Author: The Opportunity Agenda

Criticized that the new immigration law would lead to racial profiling, the Arizona state legislature moved to change some of the laws phrasing, as reported by Andrea Nill over at Think Progress’ Wonk Room.

One of those changes replaces the phrase “lawful contact” with “lawful     stop, detention or arrest” to “apparently clarify that officers don’t need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.” However, the legislature also implemented a third change that some call     “frightening.” As part of the amended bill, a police officer responding     to city ordinance violations would also be required to determine the immigration status of an individual they have reasonable suspicion of     being an undocumented immigrant.

What this ends up doing, however, is just expanding the net of whom can be interrogated. In an e-mail obtained by The Wonk Room written by a group responsible for writing the bill:

“This will allow police to use violations of property codes (i.e. cars on blocks     in the yard) or rental codes (too many occupants of a rental accommodation) to initiate queries as well.

Nuestra Voice points out the hypocrisy of celebrating Cinco de Mayo, and celebrating many Latino traditions and celebrities, while vilifying so many others.

“A sore spot among Latinos has long been that America accepts our cultural best while openly vilifying us in general. Salsa has long replaced ketchup as our country’s favorite condiment. Americans have adopted Cesar salads to the extent that most don’t even know it is a Mexican creation. Suburbanites love the hard work ethic that is embedded in our cultural DNA and that they so readily hire. Tierra, Shakira, Ricky Martin, Eve Longoria, Raquel Welch, Vicky Carr are loved. The man that fixes fences, the trust worthy woman who creates safety and care for children, the boy that bags groceries are sought after. The voter that preserves balance and the politician that consistently votes for education are courted. All of these people are admired…. when needed.”

Now to do something we usually can’t in this space, let’s turn to sports.

Major League Baseball Player’s Association is speaking out against the new Arizona law. Their Executive Director, Michael Weiner said this:

A player “must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his migration status,” said Weiner. “This law also may affect players who are U.S. citizens but are suspected by law enforcement of being of foreign descent.”

There is a movement to move next year’s baseball All-Star game from Phoenix, including from Congressman, Jose E. Serrano. Some players and managers have aid they would not participate in the game if held there.

And the Phoenix Suns, whose jerseys said Los Suns last night as part of a political statement against the state’s new immigration law, won their playoff game. Los Suns beat the San Antonio Spurs, 110-102.

Finally, The Opportunity Agenda held an event in New York recently, Immigration: Arts, Culture, & Media 2010. A panel of notable artists and activists took the stage to discuss the role that the arts can and do play in addressing the topic of immigration in America.

To see photos, hear audio from the event, and to continue the conversation—visit here.

While it would be unwise for any politician to govern by focus group, a recent New York Times/CBS News poll offers some support and some clear suggestions for future action for the White House.  The poll, which was conducted in early February 2010, had 1,084 respondents – certainly a small group to be determining policy for 308 million Americans – but the results do resonate. 

Among the responses: 62 percent believe that the president is trying to work with Congressional Republicans (but not the other way around); 60 percent believe that the president understands their problems; 62 percent support the president’s proposal to end tax cuts on the wealthy; and 60 percent believe that the president understand the needs and problems of people like themselves.  These results imply that a majority of Americans might be likely “persuadables” regarding elements of the president’s agenda.

However, the results do not reflect unalloyed support for the president’s efforts thus far: 53 percent believe that the president has not offered reasonable solutions to the economic problems they or their family are facing; 52 percent believe that the president has spent too little time trying to fix the economy and create jobs; and 56 percent believe that the president does not have a clear plan to create jobs.

Taken in conjunction with multiple polls demonstrating that the greatest concern for most Americans right now is jobs<sup>1</sup&gt,  the president has a clear directive to focus on jobs creation.  Furthermore, poll respondents certainly appear to be hungry for proposals they can believe in.  In a January 2010 survey<sup>2</sup&gt, most Americans indicated that government must have an active role in resolving the current economic crisis, but had doubts about the government’s ability to do so.  This suggests that if the president articulated a jobs creation plan that was responsive to doubts and appeared to have a reasonable, practical chance of success, it would go a long way to buoy American confidence in our economic future. 

