By Aldon Thomas Stiles | California Black Media

Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom held a press conference to announce new COVID-19 guidelines for California’s K-12 public schools. Two days later, President Joe Biden praised the new mandate in a tweet.

“Gov. @GavinNewsom is leading California through unprecedented crises — he’s a key partner in fighting the pandemic and helping build our economy back better,” the POTUS said about Newsom, who is facing a recall election Sept. 14.

“To keep him on the job, registered voters should vote no on the recall election by 9/14 and keep California moving forward,” Biden continued.

Newsom’s new mandate requires all school employees to either provide proof of vaccination or submit to weekly testing.

“This is a state that very proudly was among the first states in the country to mandate mask wearing in the public education system, before this school year and before the CDC aligned with that standard; before the Academy of Pediatrics aligned with that strategy. And before the controversies that have subsequently ensued,” Newsom said when he made the announcement.

In July, COVID-19 cases among children under17 nearly tripled.

Conservative talk show host Larry Elder, who is African American and the frontrunner among candidates vying to replace Newsom in the upcoming recall election said, if he wins, he would not mandate state workers to wear masks or get vaccinated.

“When I become governor, assuming there are mandates for masks and statewide mandates for vaccines, they will be suspended right away,” Elder said. “This is America. We have freedom in America.”

Elder said he does believe people in high-risk categories should be vaccinated.

“But there are many Americans who disagree with me, feel that the vaccine was done too quickly,” he continued, explaining that COVID vaccines have been approved for “emergency use.”

As of Aug. 15, the 7-day average of new COVID cases in California was 12,031. So far, there have been 4.02 million cases in the state since the beginning of the pandemic and 64,183 deaths, according to the California Department of Public Health.

About 51% of all Californians have received both vaccines.

The same day, Newsom tweeted a graph comparing California’s new COVID-19 hospitalizations to those of Texas and California, two states vaccine skeptics and “pro-freedom” activists have held up as counterpoints to the California governor’s strict coronavirus policies. The data the graph visualized showed that California hospitalization rates are currently much lower than both states.

Texas and Florida both have outspoken Republican governors who have enacted looser policies in their fights against COVID.

“CA is reporting 141.1 new COVID cases for every 100,000 residents over the last 7 days — a rate HALF of Texas (297.8); and less than ONE-FOURTH of Florida’s rate (653.8), according to data from the CDC,” Newsom tweeted.

Many businesses have either loosened their COVID-19 restrictions or done away with them altogether while many public schools returned to in-person instruction at the beginning of the month.

Despite to growing number of COVID cases among children, some California parents still have reservations about vaccines and masks, even going so far as to sue the state to drop mask mandates in schools.

Newsom’s strategy for addressing these kinds of criticisms, as well as others that have arisen in the midst of his recall election, has been to associate them with the far-right political movement empowered by Former President Donald Trump.

Newsom employed this strategy in his response to Biden’s praise.

“Grateful for your support, Mr. President. There’s simply too much at stake — vote NO on September 14th to reject this Republican led recall,” Newsom tweeted.

California Black Media’s coverage of COVID-19 is supported by the California Health Care Foundation.

Civil rights advocates celebrate early executive actions as important victories

WASHINGTON – The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights released the following statement ahead of the inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, celebrating the historic change in leadership and the early important victories coming through executive actions in the first 10 days of the new administration.

“With an immense sigh of relief, we celebrate the historic inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris,” said Wade Henderson, interim president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “This consequential moment sparks tremendous hope for a stronger, brighter future where we unite, build back better, and find solutions to the very serious challenges we face. As we close a dark, deadly chapter in our nation’s history where we pushed back against relentless attacks on civil and human rights, we look ahead to collaborating with the Biden-Harris administration to undo the atrocities we have all endured and create a more just and equitable future.”

Incoming White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain recently released a memo outlining executive actions that President Biden will take within the first 10 days of the new administration, starting on day one. These executive actions focus on four areas, including the COVID-19 crisis, the resulting economic crisis, the climate crisis, and the racial equity crisis.

“These executive actions will make an immediate impact in the lives of so many people in desperate need of help,” continued Henderson. “Reversing Trump’s deeply discriminatory Muslim ban, addressing the COVID-19 crisis, preventing evictions and foreclosures, and advancing equity and support for communities of color and other underserved communities are significant early actions that represent an important first step in charting a new direction for our country. We urged the Biden-Harris administration to take these early actions and look forward to working with them in continuing to advance the civil and human rights coalition’s priorities.”

The White House released an early calendar with actions through the end of January that will focus on several of the civil and human rights coalition’s other priority executive actions. These include rescinding Trump’s executive order banning diversity training and directing agencies to take action to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; rescinding Trump’s executive order on excluding non-citizens from the census and presidential memorandum on undocumented immigrants and apportionment; directing agencies to preserve and fortify DACA in advance of legislative efforts to codify the program; rescinding Trump’s executive order on immigration enforcement to impose a moratorium on removals; and many other priorities.

In December, The Leadership Conference released a list of priority initiatives for the Biden-Harris administration and the 117th Congress. The coalition priorities, available here, outline the current state of civil rights and offer recommendations that represent a path forward.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 220 national organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States. The Leadership Conference works toward an America as good as its ideals. For more information on The Leadership Conference and its member organizations, visit www.civilrights.org.

###

One-third of all registered voters say jobs and the economy is their most important issue in deciding which presidential candidate to vote for, the latest USC Dornsife Daybreak poll shows. 

When asked which candidate they trust more to handle jobs and the economy, registered voters give President Donald Trump a 4 percentage-point advantage over former Vice President Joe Biden. But on uniting the country and healing racial divisions, and on COVID-19 response, Biden has an advantage of 22 points and 14 points, respectively.

The poll also found that nearly 3 out of 5 voters have an unfavorable opinion of Trump; nearly half have an “extremely unfavorable” opinion. Voters are more evenly split over Biden. Half rated him either “somewhat favorable” or “extremely favorable” and 47% rated him unfavorably, including more than a third who have an “extremely unfavorable” opinion.

Voters were asked if they feel discomfort in discussing their choice of presidential candidates with family, friends, acquaintances and pollsters, an issue that was significantly associated with late deciders for Trump in the 2016 Daybreak poll. Pollsters found very little difference in the comfort levels of Trump and Biden voters.

