Milwaukee now fourth poorest city in nation

Original Post: JS Online

City's poverty rate in 2009 rises to 27%, Census says

By Bill Glauber and Ben Poston of the Journal Sentinel

Milwaukee emerged as America's fourth-most impoverished big city in 2009, as the Great Recession rippled across the city and state, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released Tuesday.

Milwaukee's poverty rate reached 27%, up from 23.4% in the previous year. Only Detroit (36.4%), Cleveland (35%) and Buffalo (28.8%) had higher poverty rates among cities with populations greater than 250,000. Milwaukee was ranked 11th in 2008.

An estimated 158,245 Milwaukeeans lived in poverty last year. For a family of four with two adults and two children, the poverty threshold was an annual income of $21,954.

What's more, nearly 4 in 10 children in Milwaukee were considered poor, meaning an estimated 62,432 children lived in poverty last year, up from 49,952 in 2008.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat who is running for governor, said the poverty numbers "are unacceptable and should be of concern to everyone in the community and the state."

"They obviously are in part a result of the global economic downturn which has disproportionately affected lower incomes," he said. "But it has also sent lower middle-class people into poverty as well. It explains why we're looking so aggressive to create more jobs, tackle the issues of education, workforce development and transportation."

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, the Republican candidate for governor, said the "anti-business" policies of Democrats Barrett and sitting governor Jim Doyle have directly affected "the poverty levels in Milwaukee and cities across our state."

"As governor, I'll work to get government out of the way so we can help struggling families and bring 250,000 jobs to Wisconsin," Walker said in a statement.

Barrett disputed Walker's assertion and said, "I have never seen any signs that he is interested in addressing the poverty issues in our community, period."

He said that jobs provide the best remedy for alleviating poverty and added that he would prefer the issue not be politicized. "I wish this is one (issue) we could reach across the aisle and work together," Barrett said.

Michael Bonds, president of the Milwaukee School Board, said he was not surprised by the newest poverty figures.

"I think we're at a critical point when we're starting to see some of the broader things in the community impacting students," he said.

"Not only do schools have to deal with traditional education, but now they also have to provide supports that were traditionally provided by other agencies, because those institutions are also facing financial challenges," he added.

Bonds said he doesn't see any quick-fix to bring children out of poverty in Milwaukee.

"Some areas of the city, you see African-American unemployment reaching 60% to 70%," he said.

Marc Levine, executive director of the Center for Economic Development at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said the latest census data reflect the city's lack of job growth.

"Our analysis of employment data shows that Milwaukee has had among the worst job creation records of any big city in the U.S. for over a decade, so it is not surprising that poverty numbers have worsened, especially during the worst recession since the Great Depression," Levine said.

Hard times didn't hit just in Milwaukee.

Real median household income in the state declined between 2008 and 2009 - decreasing by 3.8% from $51,942 to $49,993.

Poverty also surged statewide from 10.4% to 12.4% in 2009. There were an estimated 570,583 people in poverty in the state in 2008 and 683,408 people in poverty in 2009. Nationally, poverty increased from 38.3 million people in 2008 to 42.8 million in 2009.

Ken Taylor, executive director of the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, labeled the poverty numbers as "brutal" and said they "confirm our worst fears about the reality of the recession on kids."

"The idea that what happens in Milwaukee doesn't influence Ozaukee County is a fallacy," he said. "We're all affected across the state by the challenges in Milwaukee."

In the suburbs outside Milwaukee, the poverty rates were much lower, led by Waukesha County (4.8%) while Ozaukee (5.3%) and Washington (5.4%) counties were not much higher. The poverty rates in those counties all increased at least 1 percentage point.

The results come from the American Community Survey, which provides a snapshot of the nation's socioeconomic, housing and demographic characteristics.

Later this year, the Census Bureau will release the first results from the 2010 Census, the complete count of every person in the country.

Erin Richards of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.