Of particular note to those on both sides of the political aisle, poll results indicate that 75% of Americans are dissatisfied with Congress and 81% believe that we should elect “new people.” This suggests that the status quo in American politics is not working.

Although some of these poll results seem grim, there are positive take-aways.  A leader who could enunciate practical, workable solutions to the jobs crisis would be likely to avoid the current dissatisfaction with politicians.  However, given the current American political fatigue, those solutions would have to be transformative and workable.  Proposals that reflect a 2010 global economy, that lift us all up together, and that reflect a nuanced understanding of current conditions would be both.

1. http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-times-cbs-news-poll#document/p4; http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.aspx

2. Allstate/National Journal Heartland, Jan 2010

With or without government intervention? Public Opinion and Facts

Following a pro-longed debate over health care reform, a new legislative battle over financial regulation is under the way. What remains consistent in the public discourse and in Washington is the bone of contention: the role of government.

But what is it that we really argue about it? It could be many things such as the wellbeing of the people, the financial health of the country or America’s leading role in world politics. In the bigger picture, a lot of what we are arguing and fighting for are embodied in the idea of the American Dream, that "dream of a land in which life  should be better and richer and  fuller for every man, with opportunity  for each according to ability or  achievement" (James Truslow Adams).

The new and first State of the American Dream National Survey (Xavier University Institute for Politics and the American Dream) explores Americans’ perception and experience of the Dream today. "What is it exactly, who believes that, what aspirations and values are imagined for  this generation and the next?" According to the survey, most define the American Dream as opportunity freedom and family followed by financial security, wealth, a good job and home ownership (see chart below) with variations on opinions by race or immigrant story (1st and 2nd generation immigrants compared to all adults in the U.S.).

Non-whites and recent immigrants define the dream mostly in terms of "tangible markers of financial well-being or a means of attaining the same: opportunity, home ownership, a good job, or wealth itself." White adults "most often associate the Dream with freedom and financial security."

These somewhat different meanings that different groups assigned to the Dream might be the reason that non-whites and immigrants are more positive than whites about the American Dream. Its current state and legacy  are scoring low among Americans, but non-whites and immigrants are more positive than whites—the most pessimistic views come specifically by white women, particularly those between 40-64 yrs old, and residents of the Midwest. As FM3 observes in their analysis of the survey results, it is notable that "the part of our society that is still, by and large, worst off in terms of social or economic measurements, is also the same group that is most positive about the American Dream."

The current condition of the Dream scores a mediocre 4.5 in a 10-point scale. "Nearly half of Americans rated the Dream lower than a “5” with nearly a quarter assigning the lowest possible rating. In contrast only 5% awarded the highest possible mark." The legacy of the dream is also scoring low: 65% believe that "it has become harder to reach the American Dream than it was for their parents’ generation" and only one-third feel it is easier.  A large majority are also pessimistic for the future (68%) saying that "it will be harder still for their children to reach the Dream with a stunning 45% believing it will be much harder."

The state of the country vs. the state of the individual

Although the Xavier survey found this "this bleak view of the ‘macro’ state of the Dream", it also indicated that people have a more optimistic reading of it on an individual level.

The more optimistic look at one’s circumstances than the state of the country, or  perceptions of situations outside of oneself in general, are commonly  observed in the research. On the topic of hard work and opportunity, the Pew Economic Mobility  Survey (2009) shows that Americans, even in the midst of the  recession, continue to believe that they exercise at least some control  over their  own economic situation (74%). However, when they are asked  about the  economic situation of people other than themselves, they  think that  other Americans do not have such control (55%).

Hard work or circumstances will save the American Dream?

The same survey also shows that"most Americans believe hard work as opposed to luck or circumstances will lead to its achievement; and two-thirds are still at least fairly confident that they will reach the Dream even as they rate its condition mediocre or poor". Americans’ fiction on personal responsibility is not a new theme. For the past 40 years, public opinion researchers have been asking the following question: “In your opinion, which is generally more often to blame if a person is poor: lack of effort on their own part or circumstances beyond their control?” Americans have been evenly split on this question since 1998, but public opinion on this topic experienced significant fluctuations before that.

Trust in government at all-time low. Should government intervene? Can anyone help us?

