Between 1984 and 2007, “The gap between the wealth possessed by white and black families grew more than four times larger,” in part because of tax cuts and policies that favored high-income groups. Researchers from the Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis University also found in a new report that the average middle-income white family was able to accumulate more wealth (assets minus debts) than the average high-income African-American family: “Consumers of color face a gauntlet of barriers – in credit, housing and taxes – that dramatically reduce the chances of economic mobility.”

The growing wealth gap between the races in the U.S. is the focus of the new report, which you can download here. Other researchers have found equally damning evidence of the widening gap between the very rich and everyone else. This graph shows how “the top 10 per cent of income earners in the US took home an ever more outsized share of the total national income starting at the end of the 1970s.” From the World War II era to the early 1980s, the “top 10 percent took 30-35 per cent of total national income,” but by 2007 that figure had grown to about 50 percent–a level not seen since just before the Great Depression.

Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policies started this trend, but George W. Bush accelerated it with his enormous tax cuts for the highest earners. During Bush’s presidency, “The share of the nation’s income flowing to the top 1 percent of households increased sharply, from 16.9 percent in 2002 to 23.5 percent in 2007 – a larger share than at any point since 1928.” In addition, approximately “Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households […].”  

This enormous wealth gap is invisible to the Reagan-worshippers who now dominate the Republican Party. For them, any attempt to increase working-class wages is a “job-killer,” and tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the well-off are the solution to every problem. Look at how the Republican candidates for Iowa governor balk at spending $42 million to send more than 12,000 kids to pre-school but brag about plans to cut corporate taxes by $80 million to $160 million. Their priorities would be laughable if the real-world consequences were not so tragic.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has been under pressure lately. Since he took over in January 2009, the RNC has spent far more than it has raised, and the latest numbers show the Democratic National Committee ahead of the RNC in cash of hand (which is highly unusual). Major Republican donors have been fleeing the RNC for various reasons, including staffers’ embarrassing fundraising proposals and massive overspending on luxury hotels, limos and nightclubs. Today RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay resigned, prompting one of Steele’s advisers to leave in what Jonathan Martin described as “a full-scale bloodletting”:

“Leadership requires that I can safely assure you, our donors, and the American people that our mission is what drives every dollar we spend, every phone call we make, every email we send and every event we organize,” Steele wrote in the email [sent to RNC members and donors on Monday], obtained by POLITICO. “Recent events have called that assurance into question and the buck stops with me. That is why I have made this change in my management team and why I am confident about going forward to November with renewed focus and energy.”

McKay didn’t immediately respond to an email requesting comment.

But his apparent firing has roiled the close-knit world of GOP operatives and Monday night longtime Republican strategist and Steele adviser Curt Anderson said his consulting firm would no longer be working with the RNC.

“Ken McKay’s departure is a huge loss for the Republican Party,” Anderson said in a statement to POLITICO. “Ken steered the party through very successful elections last fall that have given us tremendous momentum. He’s a great talent. Given our firm’s commitments to campaigns all over the country we have concluded it is best for us to step away from our advisory role at the RNC. We have high personal regard for the Chairman and always have; we wish him well.”

It’s hard to see how the turmoil at the RNC won’t end with Steele’s departure, although Josh Marshall argued today that Steele

can’t be fired, in significant measure, because he’s black. Because canning Steele now would only drive home the reality that Republicans were trying to paper over, fairly clumsily, when they hired him in the first place. So Republicans are stuck with his myriad goofs and #pressfails and incompetent management and all the rest because of a set of circumstances entirely of their own making.

Hey, don’t blame Iowa’s RNC members; they voted for Katon Dawson over Steele in January 2009. But I must say I doubt a guy who became a Republican because the government desegregated his high school, and more recently belonged to an all-white country club, would have been the right man to rebuild the GOP’s image.