Obama lied about every aspect of the Health Care Bill? I'm shocked

Original Post: Sarah Palin Facebook

She cites her sources, so look 'em up libs.

ies, Damned Lies – Obamacare 6 Months Later; It’s Time to Take Back the 20!

by Sarah Palin on Thursday, September 23, 2010 at 11:53am

It’s now six months since President Obama took control of one-sixth of the private sector economy with his health care “reform,” and the first changes to our health care system come into effect today. Despite overwhelming public dislike of the bill, we were told that D.C. knows best, and there was nothing to worry about, and we’d be better off swallowing the pill called Obamacare; so, in defiance of the will of the people, the President and his party rammed through this mother of all unfunded mandates. Nancy Pelosi said Congress had to pass the bill so that Americans could “find out what is in it.” We found out that it’s even worse than we feared.

Remember when the president said, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? Not true. In Texas alone a record number of doctors are leaving the Medicare system because of the cuts in reimbursements forced on them by Obamacare! The president of the Texas Medical Association, Dr. Susan Bailey, warns that “the Medicare system is beginning to implode.”

Remember the Obama administration’s promise that Obamacare would cut a typical family’s premium “by up to $2500 a year”? Not true. In fact, fueled by reports that insurers expect premiums to rise by as much as 25 percent as a result of Obamacare, Senate Democrats are contemplating the introduction of price controls.

Remember when the president said in his address to Congress that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions”? That turned out to be yet another one of those “You lie!” moments. We found out that Obamacare-mandated high risk insurance pools set up in states like Pennsylvania and New Mexico will fund abortions after all.

Remember the promise that Obamacare would “strengthen small businesses”? Not true either. The net result of Obamacare is that small businesses will face higher health care costs, new Medicare taxes, and higher regulation compliance costs, while the much-hyped health care tax credit for small businesses turns out to be almost impossible to obtain.

Remember the president’s promise that his bill would ensure “everyone [has] some basic security”? False again. Besides the great uncertainly that Obamacare hampers businesses with, companies now find it is actually cheaper to pay the $2000 per employee fine imposed by Obamacare than to keep insuring their workforce. This leaves millions of American workers at risk of losing their employer-provided health insurance.

And remember when the Obama administration said they would not be “rationing care” in the future? That ol’ “death panels” thing I wrote about last year? That was before Obamacare was passed. Once it passed, they admitted there was going to be rationing after all. There has to be. The reality of Obamacare is that it enshrines what the New York Times called “The Power of No” – the government’s power to say no to your request for treatment of the people you love. The fact that the president used a recess appointment to push through the nomination of Dr. Donald Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services tells you all you need to know about this administration’s intentions. After all, Berwick is the man who said, “The decision is not whether we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

By the way, when the administration was talking about that independent board that has the statutory power to decide which categories of treatment are worthy of funding based on efficiency calculations (that, again, sounded to me like a panel of faceless bureaucrats making life and death decisions about your loved ones – which, again, is what I referred to as a “death panel”), it was another opportunity for Americans to hear the truth about Obamacare’s intentions.

So, yes, those rationing “death panels” are there, and so are the tax increases that the president also promised were “absolutely not” in his bill. (Aren’t you tiring of the untruths coming from this White House and the liberals in Congress?) When the state of Florida filed a challenge to Obamacare on the basis that the mandates in the bill are unconstitutional, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the suit by citing the Anti-Injuction Act, which blocks courts from interfering with the federal government’s ability to collect taxes. Yes, taxes! Once the bill was passed it was no longer politically inconvenient for the Obama administration to admit that it makes no difference whether the payment is a tax or a penalty because it’s “assessed and collected in the same manner.” The National Taxpayer Advocate has already warned that “Congress must provide sufficient funding” to allow the IRS to collect this new tax. Pretty soon we’ll be paying taxes just to make it possible for the IRS to collect all the additional taxes under Obamacare! Seems as if this is another surprise that the public found out about after the bill was rammed through.

