or influential enough by itself for them to be alone at the forefront of this bill any longer. Mainly, I think this is due to the fact that the GOP opposition is much too daunting and overwhelming as it concerns this issue.

As you contend, and I would agree in part with you, Lee and Scott appear to be very capable, experienced congressman and fine people. However, like any other professional they have to be willing to make adjustments for their survival and continued success in their various endeavors. Here is an example from the sports world of how I view them. In professional baseball, anyone in the minor leagues playing at the triple A level is already very experienced and a very good ball player to even play at that level. However, if they get called up to the major leagues they may have some initial success, but in the majority of cases unless they are willing to continue making various minor adjustments to improve against the higher level of competition they likely will not have any longevity in the major leagues. So my concern stems from this very point, I haven’t observed Lee, Scott or the CBC making the adjustments in the political arena they are playing in with promoting this unemployment bill. They have not proven to me as of yet that they can widen their political base by getting their own party proactively involved with their efforts to negotiate with the GOP.

Specifically, in my previous post that is the larger point I was trying to make. The time has now come for the CBC to get reinforcements by getting their Democratic Party leadership proactively involved in this fight along with their co-sponsors for this bill. For instance, I believe it is both awkward to ask that both Lee and Scott attend a meeting, as they did back in April, with the GOP leadership of the opposition party and not have their own democratic party’s leadership present at the table with them. If not Pelosi, at least have Hoyer with them as it would give this entire matter much more credibility by widening its power base. Certainly, if I was in Boehner’s shoes, I would certainly be thinking and perhaps questioning Lee and Scott on where is your own party’s leadership stance on this issue. If this issue is so important for me to be here as the Speaker of the House and leader of the GOP why wouldn’t the democratic leadership of the house be here as well?

This brings me to so-called “elephant in the room”. The unemployed community needs to know unequivocately now where the Democratic Party stands on this issue. Why do we see no one else other than from the CBC actively promoting this bill? It appears that the Democratic leadership may be in a strangle hold over this bill because the President does not want the bill passed because it may negatively amplify the extent of the unemployment problem, which will hurt his re-election chances. If true, there you have it; the Democratic Party has to support the desires of an incumbent sitting President from their own party.

So with that said, the unemployed community needs to focus right now on getting the Democratic issue clarified in terms of whether that party as a whole really does support Lee’s bill. As I said in my previous post, continuing to go at the Republican Party as things now stand is misguided activity. Focus on the democrats and try to get that squared up before the Republican opposition can be addressed. To clarify this point in more basic terms, here is an example. If one were desperate and destitute and living in a jungle and needed to seek their sustenance how would one best go about it? Well, I would think one would not prey on animals who rise to the level of a lion , tiger or grizzly bear as those animals would likely prey on you and eat you alive. So isn’t preying on the Republican party somewhat like that for trying to sway them to support one’s sustenance manifesting in unemployment benefits? Given what we have observed to date doesn’t Boehner, Cantor and Camp really amount to the lion, tiger or bear and are in essence really man eaters who want to hurt rather than help you?. Certainly, their promotion of HR 1745 was a prime example of that. So back in the jungle of survival; wouldn’t it certainly be more prudent to prey on animals that are not man eaters first? That’s why it makes much more sense for the unemployed community to focus on the democrats right now and get them to help out the CBC. Once and if that happens then the community of unemployed can help to support the Democratic assault on the GOP by just augmenting it.

Hopefully this supplemental post helps you with understanding my various points whether you agree or not with them so be it. In the mean time, this poster is now signing off.

DesperateInRI wrote:Well, X, back to the drawing board! How about Rep. Jackson Jr.?

Actually who better right now to send our message than the guy with all eyes on him (Anthony).

But I agree. Desp, Rep. Jackson Jr. is a great pick. We better get movin'!

BTW, my previous "blank" post was on purpose. I just felt I needed the space.

the President does not want the bill passed because it may negatively amplify the extent of the unemployment problem, which will hurt his re-election chances. If true, there you have it; the Democratic Party has to support the desires of an incumbent sitting President from their own party.

Maybe I am wrong, I often am, but the unemployed, their families and friends still know who is employed and who isn't, who in power helped and who didn't, so counting on the unemployed, their families and friends to just blindly vote for the Dems who turned a blind eye on the unemployed and don't want to 'amplify' the problem by taking action seems like a bad strategy to me. I know in our family we have agreed (we have three w/o jobs) D or R if you have not done anything of substance about unemployment by 2012, we will be skipping that spot on our ballot and the candidate in either party can take his/her chances of being re-elected without our votes and that goes for Obama too. We will only vote for candidates that seriously supported the unemployed and actually did something besides pay lip service. We aren't going to cast a vote for someone who has done nothing but talk about unemployment or other issues because he or she is the lesser of two evils, we are done with that.

@Abbie:

Unfortunately, for the millions of jobless individuals across this country, whether this turns out to be "bad strategy" on the administration's part, I think that because the President is running scared, he is going to be very recalcitrant with holding on to that "bad strategy", which obviously is not in the best interest of the unemployed community. Certainly, we can all hope otherwise, however short of some type of a very negative economic catalyst occurring, the administration will probably continue to cling to this apparent "bad strategy". With that said, however, I am quite confident that this present policy is creating serious division within his cabinet and pool of financial advisers. This latest report regarding his chief economic adviser Alan Goolsbee leaving may be in part indicative of a “divided house” on what to do about the unemployment issue. I always had the sense Goolsbee was only reluctantly carrying out the policies of his boss when he touched on speaking about the 99er issue. In viewing him speaking, he always seemed very uncomfortable talking about it. I get the sense that he would have liked to have said more in terms of supporting this issue, however, he was, no doubt, restrained by his position requiring the utmost loyalty from him to the powers that be, who were pulling his strings above him.

In terms of your point regarding the voter backlash for Obama implementing this apparent strategy, I am sure many others feel as you do and will seek retribution at the polls in 2012 against Obama and other politicians that failed to lend their support to the unemployed. However, Obama has probably thought that through based on indications reported from the recent CBC meeting with him. The CBC reported that he discounted this unemployment issue to some extent as primarily a minority/black problem by saying he was confident that the black community vote was already supporting him in 2012. It appeared Obama was using this reason as a rationalization to feel there is no real or wider need for additional unemployment benefits. Also, that there will not be any resulting jeopardy attaching to him if he doesn’t step up in support of HR 589, because he thinks the unemployment problem is not a very significant problem, being primarily limited in scope to the congressional districts that the CBC usually represents.

I am sure, both you and many other forum members probably believe and hope that voter recourse for these inactions to help the unemployed community will result in a deserved comeuppance in the 2012 election. However, from the administration’s standpoint they may view this potential fallout as negligible in effect to them. Keep me mind, even with the high numbers of unemployed right now in this country, it is still significantly dwarfed by many millions more who are still well employed who could care less about whether the administration supports unemployment benefits. Unfortunately, it is just not on the employed populace’s radar screen as an important or high priority issue. I personally reside in the most affluent congressional district in my state, which is represented by a republican congressman who has absolutely no interest in this unemployment issue. In his eyes he sees most of his constituents doing very well, and many better than even him. I personally now have become an anomaly in this congressional district and am only still living here based on my past decades of being well employed. When I look around locally, it is very hard to tell that the economy is struggling. With being still actively involved in the community primarily through my children’s athletic activities most of the other parents I come into contact with appear to be doing very well. Don’t misunderstand me though; do I stand to gain from HR 589? You betcha! Do I need this bill’s benefits right now? No doubt.