On Thursday February 4, the Senate held hearings on the potential merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. During the hearings Senator Al Franken warned that we should be nervous about the companies that own our media and we should be particularly nervous when one company owns both the means to produce programs and the pipes that deliver those same programs. Senator Franken later went on to detail his dealings with Comcast CEO Brian Roberts on the merger, depicting either extreme dishonesty or incompetence.

In a Youtube video of the senate hearing Franken explains:

"

On Monday people across the city remembered the eight-seven souls that died in this last year either living on the streets or in shelters. Eighty-seven people! This is a dramatic rise from the previous year and it is shameful. It is shameful of the Nutter administration, which has closed our homeless cafes, which are the last refuge for those of us without homes in times of unbearable bone-chilling weather. It is shameful of the federal government, which in a time of economic crisis chooses to bail out banks and looks the other way when it comes to dire LIFE AND DEATH services for people that are struggling to survive. And most of all, it is a shame on our free market system, which allows companies like AIG to prosper, giving away absurd amounts of money in bonuses--money that would make sizable dents in the deficit this city is trying to bridge. It is a shame on an economic system that is responsible for epic failures, yet still fights with armies of suited lobbyists--against health care reform and for a deregulated banking system--so the precious few can accumulate dollar upon dollar, while more and more of us are struggling to survive, and many of us are not surviving at all.

The "End of Poverty?" is a documentary years in the making. Produced by Cinema Libre Studios, this has been called "An Inconvenient Truth" on the reality of global - and local - poverty. Philadelphians needs to see this film, produced by and featuring an array of progressive thinkers, writers and activists from all over the globe.

To quote from the web page for the film:

Renowned actor and activist, Martin Sheen, narrates The End of Poverty?, a feature-length documentary directed by award-winning director, Philippe Diaz, which explains how today's financial crisis is a direct consequence of these unchallenged policies that have lasted centuries. Consider that 20% of the planet's population uses 80% of its resources and consumes 30% more than the planet can regenerate. At this rate, to maintain our lifestyle means more and more people will sink below the poverty line.

From The Daily News
The Internet for Everyone
By Todd Wolfson of Media Mobilizing Project and Hannah Sassaman of the Digital Justice Coalition

PHILADELPHIA is lining up for a race with a big prize - tens of millions in stimulus money to expand Internet access. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has authorized $7.2 billion for broadband programs, with everything from tricking out community centers with high-speed lines to mapping broadband availability already on the table as fundable programs.

Ben Waxman has an article today about the Mayor's Office of Community Services that I would encourage everyone to check out.

PRESIDENT LYNDON Johnson's notion of a "Great Society" was embodied by his 1964 speech that declared the "War on Poverty."

That war was abandoned long ago, but a legacy lives on in City Hall in the Mayor's Office of Community Services (MOCS).

MOCS is expecting a huge influx of new money into its $12 million budget, set to come from President Obama's recovery act. It could receive up to $6 million for local agencies charged with fighting poverty.

But, according to an "It's Our Money" analysis, more than $1 million of the agency's current budget is being spent on salaries in other departments. And very little data is being collected to ensure that those being served by MOCS-financed programs are actually in poverty.

MOCS is supposed to be the city's primary anti-poverty agency. It's mostly funded through a program called the Community Services Block Grant.

The MOCS is in theory supposed to be the poverty fighting agency of the the Mayor' office. But it seems to be somewhat of a dud. While good people work there and everything, the article points out that much of money that should go to the office is is simply funneled elsewhere, to places such as the Rec Department. And, because it often times simply funds departmental salaries, the impact of office is often times unclear. (And of course, the reality is that funding someone at the Rec Department in many neighborhoods in Philly means you are serving an overwhelming majority of poor people.)

I don't particularly know what goes on in City Hall, but, when I talk to people who have been inside the City, including people from that office specifically, the MOCS is frequently brought up as one of the last patronage-type offices that the Mayor controls. The article hints at that here:

Until last year, federal block grant dollars were being used to partially fund the Mayor's Action Center, which was responsible for answering information requests about city government and services. State officials responsible for oversight raised concerns because the majority of people being served by the Mayor's Action Center were not poor.

"It was our impression that the last administration was using funds to essentially answer phones for people who were complaining about city government," said Ken Klothen, who served as deputy secretary for community affairs at the Department of Community Economic Development before resigning in May. "We didn't think that all of that activity was sufficiently related to Community Services Block Grant goals. We viewed it as casting too broad a net."

I am going to guess that the people on the other end of the line were probably not your every day, unconnected people. It is good to see that that piece of the office appears to have ended. And the Mayor has also acknowledged that the office isn't really doing what it is supposed to do. That is a good start. But after 1.5 years in office, it is time to get past talk, and see real, concentrated reforms.