But perhaps the most ridiculous promise of all was the president’s assurance that Obamacare will lead to “bending the curve” on health care spending. Yes, rationing is a part of the new system, and yes, Obamacare does raise taxes. But because the new government managed system is so incredibly complicated and expensive to run, health care spending will actually rise instead of fall. Don’t believe me? Then take a look at the Congressional Budget Office’s admittance that the CBO’s original estimate of the total costs of the bill were off by around $115 billion. Its new estimate is now above $1 trillion, and even that may be way too low. A more realistic figure calculated by the Pacific Research Institute puts the number at $2.5 to $3 trillion over the next 10 years! This is probably what President Obama was referring to when he admitted recently that he had known all along that “at the margins” his proposals were going to drive up costs. Give us a break! Only in this administration would they refer to a $3 trillion spending increase as “marginal.” Next time he comes to us with another one of his harebrained proposals for a budget-busting federal power grab, let’s make sure we remember the president’s admission that he was lying all along when he told us his health care plan was going to cut costs. He is increasing costs. He admits it now. Period.

Higher costs and worse care – is it any wonder why people are overwhelmingly in favor of repealing and replacing Obamacare? Politicians who have vacillated on this issue need to be fired. Candidates who don’t support “repeal and replace” don’t deserve your support. No amount of money spent on Washington’s “government-wide apolitical public information campaign” (otherwise known as “propaganda”) will convince Americans that this awful legislation is anything other than a debt-driven big government train wreck. We need to repeal and replace it, and that can only happen if we elect a new Congress that will make scrapping Obamacare one of its top priorities. We can replace it with pro-private sector, patient-oriented reform that the GOP has proposed.

On March 23, when Obamacare was signed into law, I launched my “Take back the 20” campaign, focusing on 20 congressional districts that John McCain and I carried in 2008 which are or were represented by members of Congress who voted in favor of Obamacare. They need to be held accountable for those votes. They voted for Obamacare. Now we can vote against them. We need to replace them with representatives who will respect the will of the people.

That’s why today I’m launching a new Take Back the 20 website at www.takebackthe20.com!

TakeBackthe20.com provides information about the candidates in these 20 districts who are committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare. It has links to their personal websites and their donation pages. It allows you to read up on them, and then support them in their race to defeat those who gave us this terrible bill.

We have to send Washington a message that it’s not acceptable to disregard the will of the people. We have to tell them enough is enough. No more defying the Constitution. No more driving us off a financial cliff. We must repeal and replace Obamacare with patient-centered, results-driven, free market reform that provides solutions to people of all income levels without bankrupting our country.

It’s time to make a stand! Let’s take back the 20!

- Sarah Palin

Reporter fired for mentioning Obama's connection to BP

Original Post: Washington Post

WJLA-TV fires veteran anchor Doug McKelway, cites insubordination, misconduct

By Paul Farhi

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 17, 2010

WJLA-TV has fired veteran anchorman Doug McKelway for a verbal confrontation this summer with the station's news director that came after McKelway broadcast a sharply worded live report about congressional Democrats and President Obama.

McKelway was placed on indefinite suspension in late July after his run-in with ABC7's news director and general manager, Bill Lord. In a letter to McKelway this week, the station said it was terminating his contract immediately, citing insubordination and misconduct.

Amid the ongoing BP oil spill in July, McKelway covered a Capitol Hill demonstration by environmental groups protesting the influence of oil-industry contributions to members of Congress.

In his piece, McKelway said the sparsely attended event attracted protesters "largely representing far-left environmental groups." He went on to say the protest "may be a risky strategy because the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama, who accepted $77,051 in campaign contributions from BP."

After a brief taped segment updating efforts to cap the BP well, McKelway added that the Senate was unlikely to pass "cap-and-trade" legislation this year, because "the Democrats are looking at the potential for huge losses in Congress come the midterm elections. And the last thing they want to do is propose a huge escalation in your electric bill, your utility bill, before then."

Lord took exception to McKelway's reporting and asked to meet with him, according to several station sources who were granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive personnel matter. A shouting match between the two men ensued, leading to McKelway's suspension, sources said.

McKelway has alleged liberal favoritism in news reporting before; when he left his anchor chair at WRC after nine years to join WJLA in mid-2001, he blasted the station's lack of "balance," in a newspaper article.

McKelway declined to comment on his status at WJLA; Lord also declined to comment.