According to a March Pew Survey, just 22% say they can trust the government in Washington almost always or most of the time, among the lowest measures in half a century. "About the same percentage (19%) says they are ‘basically content’ with the federal government, which is largely unchanged from 2006 and 2007, but lower than a decade ago".

"Opinions about elected officials are particularly poor. In a follow-up survey in early April, just 25% expressed a favorable opinion of Congress, which was virtually unchanged from March (26%), prior to passage of the health care reform bill. This is the lowest favorable rating for Congress in a quarter century of Pew Research Center surveys. Over the last year, favorable opinions of Congress have declined by half — from 50% to 25%.

Not surprising, Americans do not highly trust the government or their elected officials. But do they expect them and hope that they find solutions to their problems? Let’s talk about financial problems since the topic is at the top of the public’s agenda.

Most Americans think that government must have an active role in confronting today’s economic problem, although some question its efficacy. In a January 2010 survey (Allstate/National Journal Heartland, Jan 2010),  1 out of 3 say that they "would like to see government PLAY an ACTIVE ROLE in the economy to ensure it benefits people like them, but they are NOT SURE that they can trust government to do this effectively"; and another third of America (29%) think that "the government must play an active role in regulating the marketplace and ensuring that the economy benefits people" like them. Opposed to that idea are about a third of respondents (35%), who say that "the government is the problem not the solution to our economic problems."

However, a majority (62%) say that "it’s time  for government to take a larger and stronger role in making the economy  work for the average American."

Additionally:

   
• Direct, publicly funded job creation programs are supported by 71% of voters (Benenson Group, 2009)

   

• A majority (51%) believe government should take a more active role in order to provide increased oversight and regulation of private business (Lake Research 2009)

   

• 66% of voters support raising income taxes on the wealthy—individuals making $500,000 or more and households making $1 million or more (7 Bloomberg National Poll, Seltzer & Co., Dec. 3-7).

Finally, Americans see "government help as last resort" (Demos/Topos). Americans tend to think that "the objective of government intervention in the economy must be to assist those who are failing in the existing system, like the poor or those who are unable to work."

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

With or without government intervention? Public Opinion and Facts

Following a pro-longed debate over health care reform, a new legislative battle over financial regulation is under the way. What remains consistent in the public discourse and in Washington is the bone of contention: the role of government.

But what is it that we really argue about it? It could be many things such as the wellbeing of the people, the financial health of the country or America’s leading role in world politics. In the bigger picture, a lot of what we are arguing and fighting for are embodied in the idea of the American Dream, that "dream of a land in which life  should be better and richer and  fuller for every man, with opportunity  for each according to ability or  achievement" (James Truslow Adams).

The new and first State of the American Dream National Survey (Xavier University Institute for Politics and the American Dream) explores Americans’ perception and experience of the Dream today. "What is it exactly, who believes that, what aspirations and values are imagined for  this generation and the next?" According to the survey, most define the American Dream as opportunity freedom and family followed by financial security, wealth, a good job and home ownership (see chart below) with variations on opinions by race or immigrant story (1st and 2nd generation immigrants compared to all adults in the U.S.).

Non-whites and recent immigrants define the dream mostly in terms of "tangible markers of financial well-being or a means of attaining the same: opportunity, home ownership, a good job, or wealth itself." White adults "most often associate the Dream with freedom and financial security."

These somewhat different meanings that different groups assigned to the Dream might be the reason that non-whites and immigrants are more positive than whites about the American Dream. Its current state and legacy  are scoring low among Americans, but non-whites and immigrants are more positive than whites—the most pessimistic views come specifically by white women, particularly those between 40-64 yrs old, and residents of the Midwest. As FM3 observes in their analysis of the survey results, it is notable that "the part of our society that is still, by and large, worst off in terms of social or economic measurements, is also the same group that is most positive about the American Dream."

The current condition of the Dream scores a mediocre 4.5 in a 10-point scale. "Nearly half of Americans rated the Dream lower than a “5” with nearly a quarter assigning the lowest possible rating. In contrast only 5% awarded the highest possible mark." The legacy of the dream is also scoring low: 65% believe that "it has become harder to reach the American Dream than it was for their parents’ generation" and only one-third feel it is easier.  A large majority are also pessimistic for the future (68%) saying that "it will be harder still for their children to reach the Dream with a stunning 45% believing it will be much harder."