People's Emergency Center had a forum yesterday (see attached) on homeless youth in Philly and Jennifer Lin, who is one of the only reporters covering this topic over the last couple of years, did a write up.

It doesn't sound like there is much 'news' here. It is the same story for the hundreds of kids in city shelters and thousands who are homeless everyday.

As an outreach worker seeing homeless children, and hearing stories of Office of Supportive Housing case workers suggesting parents give up their children in order to get shelter, was definitely the hardest part of the job.

Media Mobilizing Project is beginning the initiative "Community Journalism in Times of Economic Crisis." The initiative is a response to both the economic crisis, which is hitting Philadelphians hard, and the growing problems with the for-profit journalism model, which is making it difficult for local newspapers to cover stories about the struggles of everyday Philadelphians. The goal of this project is to report on and collect the real stories of Philadelphia and beyond on MMP's community blog, so we can begin to get a picture of the economic crisis from the ground up. Here is a copy of our latest newsletter: The Human Right to Healthcare: Northeastern Hospital is Groundzero . SIGN UP to receive future newsletters!

This is pretty incredible:

In the tight rowhouse streets of North Philadelphia, people share walls and worries.

Few outsiders see, know or feel the cycle of want and chaos that a week of privation creates.

To show what life north of Spring Garden Street looks like to some of the people who live there, Mariana Chilton, a professor and anthropologist at Drexel University's School of Public Health, gave digital cameras to 40 women.

Out of a simple idea, complex images and narratives emerge. An exhibit of the photos, called Witnesses to Hunger, will open to the public Dec. 11 at Drexel's Bossone Center.

I'm learning now that of the 11 branches they want to close, about half of them are in economically depressed parts of the city. They include:

Durham, Eastwick, Fishtown, Fumo, Haddington, Holmesburg, Kingsessing, Logan, Ogontz, Queen Memorial, and Wadsworth

I'm hearing this from a librarian who says that even though this information probably isn't supposed to be public yet -- she wants the city to know what these budget cuts are doing to their communities.

Philadelphia has spent a lot of money to attract people like my unnamed librarian friend to this city. She came here to study at one of the best Library Science schools in the nation -- Drexel -- and stayed for years after earning her degree, waiting for a position in one of the cities' libraries.

Watch Democracy Now!'s interview with Cheri Honkala, National Organizer with the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign and Executive Director of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, and footage of their march organized outside the Xcel Energy Center. Also see the IMC video report.

RELATED: Al Jazeera video on KWRU II Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign and their updated blog II DN!'s Amy Goodman, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar Released After Illegal Arrest at RNC

In another thread Sean a.k.a MrLuigi wrote:

“"Poverty" is kind of too vague a word for the multiple layers of social dysfunction that plague our city and feed into the cycle of violence. If it were simply "poverty" you could just write everyone a big check and they would stop shooting at each other over petty beefs. The young men shooting each other in this city are almost never killing each other because they literally can't afford to eat. Its a way more nefarious web of broken family structures, broken schools, chronic unemployment, drug enforcement that says "its OK to push this illicit economy into those kinds of neighborhoods, and culture of misplaced bravado and shallow materialism. If we dump everything into the word "poverty" without being more specific, its no longer targeted enough to do much good terms of figuring out the "how" of urban violence. Its not just lack of dollars that makes Philly's mean streets mean, its a very particular system of failure of the social fabric. That said there are million and one things we can do to direct people away from crime and the underground activity before they feel that their only choice. There are a million and two things to make sure they have other options once they do get caught up in it and, as eventually happens, they get busted.”

Sean, I may be reading you wrong but I find the distinction you draw between poverty and “social dysfunction” a bit too elegant.

Last week the Inquirer posted a powerful story about the struggles of the region’s working poor. Their particularly compelling case of Sandra Walerski and her family, who shops on $25-45/ week, drew a follow up in yesterday’s paper as dozens of people nationwide offered contributions to the family, including a surgeon who offered to consult Ms. Walerski about a brain tumor, Delaware County Community College officials who were considering an academic scholarship for the Walerski’s 20 year old son, and even a mention by John McCain.

It goes to show that people are extremely generous and compassionate about poverty; they want the situation addressed. They’re even willing to give up their own money to do it. The only problem is there are 300,000 some Sandra Walerskis in Philadelphia alone. This is not a problem for individuals to tackle but a deep-rooted problem for our city and region.

On Wednesday, members of One Philadelphia went to City Council to talk about a real program to provide relief to struggling families – revive the Cohen tax credit currently targeted for elimination by the City. They took a beating for it, but their argument stands: poverty is growing in Philadelphia and families need and deserve help.