McKelway said that he is currently working on a book about his family's history in journalism in Washington. McKelway's grandfather, Benjamin, was the longtime editor of the Washington Star; his great-uncle St. Clair was a writer and editor for the New Yorker for 30 years; and his late uncle John was a columnist with the Star and the Washington Times.

WJLA is owned by Allbritton Communications of Arlington, which also owns TBD TV (formerly NewsChannel 8), Politico and TBD.com.

Castro says Cuban model doesn't work

Original Post: Yahoo News

By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer Paul Haven, Associated Press Writer – Wed Sep 8, 3:18 pm ET

HAVANA – Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist economic model doesn't work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.

The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel's brother Raul, the country's president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba's 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore" Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.

He said Castro made the comment casually over lunch following a long talk about the Middle East, and did not elaborate. The Cuban government had no immediate comment on Goldberg's account.

Since stepping down from power in 2006, the ex-president has focused almost entirely on international affairs and said very little about Cuba and its politics, perhaps to limit the perception he is stepping on his brother's toes.

Goldberg, who traveled to Cuba at Castro's invitation last week to discuss a recent Atlantic article he wrote about Iran's nuclear program, also reported on Tuesday that Castro questioned his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, including his recommendation to Soviet leaders that they use nuclear weapons against the United States.

Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has clung to its communist system.

The state controls well over 90 percent of the economy, paying workers salaries of about $20 a month in return for free health care and education, and nearly free transportation and housing. At least a portion of every citizen's food needs are sold to them through ration books at heavily subsidized prices.

President Raul Castro and others have instituted a series of limited economic reforms, and have warned Cubans that they need to start working harder and expecting less from the government. But the president has also made it clear he has no desire to depart from Cuba's socialist system or embrace capitalism.

Fidel Castro stepped down temporarily in July 2006 due to a serious illness that nearly killed him.

He resigned permanently two years later, but remains head of the Communist Party. After staying almost entirely out of the spotlight for four years, he re-emerged in July and now speaks frequently about international affairs. He has been warning for weeks of the threat of a nuclear war over Iran.

Castro's interview with Goldberg is the only one he has given to an American journalist since he left office.

WRONG TO BURN QURANS, BUT OK FOR US MILITARY TO BURN BIBLES

Original Post: All Voices

A pro-family organization says it's hypocritical for high-ranking officials in the Pentagon to condemn a Florida church's plans to burn Qurans when U.S. military personnel burned Bibles last year in Afghanistan.

Pastor Terry JonesTerry Jones told reporters outside his church in Gainesville Wednesday afternoon that he remains unconvinced that "backing down is the right thing" to do regarding the planned burning of Qurans on Saturday. That protest has drawn objection from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander, who says images of burning Qurans will be used by extremists to inflame public opinion and incite worldwide violence. (See earlier story)

Earlier today on ABC's Good Morning America, President Barack ObamaBarack Obama criticized the event, calling it a "stunt" and warning it could become "a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda." Other notable Obama administration officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton, have also condemned the planned Quran burning.

But Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis at the American Family Association (AFA), thinks it is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. government to condemn the church, considering the fact that the U.S. military incinerated Bibles that were sent to Afghanistan in May 2009. "There's really a staggering level of hypocrisy and double standard here for the military to burn the Holy Bible and then complain when a pastor's going to do the same thing to the Quran," Fischer contends. "You know, if the military was going to be fair here and even-handed, they would count up the number of Holy Bibles that they incinerated in Afghanistan, and then they would allow Reverend Jones to burn the same number of Qurans."

The AFA issues analysis director believes the whole incident illustrates the difference between Christianity and Islam. "When these Bibles were burned [in May 2009], the Christian community did not riot in the streets; we did not threaten violence against anyone," he points out. "[But] when even the threat of Qurans being burned takes place, it's like we're dealing with Armageddon [or] with World War III."

In a OneNewsNow poll conducted in May 2009, more than 60 percent of respondents said -- in reaction to the decision by the U.S. military to destroy the Bibles -- that "if it had been the Quran, this never would have happened."

