By MEIZHU LUI
Guest Writer

African Americans are the Democratic Party’s best friends. Between 1968, the year of Martin Luther King Jr’s death, and 2006, they have been voting “blue” at rates mostly over 90 percent. Democratic leaders earned their trust during the Civil Rights Movement, demonstrating that they were willing to use the powers of their offices to change the laws to narrow the gap between whites and non-whites. In 2006, 71 percent of Latinos also went “blue.”

So you would think that the Democrats, now back in the majority in Congress, would be doing all they can to pay back African Americans for their loyalty, to shore up their base among Latinos, and most of all, to return to the unfinished business of making King’s dream of a colorblind society become a reality.

Their “First 100 Hours Agenda” aims to lift up those on the bottom rungs of America’s economic ladder. But does it address the racial divide? That’s the topic of the fourth annual “State of the Dream” report just released by United for a Fair Economy.

The Democrats’ agenda includes four economic proposals: increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour by 2009; cutting the interest rate on college loans in half, allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices and pass along savings to seniors on Medicare; and investing in renewable energy industries that will create new jobs.

The proposed minimum wage raise is not enough to bring anyone out of poverty. Even $7.25 an hour would mean a yearly income of less than $15,000, $5,000 less than the poverty rate of $20,000 for a family of four! Even if the minimum wage were raised every year after 2009 by 70 cents, a family wouldn’t hit the poverty level until 2013. And if you don’t have a job, a raise won’t help you: African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed as whites.

A majority of college students now carry heavy debt loads; as a graduation present, they receive an average of $17,500 in loan bills. While cutting interest rates would save $5,600 over the life of the loan, that savings is not worth as much to a student of color. The average African American family has only 15 cents of assets compared to the average white family’s dollar, so their children need to borrow $2,000 more than the offspring of their white counterparts. And during their lifetime of employment, they will earn $500,000 less than a white with the same degree. Their investment does not pay the same return.

Very low-income seniors already had drug coverage; the new proposal helps mostly middle-income seniors, who are disproportionately white. The energy proposal will support the ethanol industry in the Midwest, where there are relatively few people of color; and the new jobs will be for people with advanced degrees in science and engineering. Only 2.2 percent of those with the needed doctoral degrees are Black, and only 2.3 percent are Latino. This proposal also helps whites more than people of color.

It is a good thing to lift up low- and middle-income people of all races and to take on the drug and oil industries. So hooray for the 100 Hour Agenda! But because we do not yet have racial equality, “colorblind” policies will not close the race gap. A race lens is still required.

A commitment to full employment would be a great start — for example, a federal jobs program channeling tax dollars not to the Halliburtons but to the unemployed, to rebuild New Orleans and other inner-city neighborhoods. Congress can pass the Employee Free Choice Act, allowing the 57 million non-union workers who say they want to join a union to do so. Latinos should have the same rights at work as citizens, taking away the temptation for employers to ignore labor laws. In terms of college educations, back in the ’40s, the GI Bill enabled a whole generation of white men — five million of them — to go to college for free! Let’s extend free education two more years past high school, and strengthen Affirmative Action to address the falling enrollment and graduation rates of students of color. Providing universal health insurance so that non-whites have better health throughout their lifetimes would save money and lives. And investing in public transportation would address the racial disparities in car ownership, as well as help the environment.

The newly blue Congress needs to think intentionally about how to close the racial economic gap and to make a commitment to their loyal Black constituency in hour 101 and beyond.

Being Black or brown should not mean that you are more likely to be living in the red.

[Resource]

The Racial Wealth Divide project of United for a Fair Economy is online: www.racialwealthdivide.org.

Meizhu Lui is director of United for a Fair Economy, the national, independent, nonpartisan organization that raises awareness about the dangers of concentrated wealth and power, and co-author of The Color of Wealth: The Story Behind the Racial Wealth Divide (New Press, 2006).