The Cohen tax credit is a cornerstone in tackling poverty in our neighborhoods. Consider the argument made by Jonathan Stein in yesterday’s Daily News:

The rebate would make the 80-year-old regressive wage tax more equitable by helping struggling and working families just like the successful programs it's modeled on: the federal Earned Income Tax Credit and state Tax Back program. It was one of the greatest progressive reforms in City Council history. Cohen was proud of Council, including one of the co-sponsors of the rebate, then-Councilman Nutter. From on high, Cohen likely applauded the new mayor's inaugural promise of a "new Philadelphia" committed to "moving hundreds of thousands out of poverty and on to a better life."

The rebate would do that by putting money directly to families making less than twice of the poverty line - about $35,000 a year for a family of three.
The Pathways PA "self-sufficiency standard" says such a family needs $44,000 a year to make ends meet - no vacations, no car, no eating out, just basics.

A three-person family earning $25,500 a year, qualifying for a full state Tax Back refund, still pays $950 in city wage taxes.

Of the 300,000 working poor in Philadelphia, an overwhelming number are families in our public schools. If the figure that over 35% of Philadelphia’s children live in poverty doesn't humble you enough, consider that the majority of schools in Philadelphia have poverty rates in the 90th percentiles.

We know firsthand the consequences of poverty in our schools. We know the ways that our children suffer from poverty at home: when the utilities are shut off, is homework really a possibility? When a single mother is working two jobs and affordable daycare is out of reach, who’s coming to the parent teacher conference? When immigrant children are packed two or three families to a household, do we really expect someone to complete a science project on time? Last Christmas, my daughter’s own classmate was suddenly rendered homeless, and it made me realize how little a priority school can be.

We still need to keep the pressure on about the many reasons why the Cohen tax credit remains important. It has its ledger costs, yes, of course, but let's make no mistake that its elimination is something we’ll be paying for many times over.

Today’s Inquirer features a story on one of the 300,000 estimated working poor who live in Philadelphia.

There are perhaps 300,000 such people (including children) in Philadelphia and about 686,000 in the 10-county region, according to Bill Clark, executive director of Philabundance, which he described as the largest hunger-relief agency in the area.

Nationally, there are roughly 52 million working poor people, says David Elesh, a sociology professor at Temple University. "And," he adds, "it's getting worse each day because of this recession."

Federal guidelines set the poverty level for a family of four at $21,200. To be considered working poor, such a family could make as much as $42,400 annually.

When Asian Americans United joined the numerous supporters of David Cohen’s Working Tax Credit, we had to overcome the stereotype of people asking why the “model minority” would care. But in many Asian and immigrant communities, a huge population would easily be considered working poor. In a Chinatown Needs Assessment Survey conducted by AAU, 70 percent of respondents said they worked 10 to 12 hours per day, six to seven day a week and earned less than $2,000 a month.

While homelessness is often made visible by people living on the street, numerous immigrant families may also qualify as “homeless” if you consider the overcrowded households because people can’t afford their own homes and double or triple up with relatives.

One Philadelphia, Community Legal Services, Philadelphia Unemployment Project, and many others have made a push on the issue. But it could use a lot more help. You can help revive the importance of the Cohen Working Tax Credit by also writing a letter to the editor to the Inquirer on the issue: letters.inquirer@phillynews.com.

As sad as I am that Irv lost last May, I am proportionately that happy that Maria is in City Council advocating for her district and all the people in this city who keep being left behind as this city's rising tide lifts only some boats.

City Council signaled yesterday that Mayor Nutter would have a difficult time deep-sixing already approved wage-tax cuts for the working poor to help pay for his proposed business-tax cuts.

At least five Council members said in a budget hearing yesterday that they flat-out opposed or were deeply skeptical of calls to eliminate the so-called David Cohen tax credit, which was championed by the former city councilman, who died two years ago.

"With an acknowledged rate of 25 percent of our citizens in poverty, I'm not satisfied that we're presenting a budget where we are more aggressive on our business-tax cuts," said Councilwoman Maria Quiñones Sanchez.

So far, the budget is good in many ways, and generally restrained. But that doesn't mean that criticism should be muted if it is due. Stan has been prescient on this:

Cohen's low-income tax credit isn't slated to go into effect until 2013, and its impact on the city's current five-year plan - the subject of yesterday's hearing - is minimal. But after the tax credit has been phased in, it will cost the city about $80.8 million in 2016, and the annual cost will continue to go up.

"It starts to take off and become a very sizable cost," said Steve Agostini, the Nutter administration's budget director. "You know, if folks want to . . . debate that, that's entirely legitimate, but we just want them to understand there's a price tag associated with it."