“In 2016, the Daybreak poll found Trump voters to be significantly less comfortable with discussing their candidate choice than Hillary Clinton voters, particularly among acquaintances and if contacted by a telephone poll,” said Jill Darling, Survey Director of the Daybreak Poll. “This year, we see very little difference between Trump voters and Biden voters. The undecided voters are more reticent, but very few voters remain truly undecided.” 

The national probability poll was conducted by the USC Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR) among 4,580 registered voters who are members of  its Understanding America Study panel. The poll has a +/- 2 percentage point overall margin of sampling error.

Partisan differences in how voters ranked issues tell a more nuanced story

Half of Republican voters and those who say they’re voting for Trump, and just under half the voters who lean toward voting Republican, chose jobs and the economy as their top issue.

In contrast, Democrats were more divided on their top issue. “Uniting the country and healing racial divisions” was chosen by a third of those identifying as Democrats and Biden voters, and by just under a quarter of those who lean Democrat. That issue ranked second among all registered voters, as well as among GOP leaners, Independents and undecided voters.

“People are sharply divided on lines of partisanship, not only about what candidate they favor, but what issues are most important to them,” said Robert Shrum, director of the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future.

Law enforcement and criminal justice was picked second most often by Trump voters and Republicans in general. “The Trump campaign’s focus on riots and protests as problems in the cities are resonating among Trump voters and Republicans,” said Darling. “However, potential swing voters are more concerned about uniting the country around racial unrest.”

In contrast, immigration, which dominated the 2016 presidential race headlines with Trump supporters’ chants to “build the wall,” barely registered among any category of voters as the top priority. Neither did climate change and US-China relations. 

The poll was conducted before Trump visited California where massive wildfires have magnified the issue of climate change.

Although jobs and the economy took the top spot among all registered voters and among Republicans and Trump voters, uniting the country was the top issue for nearly 1 in 5 voters who lean Republican, and a similar percentage of independents and undecided voters.

“The poll results reveal that Biden has an issue that everybody, including Republicans, cares about: uniting and healing,” said Mike Murphy, co-director of the Center for the Political Future. “It’s a very clear roadmap for Biden. If he can make it more germane and move it further up the importance scale, that’s pure gain for him.”

It’s (not just) the economy, stupid

Pollsters also asked voters who they trusted more to deal with these issues.  While voters gave Trump the edge by 4 percentage points on jobs and economy, they trusted Biden more on all of the other issues — many of them by double digit margins.

“It’s clear that Biden owns ‘uniting and healing’ — as well as climate change —  for the small percentage of people who chose that as their most important issue,” said Darling. “But he also has a 10-point advantage on health care — an issue that ranked high in importance for swing voters.”

“What’s amazing to me about this poll is Trump’s lead on the economy has steadily eroded,” said Shrum. “And the president is campaigning heavily on law enforcement and criminal justice — an issue where Biden actually has a four-point advantage.”

Results show that nearly half of all registered voters (47%) have an extremely unfavorable opinion of Trump, compared to one third who have an extremely unfavorable opinion of Biden.

Biden has an overall favorable impression among half of the voters, while only 40% of voters have a somewhat or extremely favorable opinion of Trump.

Independents have a net negative impression of both candidates, by similar margins, but they are four times as likely to say they haven’t heard enough about Biden to form an opinion.

On a related issue, Biden voters were more likely than Trump voters to say their choice was motivated by opposition to the other candidate. Among Biden voters, 53% say they are supporting their candidate, while 47% say they are voting mainly to oppose Trump.

“Trump continues to be the unwitting get-out-the-vote machine for Democrats,” said Shrum.

A much larger majority of Trump voters are voting for him: 85% say they are supporting their candidate and only 15% are voting mainly against Biden. 

About the USC Dornsife Daybreak Poll

The USC Dornsife Daybreak Poll 2020 was conducted Aug. 25-Sept. 13, 2020 among 5,272 members of the Understanding America Study probability-based internet panel. The sample included 4,580 registered voters.

Overall margin of sampling error for the sample of registered voters is +/- 2 percentage points. Margin of sampling error for subgroups included in this analysis may vary, and are provided in the associated methodology and topline document.

The survey is conducted by the USC Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR), in partnership with the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future. It is funded in part by USC Dornsife with additional funding from research grants. The tracking poll is updated daily at election.usc.edu. Press releases, graphics, toplines and other documents are available from the Center for the Political Future and from CESR’s elections data page, which also provides access to data, and additional surveys and information.

By Dr. G.S. Potter | Contributing Editor, B | e Note

Perhaps it’s a way for Biden to somehow make amends for helping pass the destructive law and actively repair decades of damage

Reparations isn’t just about slavery. It isn’t just about broken promises following the Civil War. It might be rooted in the need to repair the damages done by these atrocities – but that’s not where it ends. The damage done to Black Americans has been continuous and ongoing for centuries. And not only must this damage be ended, but it must be repaired.

The current debate over the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, or the 1994 Crime Bill as it is commonly referred to, might offer the opportunity for us to do this.

This bill has always been a point of contention in communities working on criminal justice reform, but it has been currently highlighted in the mainstream media because of Joe Biden’s role in passing it and his refusal to outright condemn it — much to the dismay of many in the Black voting bloc he needs to win the election.

Currently, the debate surrounding the 1994 Crime Bill hasn’t amounted to much more than a wedge issue for the Democratic Party. What it can and should evolve into is a point of leverage for the Black community.

Biden needs the Black vote to win the 2020 election. The Black community needs meaningful criminal justice reform and reparations. Instead of threatening to tap out of the election because of his defense of the Act, the Black community can apply the massive amount of leverage they have accumulated to flip the script. In other words, instead of canceling themselves out of the 2020 election, Black voters can offer support for the Biden campaign in exchange for revisions … and reparations.

Even if Biden did acknowledge that the Act had a severely detrimental effect on the Black community, that would do little to repair the damages done. On the other hand, if the Black community presented a piece of legislation that undid that damage to the greatest extent possible, then we can transmute one of the most damaging pieces of legislation in criminal justice reform history into a point of power and repair.

Undoing the Damage

To be fair, there are pieces of the crime bill that were beneficial. Those should be acknowledged.

