The list is ridiculous. As a public policy professor, I am a stickler for understanding how government works – and does not. If one of my students presented me with a paper with as many flaws, problematic interpretations, and factual errors, then I would fail him or her on the assignment.  Following are the five accomplishments listed by News One and my analysis of their reporting.

“Awarded $1.2 Billion to Black Farmers”

There is disconnect between the sub-heading, which clearly states the President gave $1.2 billion to Black farmers, and the text that followed. The text said that the President’s administration “oversaw the $1.2 billion settlement awarded to Black farmers.” Legal action began in 1996, when 1000 Black farmers filed a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for discriminatory practices against Black farmers. The original settlement occurred on January 5, 1999, just more than a decade before Barack Obama was inaugurated as President.
 
Yes, President Obama supported settlement. Yes, the settlement occurred on his watch. But he did not “award” the money. Congress appropriated the money after Federal Court judge Paul Friedman approved the settlement. The President’s signing of the appropriations measure occurred after court and congressional action. At best, it is an overstatement to say the President “awarded” the money. At worst, it is a misunderstanding of the case and how the appropriations process works.

“Expanded Funding for HBCU’s”

As a graduate of Hampton University and Howard University, this issue is close to my heart. The News One article noted that “President Obama signed an executive order increasing funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to $850 million over the next 10 years.” Executive Order 13532, signed on February 26, 2010, makes no mention at all of $850 million in increased funding. The funding is actually included in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA), which was signed into law on March 30, 2010. Either way, a simple civics lesson on the federal appropriations process would show that the $850 million may never materialize.

First, the Constitution empowers only Congress with the ability to spend money. No President can simply snap their fingers and spend money.  Second, multi-year appropriations such as the 10-year time frame indicated in HCERA require annual action from Congress; they have to vote every year to give, for example, $85 million annually over the length of the funding authorization. Given the austere budget environment in which we now live, coupled with Republican opposition to virtually anything President Obama does, it’s highly unlikely that Congress would put up $85 million every year for ten years.

But let’s say they did and do some math. The executive order identifies 105 HBCU’s. Divide that number into the total “appropriation” of $850 and each institution would receive about $8 million, or about $800,000 annually over the decade. I can attest that every HBCU could use some help, but let’s not jump up and down as if $800,000 per year is a lot of money for HBCU’s, some of which have annual budgets in excess of $100 million. On the surface, $850 million sounds like a lot of money, but when you dig deeper one has to conclude that it’s impact won’t match the hype that heralded it’s announcement.

“Signed the Crack Cocaine Bill (Fair Sentencing Act)”

President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing on August 3, 2010. The law reduced the racist 100:1  sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. While that should be applauded, it has to be noted that the new law still legitimizes racism by maintaining an 18:1 disparity. We still don’t have a great answer as to why the administration accepted the disparity, or if they intend to push for its complete abolition. Paraphrasing Malcolm X: we shouldn’t call it progress if 18% of the knife is still in our backs.

“Passed Health Care Reform (Affordable Care Act)”

It is indisputable that the Affordable Care Act will benefit millions of Americans, including African Americans. While I support a “single-payer” healthcare system the ACA is certainly an improvement.

“Created the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department”

This is too easy. From the Department of Justice website: “The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.” Future President Barack Obama Obama as born four years later (in Hawaii).

Bottom line: I support the President’s reelection and am all for strong, fact-based arguments on his behalf. I cannot support efforts to conflate his work and make it out to be something that it isn’t. Let’s lead with the facts. Putting up badly done analysis in the name of supporting the President only undermines legitimate arguments that can be made on his behalf.

Michael K. Fauntroy is associate professor of public policy at George Mason University. He teaches courses in American government, civil rights policy, and urban policy. He is a graduate of both Hampton University and Howard University. His third book, Living While Black: Reflections on a Post-Racial America, will be published in early 2013. He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com and tweets @MKFauntroy.

We have little real choice in our elections. Even with low double digit congressional approval ratings, my guess is that at least 80 percent of House incumbents seeking reelection will win. Here is a number that should open some eyes: 95 percent of all House members who sought reelection between 1982 through 2004 were reelected. Expanding the time horizon changes the numbers but not their effect.  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, between 1964 and 2010, the incumbent in the House was reelected between 85 percent and 98 percent of the time; the majority of those election cycles resulted in incumbent reelection rates of at least 90 percent. Those are Kim Jung Il and Robert Mugabe numbers that legitimately call into question the fundamental tenet of American democracy: the use of elections express the representative will of the people. A system with historically low approval ratings for Congress yet ridiculously high reelection rates cannot be seen as an accurate reflection of voter will.

As a candidate, having all the money in the world won’t matter much if the district in which you run is ideologically different from your politics. Similarly, eliminating big money from politics won't matter if there is an ideological mismatch in the district. The policy consequences that stem from illegitimate political power have long compromised the American political system. Concerned activists and pundits must pay more attention to this critical issue.

Michael K. Fauntroy is associate professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote. He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com and can be followed on Twitter @MKFauntroy.

There is a difference between capitalism and vulture capitalism. Romney is on the wrong side of the divide and reasonable people can see the difference. Romney’s brand of capitalism has helped to create a chasm between people and the country and is more responsible for the job loss, growing inequality, and societal anger. And yet, the Republican establishment is bending over backwards to help ensure he overcomes Newt Gingrich’s onslaught.

