[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11677-11678]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     AMERICAN ECONOMIC DISPARITIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis) for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Whenever I hear a Member of Congress proposing austerity as a fix for 
any or all of our Nation's economic problems, whether the problems are 
real or perceived, my first reaction is ``austerity for who?''
  The fact is that in recent years we've been condemning more and more 
Americans to austerity then ever before while at the same time we 
continue to hand out tax breaks and fat government contracts for the 
wealthiest Americans, and the largest and wealthiest corporations. 
After getting bailed out, the profits at the largest financial 
institutions have recovered and then some--bonuses for their CEOs have 
recovered, and then some, but this Congress refuses to ask those 
institutions and those CEOs, and others like them, to give back just a 
little.
  The latest census data dramatically shows how after African Americans 
had made significant gains in the 1950s and '60s, progress began to 
stall in the 1970s. Four decades after the civil rights movement, 
blacks still earn only 57 cents and Latinos earn 59 cents for each $1 
of white median family income in our country. The contrast is even 
starker for net worth. That is, the total value of investments, 
savings, homes, and other property, minus debt. Blacks hold only 10 
cents of net wealth and Latinos 12 cents for every $1 that whites hold.
  Out of the 43.6 million Americans living below the poverty threshold, 
9.9 million of those are African Americans. Meanwhile, the latest 
unemployment rates are, to say the least, grim. Overall, African 
American unemployment, 16.2 percent; African American men, 17 percent; 
black teenagers, about 40 percent--and this Congress can't find the 
votes to extend unemployment insurance. I say that our policies must 
reflect the needs of those who are most vulnerable. We must provide 
opportunity for the needy and not just the greedy.
  When I see that the median annual Social Security benefit for a 65-
year-old single African American woman is $10,680 which puts the median 
benefit for African American woman seniors just above the 2010 poverty 
line for individual seniors, an obscenely low $10,458. And when I 
couple that with the knowledge that nearly half--45.6 percent--of non-
married African American women aged 65 older rely on Social Security 
for all of their income and 54.1 percent rely on it for 90 percent of 
their income or more. And, worst of all when I recall that non-married 
African American women seniors already suffer from high rates of 
poverty and near-poverty, nearly half--47.8 percent--of African 
American women living alone have an income under 125 percent of 
poverty, and one-third--33 percent--have income below 100 percent of 
the poverty line . . .
  Well, I just have to say to those who are talking of reducing Social 
Security benefits, or the annual Social Security COLAs, or raising the 
age for collecting Social Security ``austerity for who?''
  When I pick up the paper every morning and have to read over and over 
that home

[[Page 11678]]

foreclosures were two-and-a-half times above the 2001 rate by the end 
of 2010 and that some 3.7 million homes are in danger of foreclosure 
and this Congress, instead of addressing the epidemics of unemployment 
and foreclosure, plays politics with raising the debt ceiling;
  I can't help but remember that, for all the hubbub about the size of 
government and Federal spending, the Bush tax cuts increased the 
deficit by $1.7 trillion between 2001 and 2008 and the two wars begun 
by President Bush added another $1 trillion to the deficit and Bush 
Administration's policy of deregulation of the financial markets led 
ultimately to the bursting of the housing bubble which triggered the 
Great Recession which not only sapped our federal budget, but have 
decimated state and local budgets in every corner of the nation. I have 
to demand of those risking default and tipping the nation into 
depression ``austerity for who?''
  I have to wonder why we aren't talking about the fact that since the 
recession officially ended in June 2009, private payrolls have 
increased by more than 1 million workers, still nowhere close to 
putting 14 million Americans back to work, but State and local 
government payrolls for teachers, fire-fighters, police officers, 
public health workers and other critical services have declined by 
493,000--cutting the number of jobs created almost in half while the 
loss of those good jobs reverberate throughout the local economies. My 
obvious question is ``austerity for who?''
  I wonder if some Members of Congress just don't know that Medicaid 
covered half of all Black children in the United States and nearly two-
thirds (64%) of low-income Black children. Medicaid covers over a third 
(35%) of African Americans in fair or poor health and 59% of African 
Americans living with HIV/AIDS. Shouldn't we expect and require of 
those who are proposing to slash Medicaid an answer to: ``austerity for 
who?''
  I am just as concerned about balancing the Federal budget as any 
Member of this Congress, but there are a lot of ways to do that. The 
Peoples' Budget proposed by the Progressive Caucus would get us to a 
balanced budget and would put us on the road to paying down the debt 
and lay the foundation for a healthy, sustainable and just economy.
  I've reached the conclusion that we do need a Constitutional 
Amendment, not a Balanced Budget Amendment, but one that would require 
Members of Congress who glibly propose austerity as a quick and dirty 
solution to every challenge which comes over the horizon to explain to 
the American People, truthfully and fully, in each and every case, 
``austerity for who?''

                          ____________________