For example, the Act banned 19 different types of assault weapons and created stricter licensing standards for gun dealers, for example. Those pieces should stay in place. The overwhelming majority of the Act, though, served to increase the harassment, brutalization, and imprisonment of Black (and Brown) people. These pieces of the 1994 Crime Bill should be identified, acknowledged, and remedied. The people that suffered from these pieces of legislation should also be directly compensated for the damage done to them and their communities.

There is already a legislative effort to undo some of the damage caused by the Act. It comes in the form of the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. According to the Brennan Center for Justice this bill – which was reintroduced to Congress by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), along with Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA) in 2019 – would include:

– A new federal grant program of $20 billion over 10 years in incentive funds to states.

– A requirement that states that reduce their prison population by 7 percent over a three-year period without an increase in crime will receive funds.

– A clear methodology based on population size and other factors to determine how much money states receive.

– A requirement that states invest these funds in evidence-based programs proven to reduce crime and incarceration.

It’s a start, but the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act clearly does not go far enough to remove the structuralized racism implemented as a result of the 1994 crime bill or repair the communities and families destroyed by it.

For example, according to the Brennan Center …

… through the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants Program. This provided $12.5 billion in grants to fund incarceration, with nearly 50 percent earmarked for states that adopted tough “truth-in-sentencing” laws that scaled back parole. Under this grant program, eligible states received money to expand their prison capacity to incarcerate people convicted of violent crimes.”

The $20 million grant programs included in the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act are designed to acknowledge the $12.5 billion in grants supplied by the 1994 Crime bill, adjust the amount for inflation, and attach federal funding to a decrease in the rate of incarceration by 7 percent. This is a small step in the direction away from mass incarceration, but it does not do enough to undo the damage done by the 1994 Crime Bill, nor does it repair that damage.

The Brennan Center goes on to explain that ….

…. the most significant and long-lasting impacts of the legislation was the authorization of incentive grants to build or expand correctional facilities through the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants Program. This provided $12.5 billion in grants to fund incarceration, with nearly 50 percent earmarked for states that adopted tough “truth-in-sentencing” laws that scaled back parole. Under this grant program, eligible states received money to expand their prison capacity to incarcerate people convicted of violent crimes.

In addition to Truth in Sentencing Laws and an overwhelming increase in prisons, the 1994 Crime Bill also promoted the use of Three Strikes Laws. As the ACLU reports …

The crime bill implemented a rash of new three-strikes laws — laws that impose automatic life sentences for people convicted of certain felony offenses if they already have two convictions on their record. Dozens of states followed suit and enacted three-strikes laws, resulting in a ballooning of the incarceration rate in certain states, especially for black and Latinx Americans.

Imposing life sentences simply because an individual has a criminal record disproportionately targets people of color, who are more likely to have a record in the first place because of unequal contact with police and the justice system. Harsh collateral consequences limit employment opportunities for returning people, especially people of color, and increase the likelihood of recidivism. The crime bill’s three-strikes provision sent thousands of Americans to prison for life based on previous offenses for minor crimes such as stealing loose change from a parked car. In 2016, 78.5 percent of Americans serving life sentences in federal prison were people of color.

The Reverse Mass Incarceration Act does little to nothing to help the individuals and families targeted by these provisions.

Reparations for Time Served

A reform bill should be presented to Biden that not only reverses these provisions, but that also identifies individuals that were incarcerated for minor offenses under three strikes laws as well as those whose sentences were extended because of Truth and sentencing laws. Their cases should be revisited, and the charges should be commuted and expunged. Individuals and families should be compensated for time served as well as the financial losses associated with loss of income, economic opportunity, and personal trauma.

In other words, reparations should be from the government and made directly to individuals for the damages that have resulted from the 1994 Crime Bill.

In addition to repairing the damages done to individuals and removing the pieces of the Crime Bill and subsequent legislation that was built off of it, there are a number of other provisions that have bolstered the mass incarceration of Black Americans that should be removed and remedied.

For example, decreasing incarceration rates by 7 percent is an important step attempted by the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. However, this incentive does not go far enough. Not only should there be a higher rate of decrease of incarceration to receive funds, but the act should specifically outline who should be released. For example, as already mentioned, people being held for nonviolent crimes, people being held because of three strikes laws and people being held because of Truth in Sentencing laws should all receive case reviews for commutation. Individuals imprisoned for drug use and possession, mental health issues, and crimes of poverty should also qualify for commuted sentences and expunged records under any act designed to end mass incarceration.

Additionally, states should be expected to reduce the number of prisons in order to receive funding.

Undoing the “Drug War”

The Brennan Center continues that …

The number of state and federal adult correctional facilities rose 43 percent from 1990 to 2005.” Provisions can and should be put in place to incentivize the elimination of these prisons in exchange for federal funding. They additionally report that the Act “provided funding for 100,000 new police officers and $14 billion in grants for community-oriented policing, for example. From 1990 to 1999, the number of police officers rose 28 percent, from 699,000 to 899,000, partly funded by the crime bill.

This $14 billion should be adjusted for inflation and used as an incentive to deconstruct or repurpose prisons and eliminate police officers. Again, a specific process should be used in order to do this.

For example, a newly re-envisioned legislative response to the 1994 Crime Bill can be used to incentivize the elimination of police officers involved in cases of brutality and harassment. It can be used to eliminate police officers that have posted racist and racially biased posts on social media accounts. The Act can also be used to eliminate the use of police officers from schools. In this way, we can reduce the asymmetrical contact between Black communities and law enforcement while also removing racist officers and those that have specifically done direct damage to Black people.

By using the 1994 Crime Bill as a source of reversal and reparations, a model can also be created to use other pieces of legislation to undo the structural injustice that has targeted Black Americans for generations.

For example, The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was a federal cornerstone of the War on Drugs. This Act established mandatory minimums for drug possession, increased funding for drug enforcement, and blocked funding for drug prevention programs. Just as a true reversal of the 1994 Crime Bill could establish pathways for legislative reforms and reparations, a similar act could end the so-called War On Drugs, eliminate the use of incarceration for drug use and possession, commute sentences for those that were incarcerated under this law and derivative legislation, and give reparations to individuals and families whose lives and livelihoods were stolen as a result of the Act and the war on Black communities it encodified.