April 1 is the U.S. Census Bureau’s target date for Americans to fill out and return their census forms. Every 1 percent increase in the census mail-back rate saves the U.S. Census Bureau about $85 million. After April 10, the bureau will start sending out census-takers to households that did not return their forms. President Barack Obama filled out his own family’s form and declared today “Census Day”:

The First Ladys mother lives with the family in the White House. Since the census asks for a count of everyone currently living in the household – not just immediate family – the President included his mother-in-law on his census form.

In these difficult economic times its common for extended family and friends to live with another family, yet many households mistakenly leave these individuals off their census forms.

Mr. desmoinesdem and I filled out our family’s form and mailed it back a couple of weeks ago. There are no “long forms” anymore; everyone gets the short survey with just 10 questions.

As of this morning, the national census participation rate was 52 percent; you can click on this interactive map to find participation rates in your area. Today Iowa ranked fifth among the states with a 60 percent participation rate. South Dakota and Wisconsin tied for first place with a 62 percent participation rate, and North Dakota and Nebraska tied for third with 61 percent. Within Iowa, a few towns had participation rates exceeding 80 percent. About 63 percent of households in my corner of the state, Windsor Heights, have returned their census forms so far.

Although some conservatives hyperventilate about the demographic questions on the census form, recording the race and ethnicity of U.S. residents helps the government “execute and monitor laws and programs that are targeted to specific groups.” Like conservative arguments about the legality of health insurance reform, objections to the census questions have no basis in constitutional law:

On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution’s census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and “does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if ‘necessary and proper,’ for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated.” United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).

The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In concluding that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged by plaintiffs. (The Morales court said responses to census questions are not a violation of a citizen’s right to privacy or speech.) […]

These decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent description of the census as the “linchpin of the federal statistical system … collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country.” Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999).

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

If all you knew about 2nd Circuit U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor came from conservative commentators, you would think Barack Obama had nominated a far-left reverse racist for the Supreme Court. A typically unhinged assessment by Iowa’s own Ted Sporer, chairman of the Polk County Republican Party, is titled “The Supreme Court pick: Justice denied, racism and sexism exalted.” Like most conservatives who are freaking out, Sporer is reacting to one quotation from a speech Sotomayor gave in 2001:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Conservative commentator Rod Dreher read the whole speech and concluded on Wednesday, “seeing her controversial comment in its larger context makes it look a lot less provocative and troubling.” However, the right-wing noise machine continues to sound the alarm about Sotomayor’s alleged radical, racist agenda.

You won’t be surprised to learn that people who have examined her judicial record (as opposed to one sentence from one speech) have reached substantially different conclusions. Some reality-based links are after the jump.

I saw at Iowa Independent that the Asian-American newspaper AsianWeek named Swati Dandekar the Asian Pacific American person of the year for 2008:

[I]t was hard to decide who should be the APA Person of the Year in 2008. When looking at the future of Asian Pacific America, however, and thinking about the community’s growth out of the comfort of urban enclaves and into suburban and even rural America, the answer became clear: Swati Dandekar.

Dandekar, a Democrat born and educated in India, has been living in Iowa for over thirty years and has served three terms as a member in the Iowa House of Representatives. In 2008, she threw her hat in the ring to run for an Iowa state Senate seat that had voted Republican for almost 20 years. Reaching out to many rural Iowans with a platform based on education, quality health care, renewable energy and economic growth, she won 54.3 percent of the vote and is seen as a rising star of Iowa politics.

Swati Dandekar could have played it safe and stayed in her House seat because most incumbents are re-elected. Instead, she chose to reach for a higher office that required her to knock on doors in areas where she had not represented the people and where knowledge of Asian Indian Americans may not have been high. As a result of her successful gamble, however, she now has added clout as she battles for educational opportunity and other key concerns. And APAs now have a state Senate-level standard-bearer in a state not know for its high percentage of APAs.

I echo the newspaper’s statement that Dandekar took a big risk in running for Senate district 18. Even though she has attracted a lot of cross-over Republican voters while representing Iowa House district 36, seeking the Senate seat long held by Mary Lundby (who retired) was no sure thing.

Congratulations to Dandekar for picking up a Senate seat for Iowa Democrats while making Asian Pacific Americans across the country proud.