Hypocrisy 'pretty well established'

Meanwhile, a senior Army strategist and Pentagon advisor also sees hypocrisy in high-ranking officials in the Pentagon strongly condemning the plans of Florida's Dove World Outreach Center to burn Qurans, when the Pentagon itself burned Bibles last year in Afghanistan.

Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) says while the concerns expressed by Petraeus, Gates, Clinton, and Obama are certainly legitimate, there is a note of hypocrisy in light of the fact that the U.S. military -- in order to appease Muslims -- last year torched Bibles sent to Afghanistan. (Listen to audio report)

"[Certainly] the armed forces should be sensitive to people's religious symbols or their text," he states. "[And] I said at the time [of the Bible burning] that I thought people would go ballistic if the armed forces were to burn Korans.

"But instead of burning the Bibles, there is no reason that they shouldn't have returned them to those who purchased the Bibles," he continues. "But we recognize that in a Muslim country, Christians are just not welcome. The hypocrisy is pretty well established. It is disconcerting."

Maginnis notes that unlike Islam, which tends to make the Quran itself a symbol of holiness, Christians base their faith on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ -- not on the Bible.

By Chad Groening

WRONG TO BURN QURANS, BUT OK FOR US MILITARY TO BURN BIBLES

Original Post: All Voices

A pro-family organization says it's hypocritical for high-ranking officials in the Pentagon to condemn a Florida church's plans to burn Qurans when U.S. military personnel burned Bibles last year in Afghanistan.

Pastor Terry JonesTerry Jones told reporters outside his church in Gainesville Wednesday afternoon that he remains unconvinced that "backing down is the right thing" to do regarding the planned burning of Qurans on Saturday. That protest has drawn objection from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander, who says images of burning Qurans will be used by extremists to inflame public opinion and incite worldwide violence. (See earlier story)

Earlier today on ABC's Good Morning America, President Barack ObamaBarack Obama criticized the event, calling it a "stunt" and warning it could become "a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda." Other notable Obama administration officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton, have also condemned the planned Quran burning.

But Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis at the American Family Association (AFA), thinks it is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. government to condemn the church, considering the fact that the U.S. military incinerated Bibles that were sent to Afghanistan in May 2009. "There's really a staggering level of hypocrisy and double standard here for the military to burn the Holy Bible and then complain when a pastor's going to do the same thing to the Quran," Fischer contends. "You know, if the military was going to be fair here and even-handed, they would count up the number of Holy Bibles that they incinerated in Afghanistan, and then they would allow Reverend Jones to burn the same number of Qurans."

The AFA issues analysis director believes the whole incident illustrates the difference between Christianity and Islam. "When these Bibles were burned [in May 2009], the Christian community did not riot in the streets; we did not threaten violence against anyone," he points out. "[But] when even the threat of Qurans being burned takes place, it's like we're dealing with Armageddon [or] with World War III."

In a OneNewsNow poll conducted in May 2009, more than 60 percent of respondents said -- in reaction to the decision by the U.S. military to destroy the Bibles -- that "if it had been the Quran, this never would have happened."

Hypocrisy 'pretty well established'

Meanwhile, a senior Army strategist and Pentagon advisor also sees hypocrisy in high-ranking officials in the Pentagon strongly condemning the plans of Florida's Dove World Outreach Center to burn Qurans, when the Pentagon itself burned Bibles last year in Afghanistan.

Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) says while the concerns expressed by Petraeus, Gates, Clinton, and Obama are certainly legitimate, there is a note of hypocrisy in light of the fact that the U.S. military -- in order to appease Muslims -- last year torched Bibles sent to Afghanistan. (Listen to audio report)

"[Certainly] the armed forces should be sensitive to people's religious symbols or their text," he states. "[And] I said at the time [of the Bible burning] that I thought people would go ballistic if the armed forces were to burn Korans.

"But instead of burning the Bibles, there is no reason that they shouldn't have returned them to those who purchased the Bibles," he continues. "But we recognize that in a Muslim country, Christians are just not welcome. The hypocrisy is pretty well established. It is disconcerting."

Maginnis notes that unlike Islam, which tends to make the Quran itself a symbol of holiness, Christians base their faith on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ -- not on the Bible.

By Chad Groening