Similar legislation can be also presented at the state and local levels to remedy and repair damages caused by legislation such as cash bail practices, gang injunctions, predatory lending practices, redlining, housing injustice and a number of policies that have directly harmed the Black community.

In this way, we can not only reform the policies that have targeted and traumatized Black Americans, but we can formalize a reparation process that directly repairs the people and communities most damaged by structural racism. But it all starts with the 1994 Crime Bill.

The Black community has an unprecedented amount of leverage right now. Instead of asking Biden to apologize for his part in supporting the crime bill, legislation that truly reverses and repairs the damages done by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 should be presented to him and the Democratic Party for his approval. Let our anger translate into reform and reparations, and let his apology be encodified in legislation. And then let’s move on to the next Act, and then the next. Until we tear down every last piece of structural racism and repair the damages done to every last Black American.

Just like about every other fretful Democratic/liberal/progressive person in America, I’ll admit I’ve had a mild case of political PTSD left over from 2016 (and from 2000 & 2004 for that matter).  However, these days the national political opinion polls are truly glorious.  There is no doubt about it, folks.  Joe Biden is going to win one of the largest, overwhelming landslide victories in American presidential election history!

This impending political news is outstanding if you’re a Democrat.  The polls in the usual swing states are also quite clearly in Biden’s favor as well, not to mention the numerous traditionally Republican-controlled states now on the verge of finally becoming swing states thanks to demented Donald Trump’s ongoing, internationally televised mental breakdown and political self-destruction taking the entire racist, fascist Republican Party down with him in flames on November 3. 

And of course that’s what we’re all watching in real time right now – diabolical Donald Trump’s farcical, full-blown maniacal meltdown both politically and psychologically speaking.  Haven’t you noticed that President Trumptanic is literally sweating almost as much as tricky Dick Nixon did back in the day?  Some in the American media are pointing out the obvious (that the metaphorically buck naked, morbidly obese Orange Emperor has no brain and is completely insane), but most reporters are apparently, for some strange reason (could it be cowardice?), still too afraid to tell the terrible truth about traitor Trump the tangerine tyrant.  Why?  What is the so-called free press so afraid of?

What ever happened to our fearless, heroic, patriotic profession of journalism that actually, once upon a time, had the respect and admiration of the American people?  How did we go from The Washington Post’s Woodward & Bernstein bringing down sweaty Richard Nixon’s paranoid presidency (which wasn’t nearly as criminal and nowhere near as treasonous as traitor Trump’s Russian-controlled Republican regime) to this current situation (with some notable exemplary exceptions) where most American journalists voluntarily choose to act like they’re living in an authoritarian country without a First Amendment?  

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean much if everyone is too terrified of consequences (or too satisfied with their paychecks) to speak truth to power.  Allow me an attempt, if you will, to lighten the mood of my fellow Democrats/liberals/progressives with some good news for a change!  Yes, folks, it’s true:  Trump’s foolish fascist regime is finished, and his much-deserved political execution is right around the corner.  USA!  USA!  USA!

In fact, despicable Donald Trump is the pathetic political equivalent of a “Dead Man Walking” (all apologies to Sean Penn & Susan Sarandon).  As a long-time observer of American elections, I have no doubt at all at this point as to what the outcome will be.  And nothing that I have to say about it is going to decrease voter turnout in the least.  Democratic voter turnout wasn’t a problem at all during the primaries, and the anti-Trump turnout will be massive in November.  

Unlike 2016, Trump’s psychotic sales pitch is falling on deaf ears, since he is a disastrously failed incompetent incumbent who can’t even come up with a reason as to why he should be given a 2nd term, other than the fact that Trump the plump chump is a ridiculous racist who is in love with the Confederate flag and sacrilegiously worships statues of Confederate traitors.  And as poorly as these clueless conservative Republican politicians did in 2018, what possible reason would there be to believe the GOP’s chances could improve in 2020?        

This election really is all over but the shouting, and we should stop playing defense politically, stop living in fear of what happened in the previous election(s), and go on the offense unreservedly in the remaining 3 months of this one. Our cause is righteous and we will be victorious, because the racist Republican Party is doing everything possible at this point to lose.  We the people are going to win in 2020 in a landslide!  Let’s win this one for the late, great John Lewis.

Believe it or not, there actually is light at the end of this particularly long, dark, terrible tunnel of lies and treason otherwise known as the Trump Administration.  Traitor Trump (otherwise known as the Confederate flag-loving racist Moscow-loving moron) can’t lie his way out of this one, and his big daddy Vlad can’t steal this one thanks to Trump having effectively (and perhaps only temporarily) turned many highly-skilled, tough-as-nails, patriotic operatives in our military and intelligence communities into hardcore partisan Democrats.  The so-called “deep state” is in fact watching this one very closely, and Trump’s corrupt Russian war criminal benefactors know it.  Trump is done.

Calling the CIA “Nazis” as one of his first official statements as president was actually the end of Trump’s “re-election” chances.  (And, after all, Trump wasn’t legitimately elected the first time around according to irrefutable statistical analyses of the official vote totals in 2016 from the swing states under Republican control, which show unmistakable signs of the statewide vote totals having been altered to give Trump margins in those states just above the automatic recount thresholds.)  

So to sum up, there is no need to worry about winning in 2020, if they let the people vote.  And we the people will vote for Joe Biden for President and for other Democrats down-ballot this Nov. 3rd in historically impressive numbers.  God Bless America!  And God Bless our soon-to-be 46th President of the United States, Joe Biden.  

WHAT WILL HAPPEN to the Joe Biden campaign if he announces that he will appoint President Barack Obama as Attorney General on day one of his Presidency?

WHAT IF Biden names some of his Cabinet members prior to the election. Would a Biden Cabinet Dream Team help his candidacy?

WHAT DO YOU THINK will be the impact/effects of a Biden Cabinet Dream Team campaigning to ‘hit the ground running’?

 WHO DO YOU NOMINATE for what Cabinet position in the Biden Administration Cabinet Dream Team?

During The COVID-19 Crisis I choose to shelter and move cautiously. If you choose to gather and group, either to protest or work, I support your right to do so. I just request that you allow your movement to be contact tracked and your health be monitored so that science and the rest of us can benefit from your social experiment.