The state of the country vs. the state of the individual

Although the Xavier survey found this "this bleak view of the ‘macro’ state of the Dream", it also indicated that people have a more optimistic reading of it on an individual level.

The more optimistic look at one’s circumstances than the state of the country, or  perceptions of situations outside of oneself in general, are commonly  observed in the research. On the topic of hard work and opportunity, the Pew Economic Mobility  Survey (2009) shows that Americans, even in the midst of the  recession, continue to believe that they exercise at least some control  over their  own economic situation (74%). However, when they are asked  about the  economic situation of people other than themselves, they  think that  other Americans do not have such control (55%).

Hard work or circumstances will save the American Dream?

The same survey also shows that"most Americans believe hard work as opposed to luck or circumstances will lead to its achievement; and two-thirds are still at least fairly confident that they will reach the Dream even as they rate its condition mediocre or poor". Americans’ fiction on personal responsibility is not a new theme. For the past 40 years, public opinion researchers have been asking the following question: “In your opinion, which is generally more often to blame if a person is poor: lack of effort on their own part or circumstances beyond their control?” Americans have been evenly split on this question since 1998, but public opinion on this topic experienced significant fluctuations before that.

Trust in government at all-time low. Should government intervene? Can anyone help us?

According to a March Pew Survey, just 22% say they can trust the government in Washington almost always or most of the time, among the lowest measures in half a century. "About the same percentage (19%) says they are ‘basically content’ with the federal government, which is largely unchanged from 2006 and 2007, but lower than a decade ago".

"Opinions about elected officials are particularly poor. In a follow-up survey in early April, just 25% expressed a favorable opinion of Congress, which was virtually unchanged from March (26%), prior to passage of the health care reform bill. This is the lowest favorable rating for Congress in a quarter century of Pew Research Center surveys. Over the last year, favorable opinions of Congress have declined by half — from 50% to 25%.

Not surprising, Americans do not highly trust the government or their elected officials. But do they expect them and hope that they find solutions to their problems? Let’s talk about financial problems since the topic is at the top of the public’s agenda.

Most Americans think that government must have an active role in confronting today’s economic problem, although some question its efficacy. In a January 2010 survey (Allstate/National Journal Heartland, Jan 2010),  1 out of 3 say that they "would like to see government PLAY an ACTIVE ROLE in the economy to ensure it benefits people like them, but they are NOT SURE that they can trust government to do this effectively"; and another third of America (29%) think that "the government must play an active role in regulating the marketplace and ensuring that the economy benefits people" like them. Opposed to that idea are about a third of respondents (35%), who say that "the government is the problem not the solution to our economic problems."

However, a majority (62%) say that "it’s time  for government to take a larger and stronger role in making the economy  work for the average American."

Additionally:

   
• Direct, publicly funded job creation programs are supported by 71% of voters (Benenson Group, 2009)

   

• A majority (51%) believe government should take a more active role in order to provide increased oversight and regulation of private business (Lake Research 2009)

   

• 66% of voters support raising income taxes on the wealthy—individuals making $500,000 or more and households making $1 million or more (7 Bloomberg National Poll, Seltzer & Co., Dec. 3-7).

Finally, Americans see "government help as last resort" (Demos/Topos). Americans tend to think that "the objective of government intervention in the economy must be to assist those who are failing in the existing system, like the poor or those who are unable to work."

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Since its inception, America has been considered a land of opportunity for people around the world. The fabric of our nation is woven by the immigrant experience. And its colorful patchwork is a living witness to America’s success.

This is why Arizona’s new immigration law, S.B. 1070, is so wrong. The law is impractical, violates our values, and divides our communities. We need real
solutions that embrace fairness, equal treatment, and due process. Our immigration system is broken, but disregarding our values is not the answer to fixing it.