In August I posted some questions about the accuracy of opinion polls on the presidential race. I wondered whether any of the following factors might introduce distortions in the polling:

-the growing number of voters who use only cell phones;

-the practice of polling on weekends (when certain demographic groups are less likely to be at home);

-the varying estimates of the partisan and demographic breakdown of the electorate;

-the enormous disparity in the two campaigns’ ground games (which is even more obvious now than it was in the summer).

Most of the factors I mentioned would lead polls to understate support for Barack Obama. However, some political analysts have also questioned whether polls might be overstating Obama’s support because of the “Bradley effect” (or “Bradley-Wilder effect”), whereby white people tell pollsters they plan to vote for a black candidate but act differently in the voting booth. Here at Bleeding Heartland, American007 has expressed concern about this possibility.

We won’t know how accurate the polls were until November 5, and even then we won’t be able to prove how much of the difference was related to last-minute external events and how much was related to pollsters’ errors in weighting their samples, or respondents lying about their intentions.

However, here are some pieces worth your time if you enjoy this kind of speculation.

The “mystery pollster” Mark Blumenthal doubts there will be a “perfect storm” leading to wildly inaccurate polling, because

the potential polling foibles may work in opposite directions and “cancel each other out.” A return of the Bradley-Wilder effect would work to McCain’s benefit, while an underrepresentation of younger, African American or “cell-phone-only” voters will likely benefit Obama.

Embedded in that piece is a link to a research paper (pdf file) by Daniel J. Hopkins, a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard who analyzed data from 133 gubernatorial and Senate elections from 1989 to 2006. He found a Bradley effect in the early 1990s but no evidence that it still existed in more recent elections. If you don’t want to download the whole file, Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium summarized Hopkins’ findings in this post on “The disappearing Bradley effect.”

Sam Wang looked at the evidence about cell phone users here and believes this factor is probably only understating Obama’s support by about 1 percent.

But Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com compared the McCain-Obama numbers in many polls and found that Obama does 2 to 3 percent better in surveys by pollsters that call cell phone numbers in addition to landlines.

Silver is not concerned about the Bradley effect after analyzing the primary results. Obama did better than his pre-election polling numbers in more states than he underperformed.

I wonder whether the kind of person who would lie to a pollster about being willing to vote for a black candidate is more likely to vote in a general election than in a Democratic primary. That said, I do find Hopkins’ analysis persuasive, so I have decided not to worry about the Bradley effect either.

I’m not a pollster or a statistician, but my hunch is that the greatest potential for pollster error is in the assumptions made about relative turnout by certain demographic groups. Should we assume the proportion of Democrats, blacks and young voters will be about the same as 2004, or should we assume higher turnout in those groups? Being wrong in one direction or another could significantly skew the results, especially in states with large black populations.

The Research 2000 tracking poll for Daily Kos is assuming a higher proportion of Democrats in the electorate than Gallup and Rasmussen, for instance. I assume Democrats will increase their share of the electorate because of the trends in voter registration over the past year as well as the enthusiasm gap. However, Jerome Armstrong is among the skeptics who think the partisan turnout will look very much like 2004.

I would question any poll that assumes African-American voters will make up the same proportion of the electorate this year as they did in 2004, especially in states where Obama has a massive voter turnout operation and John Kerry did not compete (such as North Carolina, Virginia and Missouri). Even in Georgia, where Obama has significantly reduced staff since the summer, we can expect to see much higher black turnout if voter registration trends and early voting are any indication.

I am less confident about a surge in young voter turnout, but if that did happen, pre-election polls weighted according to the 2004 figures would understate Obama’s support.

If Latino turnout is higher than in 2004, Obama will benefit because McCain does quite poorly among Latinos, far worse than George Bush did in 2004.

What do you think? Are you counting on polls to be mostly accurate this year, or significantly off the mark in one direction?

Paul Street has published a thought-provoking piece at Black Agenda Report: The Deeper Racism in Iowa: Beneath the White Obama Craze.