By Joe W. Bowers Jr.  | California Black Media

The ballot for the 2024 California presidential primary election, set for March 5 — commonly called “Super Tuesday in political media speak — features leading presidential candidates President Joe Biden (D) and former President Donald Trump (R). Black candidates for President include President R. Boddie (D), Eban Cambridge (D), Jasmine Sherman (Peace and Freedom), and Cornel West (Peace and Freedom).

Across California, voters will also be choosing candidates for one US Senate seat, 52 congressional seats, 80 State Assembly seats, and 20 State Senate seats. Additionally, there’s a statewide ballot measure, Proposition 1, which if passed, would allow the state to borrow $6.4 billion for mental health treatment beds and revamp the law that funds mental health services through a tax on millionaires.

Voters will discover that Black candidates are overrepresented on their ballots for State and Federal office. Although African Americans comprise 6.5% of California’s population, Black candidates are contesting for 11.5% of California’s US House seats, 23.8% of State Assembly seats and 30% of State Senate seats.

According to California Black Media (CBM), 53 Black candidates are participating in 32 of the 154 statewide elections. That’s about 21% of the races.

In eleven of these races, multiple Black candidates are competing. The party affiliations of these candidates include 42 Democrats, 7 Republicans, one Green Party, three Peace and Freedom Party and one from the American Independent Party. Among these candidates, 27 women are running for office – one for President, one for US Senate, 4 for Congress, 15 for State Assembly and 7 for State Senate. There are 27 men on the ballot – 3 for President, 8 for Congress, 9 for state Assembly and 7 for state Senate.

There is one Black candidate, Congressmember Barbara Lee (D-CA-12), running for the US Senate seat (both full and partial term) to succeed U.S. Sen. Laphonza Butler. If elected, Lee would be the third Black female U.S. Senator in state history. Despite lagging in both fundraising and the polls, she has consistently performed well in debates. Lee, has said throughout her political career that “representation matters.” If neither Lee nor Congressmember Katie Porter (D-CA-47), the leading female candidates, finishes in the top two for the general election, California would be without a female contending to be senator the first time in more than 30 years.

 

In the upcoming Congressional elections, 12 Black candidates are vying for 6 seats.

For Congressional District (CD) 6 (Elk Grove), Craig J. DeLuz (R), a member of the Robla School Board, is in the running along with 5 other candidates, including the current Congressmember, Ami Bera (D).

Kevin Lincoln (R), the Mayor of Stockton, is contesting for CD 9 (Stockton) against three other candidates, including the incumbent Congressmember, Josh Harder (D).

In CD 12 (Oakland), nine candidates are competing to succeed Lee. Among them, three are Black: Lateefah Simon (D), a nonprofit Foundation President; Andre Todd (D), a retired Navy officer and businessman; and Eric Wilson (D), an employee of a nonprofit organization.

Julie Lythcott-Haims (D), a Palo Alto councilmember, educator, lawyer, and parent, is among the 11 candidates running for CD 16 (Atherton) to replace the retiring Anna Eshoo (D).

Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D), one of the three incumbent Black Congressmembers from California, is seeking re-election in CD 37 (Los Angeles). John Thompson Parker (Peace and Freedom) is the other Black candidate in this race, which has a total of four contenders.

In CD 47 (Los Angeles), four out of five candidates are Black. The incumbent representative is Maxine Waters (D). The other Black candidates are Gregory Edward Jackson Cheadle (D), a program evaluator; Chris B. Wiggins (D), a state caucus chair; and Steve Williams (R), a small business owner.

 

Out of 40 State Senate seats, 20 are up for election this year. Five of these seats are being sought by 14 Black candidates.

In Senate District (SD) 3 (Napa), five candidates are competing for an open seat as the incumbent, Bill Dodd (D), is term-limited in 2024. The Black candidates in this race are Jackie Elward (D), a councilmember, educator, and mother, and Jimih Jones (R), an automotive parts advisor.

SD 7 (Oakland) has six candidates running to succeed Nancy Skinner (D), who is termed out at the end of 2024. The Black candidates are Jovanka Beckles (D), an AC Transit Director, and Sandre R Swanson (D), a youth foundation president and former Assemblymember.

Jason O’Brien (D), a police detective and businessman, is among four candidates vying for an open seat in SD 29 (San Bernadino).

Eight candidates are on the ballot for SD 35 (Inglewood) to replace the term-limited Sen. Steven Bradford (D). The six Black candidates are Michelle Chambers (D), a community justice advocate; Lamar Lyons (D), a financial consultant; Alex Monteiro (D), a Councilmember and nonprofit director; Laura Richardson (D), a former Congressmember, businesswoman, and housing advocate; and Jennifer Trichelle-Marie Williams (D), an accountant and small businessowner.

Dr. Akilah Weber (D), an Assemblymember and medical doctor is a candidate for the open SD 39 (San Diego) seat being vacated by Sen. Toni Atkins, former Senate President pro Tempore. She is running against one other candidate.

 

Out of 80 Assembly seats on the ballot, 24 Black candidates are contesting for 19 seats.

In Assembly District (AD) 6 (Sacramento), 10 candidates are on the ballot to succeed Kevin McCarty (D), who is running for Mayor of Sacramento. Among them, Emmanual Amanfor (D), a Sacramento Housing Commissioner, is the sole Black candidate.

Porsche Middleton (D) is contesting for AD 7 (Citrus Heights) against two others, including incumbent Josh Hoover (R).

In AD 11 (Suisun City), incumbent Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D) is seeking re-election. She faces three opponents, one of whom is Black: Wanda Wallis, a real estate agent.

Rhodesia Ransom (D), a businessowner and mother, is running for AD 13 (Stockton) against two other candidates.

Monica E. Wilson (D), an Antioch City Councilmember, is contesting for AD 15 (Concord) against three opponents.

Incumbent Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D) is seeking re-election for AD 18 (Oakland). Among her three opponents, one is Black: Andre Sandford, a housing program manager.

Waymond Fermon (D), a peace officer and Indio councilmember, is running for the open seat in AD 36 (Antelope Valley) against six other candidates.