The Arizona State legislature recently passed a bill entitled, “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” (S.B. 1070),1 which, among other provisions:
-Requires police officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person whenever there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present and verify that status with the federal government;

-Gives police officers authority to conduct warrantless arrests of persons for whom the officer has probable cause to believe have committed any public offense that makes those persons deportable;

-Establishes a separate state offense, with attendant criminal penalties, for any person to violate provisions of the federal immigration law regarding registration and carrying registration documents–making it a state crime for a person to be an undocumented immigrant under federal law;

-Makes it a criminal offense to attempt to hire or pick up day laborers to work at a different location if the driver is impeding the normal flow of traffic, for a worker to get into a car if it is impeding traffic, or for an undocumented immigrant to solicit work (by a gesture or nod) in any public place;

-Mandates the impoundment of any vehicle used to transport, move, conceal, harbor, or shield an undocumented immigrant.

This law is racial profiling, pure and simple. And singling people out based only on
stereotyping isn’t just wrong, it’s also bad policing. Our communities need Congress to focus on workable solutions that uphold our values, and move us all forward together. Fixing our immigration system the right way is about what kind of country we want to be. This law certainly illustrates what we don’t want to become.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

For those of us trying desperately to wrap our heads around the Security and Exchange Commission’s allegations against Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street Journal’s recent article on the alleged fraud is a real boon.  The article is clear and concise (or at least as clear and concise as can be expected when a describing multi-stage transaction that involved more than 500,000 mortgages in 48 states), and, perhaps just as importantly, it frames the events in a way that recognizes that the economic collapse was a fundamentally human event—caused by human greed at the cost of human suffering, and leading to even greater human suffering.

According to the article, the allegations involve a massive bet, booked by Goldman Sachs and placed by hedge fund manager John Paulson, that would pay off if people across the country could not pay their mortgages.  He allegedly took a particular interest in adjustable rate subprime loans issued to people with poor credit scores, rightly believing that the people who had taken out these shady mortgages didn’t really understand how big their monthly payments would eventually become.  As we all now know, Mr. Paulson was all too right, and he profited to the tune of more than $1 billion as foreclosure rates shot up.
The Wall Street Journal does not explicitly question the stomach-turningly cynical notion at the core of the deal—believing that people had been fooled by unscrupulous lenders, the already obscenely wealthy Mr. Paulson looked for a big score rather than a way to help—but they do include the stories of several of the owners of these mortgages, including Gheorghe Bledea, a Romanian immigrant who spoke limited English and claims he was refused a more straightforward mortgage and lied to about the terms of the mortgage he did take, and Stella Onyeukwu, a nursing home assistant who took out a loan where the interest rate nearly doubled, jumping from 7.55% to 13.55% in its first two years.  People like Mr. Bledea and Ms. Onyeukwu are too often ignored in the conversation about toxic assets and collateralized debt obligations, but they are the heart and soul of the economic collapse.

Another choice that the Wall Street Journal makes in the article is to use the term “bet” in reference to Mr. Paulson’s transaction.  The term is an important one, because it brings the transaction, and the similar transactions that may be regulated by the financial reform bill currently being debated, into the world of regular people.  Most of us don’t understand derivatives and if or how they should be regulated, but we do understand that the Nevada Gaming Commission has a role in making sure that casinos don’t rip people off.  We’re happy that three-card monte games aren’t going on on city corners anymore, and, if we think about it for a minute, we wouldn’t want three-card monte rules being applied to our homes and personal savings.

Even if Goldman Sachs is found guilty, Mr. Bledea and Ms. Onyeukwu won’t get their houses back.  But, if we can redesign the rules and enforce them more rigorously, we may be able to ensure that next time people like Mr. Paulson won’t be able to put all their chips on human suffering and walk away a winner.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

As Americans, we’re a remarkably hopeful people.  A belief that, no matter where you start, you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps, work hard, and plant the posts of your picket fence, is fundamental to our identity.  But, while we do lack the rigid class constrictions of Western Europe, the truth is that upward economic mobility is fundamentally unattainable for most Americans today.  The road to real economic opportunity is a long one, but it starts with a reorganizing of our priorities.

To be sure, the economic downturn has set us back, forcing families across the country to retrench and further dimming many individuals’ prospects of finding a job that pays a living wage.  But, while it certainly hasn’t helped, the collapse of the American Dream was not caused by the events of fall 2008.  Rather, the events of fall 2008 were caused by the collapse of the American Dream.  As of 2006, the average income for the richest .01% of Americans was 976 times the average income of the bottom 90% of Americans.  This gap had been trending upward for more than three decades, reaching a peak that was higher than even the years immediately before the great depression.  This shouldn’t be surprising, though, considering that despite tremendous growth in stock market wealth and GDP, real average earnings in 2008 were lower than they had been 30 years prior.  The story that these figures tell, of an America in which a very small number of people have become very wealthy while the overwhelming majority have seen no appreciable increase in standard of living, is important to remember as we grapple with the overarching causes of the downturn.  This type of inequality runs directly counter to our values, and, as we’ve now seen, it is fundamentally unsustainable.