His campaign and likely nomination will make it far more difficult for Republicans to make the argument that they have the ideas and positions that will create real opportunity for Americans. They have never been the party of regular, working class people, notwithstanding their mendacious rhetoric and their policies. American voters, who need a reality check on what “middle-class” really means, will not need much priming to be reminded that the Republican nominee is an ultra rich guy who sees more than $300,000 in speaking fees as “not much” money.

His belated response to all the talk about his taxes – own his success and highlight his charitable donations – is too late to help. Saying “yeah, I’m rich” is not the way to win friends and influence people. But it is completely in line with Republican orthodoxy.

Michael K. Fauntroy is associate professor of public policy at George Mason University. He specializes in party politics and African American politics. He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.

One observation that I thing has been flying under the radar: The Republican Party of Iowa did not verify identification of caucus goers. This flies in the face of the wave of voter ID bills being pushed around the country by Republicans to hold down Democratic votes. Hypocrisy knows no shame.

Michael Fauntroy.com
MKFauntroy
Dr. Michael K. Fauntroy

Feel free to share the link with your friends.

Question 1: What were your expectations of President Obama’s administration as that of the nation’s first black commander-in-chief? Does he embody today whatever you saw in him during the campaign?

Michael K. Fauntroy:  I didn’t have super high expectations and he has turned out to be who I thought he was. I watched his campaign – primary and general – carefully and concluded that he would be very similar to past presidents in that his talk about change was insufficiently specific. He has stayed true to his campaign but because many people were so happy to have someone other than George W. Bush, the reality of his political philosophy was somewhat obscured. He is a neoliberal and smartly allowed voters to apply their own hopes and aspirations upon him without having to really demonstrate who he was or what he was about.

Candidate Obama played cute in dealing with the obvious distinguishing characteristic, his race. On the one hand, he downplayed race (“there is no Black America or White America, there are the United States of America!”) which comforted nervous Whites. On the other, he played “wink-and-nod” with African Americans which left most Blacks accepting the “he’s got to play the game” logic without holding him accountable on the issues as other groups of Americans have.

Question 2: Do you believe that Obama has adequately fought for the nation’s black communities?

MKF: No. His first big opportunity was the 2009 economic stimulus package and he didn’t deliver. According to a 2010 report by the Kirwan Institute at The Ohio State University studying the first year of stimulus spending, African Americans own about 5.2% of all businesses, but received 1.1% of all federally contracted stimulus funds in the first year of the law. Those needing the most help got the least.

More stylistically, fighting for a group of citizens begins with making their plight known to everyone else. Black people have disproportionately been on the short end of the sub-mortgage crisis, the criminal justice system, and many other policy areas. I would like for him to make visible the suffering that many Black people are living under these days. That’s a start. And enough of this “Black men have to step up and be there for their children” stuff. I want my president to focus more on policy than anything else.

While President Obama is not responsible for the growth in economic disparity between African Americans and Whites, he doesn’t appear to have done much to reverse it.

Question 3: What was your reaction to Obama’s rousing “stop crying” speech to the Congressional Black Caucus?

MKF: I thought it was insulting. I get it that he thinks the CBC should be quiet and just do what he needs done, but that’s not enough for the people CBC members represent. CBC members represent constituencies in some cases with the highest unemployment, incarceration, and health problems and the lowest educational attainment. These members are on the front lines and hear from their voters all the time about what’s going on.

Lastly, he would not have dared to come out of his mouth like that to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee), the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, or any number of other organizations.

Question 4: Do you believe that Obama has made marked strides toward a “postracial” America?

MKF: Yes and no. His campaign and election obviously serve as important mileposts in the movement toward a more just racial society. His presidency has forced the country to expand its view of Black people generally and Black men in particular. For that he should be commended.

However, his unwillingness to use his bully pulpit to educate the country on racial issues and how corrosive they are to the nation as a whole, has been frustrating to me. He has a legitimacy that no other person in the history of this nation has (with the possible exception of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.) and has chosen to leave it on the table. I’m reminded of the “race speech” he gave during the campaign. While I saw it as rhetorical cotton candy for the consumption of nervous White suburban voters, he scored well with a full range of Americans. To my knowledge, he hasn’t really spent much time on it since, other than to say he can’t focus just on Black people because he is the president of everyone. It should be noted, however, that there is a lot of space between focusing only on Black people, on the one hand, and ignoring Black needs, on the other.

This speaks to my biggest frustration with the President. He has so much potential to permanently change the structure of racism in America but hasn’t done much with it. I am still hopeful he will.

Question 5: In what areas of public policy, if any, do you believe Obama has most neglected the concerns of black Americans?

MKF: I acknowledge he has a lot of things on his plate, but I think American criminal justice system is an abomination and is destabilizing Black communities all over the country. Black women have fewer men to choose from, too many of our children are fatherless, and men are released from prison without any real prospect for rehabilitation. While he can’t fix every aspect of this problem, much of this is on the states in our federal system, he can do something. I hope he will.

Michael K. Fauntroy is associate professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of numerous books and articles on race and politics. He earned a doctorate at Howard University and an undergraduate degree from Hampton University, both in political science. He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.