Phlunté Riddle (D), a public safety commissioner, is on the ballot for AD 41 (Pasadena). The incumbent, Chris Holden (D), who is term-limited, is running for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Three other candidates are also on the ballot.

Carmenita Helligar (D) is one of eight candidates for AD 44 (Burbank), as incumbent Laura Friedman is running for the U.S. House.

Jamie Swain (D), a truck driver, is running for AD 47 (High Desert) against two opponents, including incumbent Greg Wallis (R).

In AD 50 (San Bernardino), DeJonae Marie Shaw, a licensed vocational nurse, is running against two other candidates. The incumbent, Eloise Reyes (D), is running for State Senate.

Shannel Pittman (Green Party), a national diversity chair, is running for AD 52 (San Gabriel Valley) against nine other candidates. The incumbent, Wendy Carrillo (D), is running for Los Angeles City Council.

Isaac G. Bryan (D), the incumbent Assemblymember for AD 55 (Ladera Heights), has one opponent.

In AD 57 (Los Angeles), five candidates are running to replace Reggie Jones-Sawyer, who is term-limited and running for Los Angeles City Council. The three Black candidates are Greg Akili, an educator and nonprofit director; Sade Elhawary, an education and community organizer; and Tara Perry, a reparations advocate.

Corey A Jackson (D), the incumbent Assemblymember for AD 60 (Riverside), is running for re-election against two opponents, one of whom is Black: Ron Edwards (R), a small business owner.

Tina Simone McKinnor (D), the incumbent Assemblymember for AD 61 (Inglewood), is running for re-election against one opponent.

Mike Gipson (D), the incumbent Assemblymember for AD 65 (Compton), is running for re-election.

Dom Jones (D), a businesswoman and TV personality, is running for AD-72 (Huntington Beach) against incumbent Diane Dixon (R).

LaShae Sharp-Collins (D), a county education professional, is running for AD 79 (La Mesa). The incumbent, Akilah Weber, is running for State Senate. Two other candidates are also on the ballot.

All active registered voters in California will receive a vote-by-mail ballot. Mailing of ballots began Feb. 5 and drop-off locations opened on Feb. 6. The last day to register to vote is Feb. 20. Vote centers for early in-person voting open on Feb. 24. Vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by March 12.

In California, the order of races on ballots goes from local to federal, and the state’s primaries have a top-two system, meaning the top two vote getters in a given race advance to the general election, regardless of political party.

By Congresswoman Barbara Lee | Special to California Black Media Partners

In the words of W. E. B. Du Bois, a trailblazer in the founding of the NAACP, “The power of the ballot we need in sheer self-defense — else what shall save us from a second slavery? Freedom, too, the long-sought, we still seek — the freedom of life and limb, the freedom to work and think, the freedom to love and aspire.”

These profound sentiments have been a guiding force throughout my journey, one that has taken me from an elected official in the California State Legislature to a member of Congress proudly representing the 12th Congressional District, to my current candidacy for the U.S. Senate. The NAACP’s commitment to justice and equality has been a constant influence, shaping my perspective on democracy and inspiring me to champion these principles at every stage of my career.

Born and raised in El Paso, Texas, the roots of my connection to the NAACP run deep. My late mother, Mildred Parish Massey, was a trailblazer herself, named as one of the first 12 students in the NAACP lawsuit to integrate Texas Western College, now known as the University of Texas at El Paso. My grandfather W.C. Parish was the first African American letter carrier in El Paso. He spoke fluent Spanish in order to better serve his community and was an active member of the NAACP.

Even as my family moved to the seemingly progressive San Fernando Valley in Southern California, the specter of racism persisted. High school, supposed to be a time of joy and growth, became a battleground for fairness. Seeking to become a cheerleader, I encountered an unfair selection process that excluded Black and Brown girls. Here, the NAACP once again intervened, successfully advocating for a policy change, shifting from a selection process to an election. Winning that election at the age of 15 marked my first tangible encounter with the transformative power of democracy. It was a victory not just for Black girls but for all, breaking down barriers and fostering inclusivity.

Just as my former intern and a former student in the Oakland branch of the NAACP’s ACT-SO program, Tennessee State Representative Justin Jones, continues to lift up the legacy of the NAACP, so do many young people. They stand up, make their voices heard, register to vote, run for office, and work to secure our planet for the next generation. The NAACP’s legacy lives on, inspiring a new generation to carry the torch of justice, equality, and democratic values forward.

The documentary, “Barbara Lee Speaks for Me,” created by filmmaker Abby Ginzberg, became an unexpected testament to my journey. Initially hesitant to participate due to my ceaseless commitment to serving constituents, Californians, and our planet, the documentary went on to win multiple awards, including the NAACP’s Best Documentary Film in 2022.

Our democracy is fragile. The January 6th attempted coup of our government threatened the peaceful transfer of power. We withstood this test and prevailed, but let me tell you how I personally experienced that day where five people died and many more were injured, including 138 Capitol Police Officers. Our brave officers fought the protestors to save lives. This included Black officers who were called the “N” word, spat upon, and treated in a manner that was bigoted, racist, and disgusting. Yet they stood up and fought to save our democracy.

I was sitting in the House Chambers, when we barely escaped. We went to the undisclosed location, in the midst of COVID, where many Republicans refused to wear a mask and several contracted this illness. Some Republicans, who would later vote against certifying the election of President Joe Biden, had the nerve to pray out loud. In the early morning, we returned to the Capitol when told it was safe. I was determined to stay until the end to witness the peaceful transfer of power. Tensions were high. Two members, a Republican and a Democratic Congressional Black Caucus member, almost threw hands and had to be restrained. The good news is–though the peaceful transfer of power was almost thwarted–our democracy survived. The House voted to certify Joe Biden as President and Kamala Harris, the first African American, the first Indian American, first woman—and yes—the first from Oakland, as our Vice President.

The trauma of that day was very real. That following weekend, I decided to stay in Washington, DC. I collect writing pens as a hobby and have a wonderful collection of about 400. To try and process my trauma, I wrote my name 400 times using my pens while listening to songs of empowerment. I found comfort in the music of Nina Simone, Sarah Vaughn, and Beyonce?. I was inspired and uplifted. Our community is accustomed to finding comfort in moments of extreme trauma. I knew I had to do more.