The administration's view is that its broader plan for wage-tax relief will benefit lower-income residents, in addition to other taxpayers. The city's wage tax was at 4.96 percent when the Cohen tax credit was adopted. Scheduled reductions to the tax rate and statewide casino revenue are expected to lower that rate to 3.11 percent by 2013.

Council members asked whether it would be possible to slow the city's scheduled wage-tax reduction rate in order to fund the tax credit for the working poor. Nutter's representatives acknowledged that was possible.

And I think priorities are a valid subject for debate and criticism.

Ramsey's 21-page crime plan is, 10 or so pages of filler aside, a steady and sober one. It completely skirts the most troubling parts of Mayor Nutter's campaign rhetoric. Sure, like a bunch of us have observed, it's all in the implementation. But if they can implement this basic return to high visibility, community-based policing, the city will be much better off.

I like when Chief Ramsey says that the changes he is making are sustainable, that it's not Safe Streets and Safer Streets and the Return of Safe Streets--short-term infusions of money that get eaten up in overtime and then are gone.

But I really hope that 'high visibility' 'community-based' policing is not code for bringing misguided 'broken windows'-style policing to Philadelphia.

That would add more victims--and deep costs--to the battle against crime and neighborhood decay.

The Inquirer this morning has an article that claims the crime plan is about just that, those broken windows: "Small arrests aim for major impact."

The new commissioner aims to drive violent crime down 20 percent this year by focusing on fundamentals - shifting more officers from special units to basic patrol. A key tactic of the plan is to focus on quality-of-life issues - such as public intoxication, loitering and gambling - that sometimes escalate into violent crimes or drive law-abiding residents to move elsewhere.

This is a startling leap: is it really 'gambling' that is driving people out of their deeply-scarred neighborhoods? Is there a causal link between cracking down on public intoxication and stopping shootings, rapes, and violent assaults?

The real question the article raises is, will our violent crime problem be fixed one $10 marijuana bust at a time?

As [Officer] Schoch patrolled the neighborhood, he looked for unusual behavior or groups on corners.

"Any time there's a large group of people, you have the potential for victims," he said. He was also on the lookout for pizza deliverers, who have been targets of recent robberies.

About an hour after he hit the road, driving east on Godfrey Avenue near Mascher Street while listening to the police radio and carrying on a conversation, Schoch jerked his head to the left. In seconds, he wheeled his car into a U-turn to intercept the drug transaction. The time was about 5:40.

"Come here," Schoch ordered the first man, who made a quick move away from the officer and tossed a wadded tissue under a parked car. Schoch forced him against his car. He told him to relax and extend his arms behind him for the handcuffs. The suspect, Ivory Jackson, 48, was still clutching a few dollars in his fist.

"I don't want to go through this again," said a bewildered Jackson, who wore a knit cap and an oversize coat.

After Schoch put the suspect into the back of the squad car, he explained what he had witnessed.

"Everything happens with your hands - a narcotics deal, a weapon. I couldn't even tell you what his face looks like. You watch the hands."

It's a small deal, a 1-gram bag of marijuana worth $10. A "dime bag" in the vernacular.

One of the two guys turns out to have a fraud warrant out on him, and they both get taken in and booked. The article is blase about whether or not this is productive or a waste of resources:

Some officers say the effort invested in making a case like this - Schoch and Leva spent two hours processing paperwork and evidence - removes officers from the street to hunt for worse offenders.

But Schoch said such arrests sent a strong message of intolerance for all crime. And it's impossible to say, until the arrest is made, when a minor stop might yield a bigger fish - somebody with a warrant for a violent crime, or somebody carrying an illegal weapon.

Sometimes these small arrests lead to information about bigger crimes, Schoch added.

"Some cops tell me I'm wasting my time with these arrests," he said. "I say I wouldn't want that stuff going on in my neighborhood."

Someone, explain to me what we get from an arrest like this?

The jury is somewhat out on the exact mechanics of the alleged deterrent effects of this "order-maintenance" or "broken windows" policing. I am happy to fight it out in the comments. But the costs of this policing are clear. A Temple study found that 88% percent of inmates in the city prison system are there for nonviolent, low-level offenses. We are under court order to get people out of the prisons who don't need to be there. The collateral costs of incarceration have been catalogued again and again: difficulty finding jobs, loss of resources in families and communities. Our new mayor and concilpeople like Wilson Goode have recognized the need to target reentry and probation to help get people out of the system, into jobs, and away from crime.

We don't need a crime plan that will throw a bunch more people into jail who don't really need to be there. Let's hope the article just shows irresponsible journalism, not policing.