Invigorating economic mobility can happen at a policy level, but we must first lay the groundwork at a cultural level.  We can achieve this by shifting our focus towards indicators that measure the way people actually live their lives, such as underemployment, purchasing power, and real wage growth, and away from big picture indicators, such as the stock market and GDP growth.  We can also begin to think differently about our economic goals, such as moving towards setting a living wage, which ensures that working people have a decent standard of living, rather than a minimum wage, which merely sets a floor on how poorly people can be paid.  This type of reprioritization is not only crucial for reviving our belief in the American Dream, but it is also a prerequisite for creating a new foundation of prosperity that will not collapse under the weight of inequality again in the future.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

A new national poll released Friday shows that Americans are feeling more optimistic about the economy than they were in January 2010.  While this is good news, there is still work to be done.

Given the nearly-catastrophic downturn in the economy, most Americans would agree that regulation of the financial markets needs to change.  Unfortunately, a quick scan of the weekend’s “talking heads” shows reveals that the same tired partisan bickering and gamesmanship may derail the proposed financial reform legislation that may be debated in the Senate this week.  Neither party is blameless.  Conservatives are criticizing the proposed $50 billion fund to “close out” failing banks, while liberals are being accused of pushing ahead with the bill without sufficient negotiation with the opposition.

While several news outlets are reporting on the divisions over the issue, the coverage is not comprehensive.  It’s hard to argue with newsroom directors on this one – the story’s not intrinsically “sexy.”  However, Americans need to educate themselves on this issue.  It may have been necessary for David Gregory to ask Timothy Geithner to define “derivatives”<sup>1</sup&gt for his audience, but it was somewhat disheartening.  Shouldn’t people who are interested enough in politics and current events to watch Meet the Press know about the financial instruments that helped to sink the market?  It’s too easy for politicians to enter into negotiated settlements that serve no one’s interests if the people they represent fail to obtain the information they need to direct their representatives. 

I can remember President Clinton giving David Letterman a quick primer on derivatives and the sub-prime crisis during an appearance in October 2008<sup>2</sup&gt.  It was as cogent a backgrounder as I’ve ever seen on the economic mismanagement that created the downturn, and yet, Letterman said it made his head hurt.  Even discounting that as an attempt at humor, it’s hard to imagine a group of friends getting together and having a spirited debate on the need for a clearinghouse for derivatives over a pitcher of sangria.  But why not?  First of all, your friends might have some really interesting thoughts on regulation of our financial markets.  And I have a really good recipe for a white peach sangria.
—————————————————————-
1. “A derivative is a way to buy insurance against some risk or to bet on some financial outcome.”

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Low awareness of role of federal agencies and Tea Party fever
With examples from widespread frustration about tax day and the census, we can get an idea as to the confusion that many Americans have regarding the role of the government agencies and actions and their benefits and roles. According to a survey by Ipsos, 65% of American adults think that the government does not do an adequate job of communicating its agencies services and benefits.

When asked about particular agencies, respondents were more aware of these Federal agencies, but still unsure of their role and services. From the list of six agencies that the survey tested, the Federal Trade Commission was viewed least favorably as well as Americans being most confused over its role. However, once voters were exposed to more information about the agencies, they increasingly realized the daily influence of the agencies and viewed them more positively. These findings may yield good advice for the government. In increasing awareness about the impact of federal agencies and the benefits that they give to American citizens, support and satisfaction may increase.
Beyond being confused about the government’s impact on daily activities, with the rise and attention to the Tea-Party movement, there has been a focus on anti-government sentiment.

Tea- Party and the Government
In a poll published today (CBS/NYT), which aimed at identifying the views of the Tea-Party movement, 94% of Tea-Party supporters said they are dissatisfied or angry with the what is conspiring in D.C., 96% disapprove of how Congress is doing its job and over nine-in-ten would also prefer a smaller government.