When the NAACP approached me to be a plaintiff in their lawsuit holding Donald Trump, the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and Rudy Giuliani accountable for the attempted overthrow of our democracy, I enthusiastically said “YES!” Mind you, this was before the January 6th Committee had been formed. My colleague Congressman Bennie Thompson was initially the lead plaintiff, but once he became Chair of the January 6th committee, I was asked to take over.

In a pivotal moment, a federal appeals court decision now allows civil lawsuits against Donald Trump related to the Capitol riot — a significant step in upholding our freedoms. This decision represents a victory for accountability and a testament to the robustness of our democratic institutions. Simultaneously, the American Women Quarters Program, a result of my legislation, will feature Ida B. Wells on quarters in 2025—a fitting tribute to one of the founders of the NAACP and a pioneering journalist and anti-lynching activist.

As we navigate these challenges, the NAACP continues to be my North Star and, as a woman of faith, I say God always steps in right on time in my life, ordering my steps in his ways. I am grateful for the NAACP and grateful for the impact it’s had on all our lives.

---

About the Author

Congresswoman Barbara Lee has been representing California’s 12th District (formerly 13th) since 1998. She is the highest ranking African American woman appointed to Democratic Leadership, serving as Co-Chair of the Policy and Steering Committee. She also serves on the Budget Committee and the powerful Appropriations Committee, which oversees all federal government spending.

Green Living Plan: Clearly a major clean energy transition is taking place, with jobs being created. But do the most marginalized and climate-hit communities even know how to access all of this?

By Jessika Pollard | a University of Redlands partnership

According to Pew Research during the 2020 elections, 70 percent of registered America voters identified climate change as an important factor influencing their choices in the presidential election. Since then, in a commitment echoing his campaign promises, President Joe Biden has set forth an extremely ambitious vision: A carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and net zero emissions by 2050. This transformative agenda includes climate forward legislation including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – or combined spending of $3.5 trillion. It represents what Biden and other observers have called the “largest ever investment in clean energy research and innovation.”

Fast forward a few years later and the IRA specifically, is calculated to decrease the national deficit by $300 billion over the next 10 years through funding initiatives that advance environmental justice, cut emissions, manufacture clean energy products, and more. Also within that time frame, this initiative is expected to create more than 9 million well-paying clean energy jobs – averaging 912,000 annually. Roughly $400 billion will be injected into various sectors and communities across the U.S., including millions of dollars in incentives for private investment, in the form of tax incentives, grants, loans, and more.

As President Biden and the U.S. Congress attempt to fulfill these promises, tangible results are already surfacing. For example, since its passage, the IRA has created over 100,000 clean energy jobs in (notably ‘red’) states such as Georgia, Kansas, Tennessee, and Arizona. Nationally, reports from companies across the country indicate nearly $90 billion in new investments have been established. Additionally, President Biden has recently announced the new Hydrogen Hub in Philadelphia that will create 20,000 new jobs.

Yet, the impact of these initiatives extends beyond the economic figures of for already affluent areas. What does this mean for families and communities in dis-invested areas? President Biden’s climate plan not only set ambitious goals for carbon emissions and clean energy, but also to fortify the national climate resiliency. Still, the realization of this vision hinges on aggressive investments in marginalized and vulnerable communities, often overlooked and underserved. In many low-income communities of color, the absence of critical infrastructure and healthy environments poses significant challenges to healthy, stable, and thriving living spaces.

Recognizing the interconnectedness of “Neighborhoods and Environment” as one of the six domains of Social Determinants of Health (SDOH), classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) underscores the urgency of reinvestment. These SDOHs are the underlying conditions that are contributing factors of health inequities. The lack of adequate and affordable housing, poor air quality, and lack of infrastructure for safe drinking water and accessible electricity are all results of a disinvested community. American dependency on oil and gas has only exacerbated the challenges these communities regularly face. The monies appropriated from the Biden climate plan are essential to see transformative investments in these underserved, low-income communities of color, steering the nation toward a more equitable and sustainable future. But: Do those communities even know those funds are available and, supposedly, accessible?

How Are Funds Being Planned?

A number of states, such as California, Vermont, and New York, are already working toward environmental justice polices – such as oil and gas drilling regulations or cap and trade – that mitigate air pollution in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods and communities of color. These efforts aim to alleviate the poor air pollution in economically disadvantaged communities. The success in those investments from climate policies rely heavily on the collaboration between local, state, and federal policymakers and mission driven organizations actively engaged in the field.

The IRA, coupled with the BIL infrastructure law, represents significant investment in these targeted areas, aiming to enhance the nation’s infrastructure and transportation networks. Initiatives such as modernized home electrification, rebates, and grants/loans for zero emission technology, empower lower income households to invest in public safety and escape unhealthy living conditions.

Consumers also stand to benefit from incentives including tax rebates on energy-efficient appliances, home improvement, and electric vehicles. To ensure effective allocation of funds in line with the U.S. climate goals, the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators propose three strategies: green banks, creating agency guidance and requirements, and creating funding streams for state funding matches.

An estimated $30 billion from the IRA is to be allocated to state and local governments and nonprofit entities, or Green Banks, intended to accelerate the transition to clean energy and fight climate change. Moreover, the opportunity to have IRA and IIJA funds matched by state governments creates greater opportunity for the much needed investments for increased infrastructure in communities requiring immediate attention.

 

Analyzing potential benefits, Rewiring America provides insights into the positive outcomes of Bringing Infrastructure Home. Properly distributing and implementing funds within communities will help lower energy costs and expenses related to upgrades, not to mention. The findings suggest major benefits to indoor and outdoor air quality for low-income households just by updating home electrification. Furthermore, a modernized electrification system will save low-income households close to $500 annually, decreasing their percentage of rent burden; however, these numbers are only realized if community revitalization is prioritized.

How Will We Know It’s Working?

As previously mentioned, since its passage, the IRA has already proved valuable in achieving specific climate goals set by President Biden; however, to what extent has that included disinvested, marginalized communities? And do they know what’s happening?