I recommend clicking through and reading this whole article, but here are some passages that illustrate the argument he is making:

Barack Obama’s January 3rd Democratic Caucus victory in Iowa demonstrated that a Black man – or, at least, this particular Black man – could attract winning numbers of white voters. The candidate’s supporters claimed Iowa signaled a new day, that “race doesn’t matter” anymore in the United States. They are in a fantasy of denial. Not only does race remain imbedded in American social relations, but Iowa is especially afflicted with the compulsion to throw African Americans in prison more frequently than any other state. “Liberal” Iowans, proud that their state began a cascade of Obama victories, find it more difficult than ever to face up to the racism that distorts all cross-racial interaction in their cities and towns.

Interestingly enough, you don’t see many if any white liberal Iowa City Obama supporters involved in efforts to fight and overcome routine institutional racism and racial harassment in their city and state.

Given the purported anti-racism behind their support for Obama, they seem remarkably indifferent to – and ignorant of – Iowa’s status as the nation’s leader in disproportionate black imprisonment.

Some of the black and liberal students here find this a paradox.  I have a different perspective. Two days before the heavily Caucasian Iowa caucus, one forthcoming and self-critical caucus-goer and neighbor told me something I’d been suspecting for some time. Obama, he said, was “a way for liberal and moderate whites around here to pat themselves on the back for not being too prejudiced to vote for a black guy.”  But it was all premised, he agreed, on Obama being a “good,” that is non-threatening, middle-class, academic-friendly, and “not-too fiery black” – one who seemed unlikely to confront institutional white supremacy in any way more meaningful than attaining higher office. Like the racially accomodationist, white-friendly media mogul and mass Obama marketer Oprah Winfrey (who came through Iowa to stump for him a few weeks before that state’s critical Caucus), Obama capitalized on middle class whites’ rejection of openly bigoted “level-one” (state-of-mind) racism only because he reassured them he would honor their refusal to acknowledge and confront the continuing power of deeper, “level two” (state-of-being) – societal and institutional – racism in American life. I have spoken with local middle-class whites for whom loving the “good” (bourgeois) black Obama is the other side of the coin of hating the “bad” and “underclass” blacks who are becoming more evident in Iowa City.

The town’s white liberals don’t seem interested in tackling the deeper institutional racism that lives on beneath the surface while they congratulate themselves for being willing to back a certain non-threatening kind of black candidate. They certainly don’t want to look closely at the unpleasant picture of how racial and class oppression produce  pain and inequality in their own schools, neighborhoods, and community. They respond very well to what Black Agenda Report’s Glen Ford has identified as Obama’s “strategy to win the White House” by “run[ning] a ‘race-neutral’ campaign in a society that is anything but neutral on race.” As Ford notes, “the very premise – that race neutrality is possible in a nation built on white supremacy – demand[s] the systematic practice of the most profound race-factual denial, which is ultimately indistinguishable from rank dishonesty.”

I would like to hear your views on this piece, especially if you are an Obama supporter and/or an Iowa City resident.

I didn’t have a chance to watch it, but if you did, what did you think of Barack Obama’s major speech on race this morning?

The transcript is after the jump.

Saw this piece in the Des Moines Register and thought it was worth a mention:

Iowa would eliminate school open enrollment desegregation plans based entirely upon race under a proposal that lawmakers moved ahead with today.

House File 2164 would eliminate minority pupil ratios used in voluntary desegregation plans or with the state’s open enrollment law. Instead, it allows the Iowa Board of Education to adopt rules that establishes guidelines based on criteria other than race to set up diversity plans.

The proposal is linked to a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that condemned a Seattle school’s desegregation plan as illegitimate because its objective was only to set racial balance without “any pedagogic concept of the level of diversity needed to attain the asserted educational benefits.”

At least five Iowa districts with desegregation plans have used race within the past year when deciding whether to allow students to transfer in or out of their districts. District officials in Des Moines, Davenport, Waterloo, Postville and West Liberty have already decided to use other factors to determine whether schools are integrated. Those factors include disability, language and income.

This seems like a sensible bill.