Almost six-in-ten (56%) Tea Partiers say that Obama’s policies favor the poor, compared to 27% of the general American public. However, there are some Federal programs that gained support from Tea Partiers, particularly when they were beneficiaries of the service. Almost half of Tea-party supporters have someone in their household that received benefits from Medicare or Social Security. These supporters were more likely to have a positive view of these programs than their peers.

Tea-Party supporters are a largely homogenous crowd that does not demographically represent the spectrum of Americans. Tea-Partiers are majorly composed of white- older Christian men, and half of them consider themselves middle class. The members of movement, which rallied together by opposing the stimulus bill, were more likely to be retired (32%) compared to the general public (18%), and less likely to be temporarily out of work (6% v 15%). Tea-Partiers may be more firmly against government spending to fight unemployment because they are less likely to be actively searching in the job market.

However, the need for jobs and economic support has not disappeared in our nation. In fact, a mid-March tracking poll (DC) found that minorities, young voters, and unmarried women were hit hardest by the recession. America as a whole, many are still feeling the effects of the recession. In a month there was more job loss, more wage and hour reduction, and loss of health coverage; people are 70% of the American public is still feeling negative about the state of the economy. Subsequently there are also fewer people who found jobs or are re-entering the job market. 95% of Americans still think that the employment situation is a crisis or major problem facing our country.

Compared to the general public, Tea- Party supporters are disproportionally likely to favor lowering the federal deficit as a priority over creating jobs.

However, as tracking polls have shown it is minorities, unmarried women and young people, who are largely underrepresented in the Tea-Party that are in need of relief from disproportionate unemployment effecting them.

Source: (CBS/NYT)

75% of tea-party supporters think that Obama doesn’t share the values of most Americans. However, 57% of the American public thinks that Obama does share the values of most Americans.

In terms of race, Tea-Partiers were more likely (73% compared to 60%) to say that both whites and blacks have an equal chance of getting ahead in society. TP supporters were also less likely to say that whites had an advantage in society (16% to 31%), 89% of Tea-Party supporters are white. Over half of Tea-Party members say that too big of a deal is made of black issues, compared with 28% of the American public that feels the same.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Over the years Hollywood has produced a vivid record of the immigrant
experience in America. Although many movies are controversial on matters
of fact, they nonetheless provide a valuable insight into how immigrants
are seen and represented in the mainstream.

The film industry is significantly positioned to examine America’s
changing cultural identity and bring to the public’s attention the
stories of immigrant communities. Ever since the 1920s studios have
presented audiences with dramatized accounts of the individual
immigrant’s experience adjusting to America and their attempts at upward
mobility. Be they nostalgic or critical, such films helped fill a gap in
the general public’s knowledge and pave the way for more socially
conscious filmmaking.
In recent years, films have explored subjects that include the plight of
undocumented migrants, the barriers faced by subsequent generations,
competition among ethnic groups and problems of acculturation. These
films reflect a more factually accurate, activist approach to
representing the immigrant experience. Series including Ugly Betty and
Modern Family and films such as Gran Torino featuring immigrant-related
stories have moved hearts and minds and are informing opinions on
immigration in America today.

With this in mind, the Paley Center for Media, The Opportunity Agenda,
and Unbound Philanthropy have gathered a panel of actors, producers,
writers, and industry leaders for a thought-provoking dialogue regarding
media’s impact on the issue of immigration. Panelists will discuss the
myriad ways in which the creative and business communities can engage
audiences in this topic as it becomes increasingly significant both
politically and socially.

The event will feature conversations with:

Bruce Evans, Senior Vice President, Current Programming, NBC
Alan Jenkins, Executive Director, The Opportunity Agenda
Tony Plana, “Ignacio Suarez,” Ugly Betty
Angelica Salas, Executive Director, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Nick Schenk, Screenwriter, Gran Torino
Ligiah Villalbos, Screenwriter, Under the Same Moon

Moderator: Emanuel Levy, Film & Media Critic

Immigrants in America: A Hollywood Perspective
Monday, May 3, 2010
7:00 pm PT
Los Angeles

Tickets are free, but RSVPs are required. Click here to register.