http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/index/ en michaelfauntroy@crimsonmedia.net Copyright 2012 2012-04-11T19:06:10+00:00 http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/supporting_obama_with_facts/ http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/supporting_obama_with_facts/#When:18:06:10Z I happily voted for Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. I think he is a 180 degree improvement upon his predecessor, a man I think should be indicted for war crimes. However, I am also among those who believe that he has been timid on racial issues and can do more than he has on issues that are of unique importance to African Americans (and don’t give me that “He’s the President for everybody, not just Black people.” I get that, but we’re Americans too). So, as you can imagine, I was interested to see a News One report titled “What Has Obama Done for You Lately?” which offered “a short list of accomplishments that the President has achieved for Black Americans – and everyone else too.” 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. 2012-04-11T18:06:10+00:00 http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/michael_fauntroy_on_npr_discusses_president_obamas_black_outreach/ http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/michael_fauntroy_on_npr_discusses_president_obamas_black_outreach/#When:00:23:13Z Here is a link to a NPR report on the new interest President Obama's reelection campaign is showing in Black voters. It didn't come out in the final version of the report, but I believe these new steps are a tacit admission that the deracialized strategy of 2008 won't be enough to win in 2012. 2012-02-23T00:23:13+00:00 http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/a_greater_threat_to_our_democracy_than_citizens_united/ http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/a_greater_threat_to_our_democracy_than_citizens_united/#When:00:04:55Z Citizens United, the 2010 US Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited corporate spending in American federal elections, has created a political firestorm on the political Left as the specter of even more money influencing elections and empowering the rich at the expense of the poor. The outrage, while legitimate, reveals a weakness in our politics that obfuscates similarly important problems: we tend to focus on new problems and ignore continuing ones.  I believe that Citizens United was a disastrous ruling that only consolidates electoral, political, and policy power into the hands of America's plutocrats; they, of course, will use this power to continue the subjugation of the poor. The truth, however, is that big money is an after-the-fact concern that pales in comparison to congressional redistricting in terms of impact and perversion of the political system. This decennial exercise, akin to a gentlemen’s agreement to divide the states between the Democratic and Republican political cartels, is a far bigger threat to our democracy that the money that flows into our elections. 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. 2012-02-23T00:04:55+00:00 http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/the_real_problem_with_romneys_wealth/ http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/the_real_problem_with_romneys_wealth/#When:02:00:05Z Mitt Romney’s recent release of his tax federal tax filings reveals a real problem for him and the Republican Party. It’s not just the amount of his vast wealth, or his former Swiss bank account, or his money stashed away in the Cayman Islands. The problem is that these three elements combine to reinforce the narrative that Romney is the living embodiment of a political-economic nexus that creates few winners and an increasing number of losers. He is the fat cat who is so despised by many Americans. The fact that he is still the likely nominee, with his moderate record, a healthcare plan that is the basis of the national reform law hated by most Republicans, and a religion many fundamentalist Christian conservatives view as a cult, shows just how desperate the Grand Old Party is to unseat President Barack Obama. 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. 2012-01-29T02:00:05+00:00 http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/new_video_michael_fauntroy_comments_on_new_hampshire_primary/ http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/new_video_michael_fauntroy_comments_on_new_hampshire_primary/#When:16:31:20Z Happy again to go on CTV News. This time, we talked about the New Hampshire primary. 2012-01-09T16:31:20+00:00 http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/new_video_michael_fauntroy_comments_on_race_in_the_gop_nomination_fight/ http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/new_video_michael_fauntroy_comments_on_race_in_the_gop_nomination_fight/#When:16:09:42Z Here is a clip of me on WUSA-9 in Washington, DC discussing race in the GOP nomination fight. 2012-01-09T16:09:42+00:00 http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/michael_fauntroy_reflects_on_romneys_caucus_win_and_gop_voter_id_hypocrisy/ http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/michael_fauntroy_reflects_on_romneys_caucus_win_and_gop_voter_id_hypocrisy/#When:16:49:37Z There is no way to spin it. The Iowa caucus results cannot be seen by Governor Mitt Romney and his supporters as anything other than disappointing. He has been running for the nomination for half a decade and he got the same percentage in 2012 that he got in 2008. This is made worse by the quality of the 2012 Republican field which, to be charitable, is not impressive. Romney’s showing is hardly what momentum is made of. Romney will ultimately be fine. He has the money, the organization, and the good fortune to be in a race with others who are either unelectable, uninspiring, and unorganized. While Sen. Rick Santorum appears to be emerging as the conservative alternative to Romney, I cannot yet see a scenario in which he beats Romney for the nomination. Santorum is to Romney what Pat Buchanan was to Sen. Bob Dole: a hard base candidate who cannot win the support of others. 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 2012-01-04T16:49:37+00:00 http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/new_audio_michael_fauntroy_previews_the_2012_iowa_caucuses_on_minnesota_pub/ http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/new_audio_michael_fauntroy_previews_the_2012_iowa_caucuses_on_minnesota_pub/#When:01:11:41Z It’s always good to be on Minnesota Public Radio’s “Midmorning” with Kerri Miller. This time, Steve Kornacki of Salon and I preview the 2012 Iowa caucuses. We also responded to listener calls. 2012-01-03T01:11:41+00:00 http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/new_video_michael_fauntroy_on_ctv_to_discuss_the_iowa_caucuses/ http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/new_video_michael_fauntroy_on_ctv_to_discuss_the_iowa_caucuses/#When:21:23:47Z I appeared on CTV News in Toronto, Canada to discuss the Iowa Caucuses. Canadians are paying close attention to the election and I was happy to contribute to CTV’s coverage. 2011-12-30T21:23:47+00:00 http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/new_audio_michael_fauntroy_on_nprs_tell_me_more/ http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/site/index.php/site/new_audio_michael_fauntroy_on_nprs_tell_me_more/#When:19:15:40Z I had the pleasure of discussing the week’s politics with Kevin Williamson, deputy managing editor of the National Review on NPR’s “Tell Me More” with Michel Martin. We discussed Ron Paul’s racist newsletters, the Iowa caucuses, and the state of the GOP nomination fight. 2011-12-29T19:15:40+00:00