Here’s what was promised …

• Incentivize clean energy
• Increase nationwide energy efficiency
• Increase access and affordability of electric vehicles
• Create more jobs
• Advance clean air and transportation
• Lower healthcare costs

At this rate, domestic carbon emissions are expected to experience a 40 percent reduction by 2030. Noteworthy is the surge in planned manufacturing sites that will promote and support the development and use of renewable energy sources such as battery and electric vehicle manufacturing sites and wind and solar manufacturing sites. Furthermore, we have also seen an increase in planned green banks across the country to make the transition to clean energy more widespread and as previously mentioned, numerous jobs have been created and wages raised, contributing to the economic mobility of many families across the country.

What we’ll need to know, however, is if there is an increase in jobs and economic growth in the most disadvantaged communities. Do low-income, traditionally low-resources Black and Brown communities even aware that they’re able to participate in this massive transition taking place?

This climate legislation was diligently crafted in the application process in that it allows cities to seek funding independently if the state government refuses. To avoid a blocking of these initiatives where Republican-run states refused funds, as seen with the Affordable Care Act, the IRA extends the offer to the three largest cities in the state. For instance, Florida, South Dakota, Iowa, and Kentucky have all refused funds from the IRA, but cities such as Iowa City, Rapid City, and Louisville are attempting to take full advantage of these funds.

While it is still a bit too early to determine the effectiveness of the place-based incentives a discernible trend is emerging. We can track that many of the deployed IRA investments have been distributed to low-income communities due to place-based bonuses offered in the IRA. These bonuses are targeted for investments in low income high unemployment areas to ensure the most promising regions for growth are invested. As more funds are disbursed and data accrues, the optimistic anticipation of success continues to grow. Still, we need to keep asking and assessing if those populations know about these funds and that they’re circulating on their behalf. It’s not clear that they do. That also poses a problem for policymakers as they’ll need a combination of community input and partnership.

 

 

By Lila Brown | California Black Media
Recent studies suggest that the economic picture for Black Californians is not looking rosy.

Increasingly, the state is becoming more unaffordable for African Americans, leading many families to relocate to less expensive places both within and outside of the borders of the Golden state.

“After pandemic-era declines, California’s poverty rate is on the rise. Expansions to safety net programs during the pandemic reduced poverty substantially, but these expansions had mostly expired by the end of 2022,” reads a report published by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) on October 24.

For Black Californians, the poverty rate at 13.6% is more than double the percentage of African Americans living in California, which currently stands at about 5.8% of the state’s population of nearly 40 million.

“While economic growth throughout 2022 countered some of these program losses — by boosting family resources from work — the state’s overall poverty rate increased from 11.7% in fall 2021 to 13.2% in early 2023,” the PPIC report continued.

The unemployment numbers for Black Californians also remain high – and continue to climb.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the unemployment rate for Black Californians stands at 7.4%, which is higher than the 4.5% unemployment rate for all racial groups in the state for Q2 2023.

This is also higher than the national rate of 5.8%.

In California, the Black-White unemployment rate ratio is at 1.9 to 1.

The national Black-White unemployment ratio remained at 2-to-1 in the second quarter of 2023, maintaining the historic trend of Black workers being twice as likely to be unemployed as White workers. There’s nowhere in the country where the unemployment numbers for Black and White workers are equal.

For September, the California Employment Development Department (EDD) reported that unemployment is on the rise. The state’s unemployment rate crept up to 4.7%, an increase of 144,000 people. It is the second highest unemployment rate of any state. The labor force – Californians working or looking for work – also shrank.

Between 2021 to 2022, the overall poverty rate in California rose from 11.0% to 16.4%. This increase can be linked to the high costs of living, inflation, and the end of pandemic-era supports, such as the expanded federal Child Tax Credit and other welfare benefits. While financial assistance cut the poverty rate for Black Californians by three-quarters to 9.5% in 2021, it lessened poverty for Black Californians by well under half the following year, contributing to a near doubling of their poverty rate to 18.6%.

The California Budget Center checking the pulse of households from US Census data showed that more than half (54%) of Black Californians reported facing difficulty paying for essential needs like food and housing.

Los Angeles County (15.5%) and San Diego County (15.0%) had the highest poverty rates. The Central Valley and Sierra region had the lowest (10.7%), largely due to lower housing costs.

In China last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom highlighted the strength of California’s economy, the fifth largest in the world, and President Joe Biden released his Bidenomics report in June highlighting the achievements of his Invest in America plan.

The White House reports that under the Biden-Harris Administration, Black Americans have experienced their lowest unemployment rate on record and the highest employment rate since November 2000. The participation of Black workers in the labor force has also reached its highest level since August 2008. There has been reduction in the Black child poverty rate by greater than 12%, impacting over 200,000 children, through the Thrifty Food Plan.

Most reports point to signs that the nation is currently at pre-pandemic levels and California has recovered its pandemic-induced job losses in June 2022, according to the latest California Labor Market Review released in August. However, those numbers indicating the state economy is strong and stabilizing contrast with the harsh realities confronting many Black Californians struggling every day to make ends meet.

A study by the Urban Institute released in September shines light on the complex challenges Black Californians face as more of them make the decision to relocate to less expensive areas in the state, mostly driven by a combination of economic factors like housing unaffordability, rolling layoffs, rising inflation, an increase in renter evictions and stagnant salaries.

The report indicates that, “Over the last decade, several factors have contributed to many Black residents relocating from urban epicenters to the suburbs of metropolitan areas and to smaller, less dense, less populous cities.”

“This has been the reality of many Black Californians: as the Black populations of San Francisco and Alameda counties drop, those of Contra Costa and Sacramento rise. As Los Angeles sees its share of Black residents decline, neighboring Riverside and San Bernardino shares increase,” that report further highlights.

Lisa D. Cook, Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, says unemployment lies at the root of all America’s social problems and pushing for maximum employment for all Americans is the solution to minimizing poverty. Cook made the point while accepting the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies’ Louis E. Martin Award on Oct. 18 in Washington, D.C.

“Maximum employment boosts long-run economic potential. It means that a vital resource is being used productively. A strong labor market increases labor force participation and the willingness of firms to recruit and upgrade the skills of workers,” cook stated. She explained that the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, also known as the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, set economic priorities for the federal government centered on promoting good-paying jobs for all Americans.

“Maximum employment also promotes business investment that boosts productivity and long-run economic potential. And the full participation of all segments of society should be expected to result in more ideas, including more diverse ideas, more invention, and more innovation,” Cook concluded.