Photo Credit: Georgetown School of Law
April 9, 2013 |
Peter Edelman, one of the nation's foremost academic authorities on
the subject of poverty in the U.S. has lived a life on the front lines
of history and politics, holding positions ranging from senatorial aide
to state bureaucrat to official in a presidential cabinet. But in his
storied employment history, he is perhaps more famous for quitting one
job than for holding it: in 1996, Edelman
resigned his post
as an assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human
services to protest President Bill Clinton's signing the Republicans'
welfare-reform bill into law. Since then, Edelman has held fast not only
to his critique of that law -- which, he says, has left some 6 million
people with no income other than food stamps -- but to his assessment of
why poverty in the world's richest nation has become so intractable.
Edelman
finds his answers in the tangle of racialized politics, mass
incarceration, displacement caused by globalization, the explosion of
low-wage jobs and the dilution of democracy by moneyed interests. In his
2012 book,
So Rich, So Poor: Why It's So Hard to End Poverty in America,
Edelman writes, "The American economy did not stagnate over the past 40
years: it grew, but the fruits of that growth went to those at the
top."
Edelman's interest in American poverty began when, as an
aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, D-NY, he accompanied his boss on
fact-finding trips to the poorest parts of the nation, including the
Mississippi Delta, rural Kentucky, California's San Joaquin Valley and
Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. More than four decades
later, the quest to end poverty is still his mission, now conducted from
his office at Georgetown Law School, where he is a professor. "Had I
been part of the exodus from ancient Egypt," he says, "I would have made
it to the promised land by now."
But Edelman is not without hope;
in fact, he seems to find hopelessness something of a cop-out. Instead,
he points to recent push-back by voters against an anti-union law in
Ohio and an anti-abortion referendum in Mississippi as indicators of
what might be possible if the electorate were truly engaged in the
fight. He spells out in his book a plan for for fuller employment in
decent jobs through a combination of accessible education, subsidized
childcare and a safety net adequate for keeping families working
together. But to make that happen, he says, the government needs the
kind of revenue it can only get by bringing tax rates on corporations
and wealthy Americans back to the levels they paid in 2001.
I met
with Edelman in his office at Georgetown Law, a spacious and airy
book-lined room near the U.S. Capitol, the day after the
across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester officially took
effect. Also known as sequestration, the spending cuts were signed into
law by President Barack Obama as part of a deal to allow the U.S.
government to pay its debts by lifting the cap on government borrowing,
which the Republicans had blocked.
Obama agreed to the deal with
the expectation that Congress would prevent the cuts from going into
effect because of the impact on the defense budget. Instead, Republicans
refused to cut a deal to forestall the sequester, and government
agencies are set to furlough workers and mothball programs.
Adele
M. Stan: Two things have happened since you published the book: the
sequester, and the president's proposal for raising the minimum wage. Of
course, the president's minimum wage proposal is a dollar short of the
$10-an-hour rate you were suggesting. But we're told because it is
linked to the cost of living -- indexed to rise with the cost of living
-- that in some ways it might be better. However, few believe that even
this modest proposal has a chance of getting through Congress.
Peter
Edelman: The president made three important proposals in his State of
the Union message. One was about minimum wage. The second was the
proposal for early childhood development and the third was the "race to
the top" for so-called STEM -- science and technical education -- and
especially having that reach all the way down to lower-income young
people. Each of those is not going to be something that is likely to be
achieved during the course of at least the first two years of this
second term, because they all, regardless of sequestration, they all run
into the Tea Party, and the fact that the Tea Party effectively
controls the Republican Party now.
Those three proposals are out
there because they're the right thing to do, and because they will have
an effect in changing the discourse around the country. Some states will
raise their own minimum wage. Some states will respond by doing more
with early childhood development. Some states will do more about getting
people the education they need for the jobs of the 21st century. This
is not only about getting Congress to act.
AMS: You're saying just by injecting this into the conversation, it spurs action in the states.
PE:
Yes. It's helpful. Now, in some states that are completely red, it's
not going to make any difference. But state revenue is beginning to go
up -- although sequestration cuts against that. You can look at what's
happening in California now. There's the economic recovery going on and
they're beginning to look at the various sorts of measures that were
completely off the table [before the recovery began].
The minimum
wage is what it is. It's not a living wage or a near-living wage. [The
benefit of the proposal is] in terms of the effect that it has. It goes
in the right direction, but it only gets part of the way to where we
need to go. But we shouldn't disparage it, it's very important. At the
margins, $9 an hour is a substantial increase over [the current rate of]
$7.25. It will total a few million people out of poverty. He's the
first president that proposed indexing it to inflation. That's all to
the good. In terms of getting to a living wage, it might be, I don't
know, 10 percent of the way or something like that.
Still, I'm glad he made those proposals. I think each one of them is absolutely at the heart of something very important.
Sequestration,
of course, changes the subject, which is exactly what the Republicans
want. And there's only one thing that they agree about. They're flaking
off on
immigration. They're flaking off on
gay marriage and they flaked off recently on the
Violence Against Women Act. They're fraying a little around the edges, but they...
AMS: ... You mean by allowing VAWA to pass.
PE:
...Yes, by the fact that there are [Republicans in Congress] who don't
toe a monolithic party line on those three examples I just gave you, and
others. The one thing where they
will all agree to not confirm
judges who are appointed to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of
Appeals, and so a genuinely centrist and moderate woman like Caitlin
Halligan gets totally
pilloried
that they absolutely make up stories about her that are zero true. Zero
true; not 1 percent, not 2 percent, zero truth, and that's a Republican
game, right?
The place where the Republicans are absolutely
staking the heart of their position is cut, cut, cut, and of course,
cut, cut, cut doesn't mean cutting Medicare and Medicaid and Social
Security to the same degree as other things -- or even the defense
budget, even though ostensibly that's being cut by the same amount just
at the moment.
The brunt of the budget-cutting comes on the
domestic discretionary programs. What are those? Those are things about
educating children. Those are things about helping people with housing.
Those are things about training people for jobs. Head Start. It's all
things that hit the most vulnerable people, the
WIC program.
The fact is that the day after sequestration started, everything didn't
come crushing down. That's just a matter of the process.
AMS: It's almost a dangerous feature of the sequestration.
PE:
Well, that's exactly right. Exactly. Oh, well, the world didn't come to
an end last night. But it's a very big thing. It turns out that this is
exactly what the Republicans want. They want to force the people who
oppose them, namely the Democrats, to focus on resisting sequestration
and then they can't do anything else. It's brilliant in a very negative
way.
AMS: Right. Well, you observe that the Republican
party is, in fact, controlled by the Tea Party at this point in time --
and it's very clever the way they control it, too, because it's not as
if they even control it through a majority of the majority.
PE: They're exactly in place where they control the sand and the gears.
AMS:
Your observation about how the racialization of the image of poverty,
or the image of people who access government social safety programs --
be it Head Start or Temporary Cash Assistance to Needy Families
(the program most often described as "welfare" in everyday language) --
how that cuts into political support for those programs is chilling.
And your description in your book abouthow almost inaccessible TANF is to most people who need itwas a real eye-opener to me.
PE: White or black, or Latino.
AMS:
Right. What I'm wondering is you've got this party, the GOP, that is
very invested in, as you say, cut, cut, cut, and particularly these
sorts of programs. You've got this party supported electorally, such as
it's supported, by a lot of people who are basically middle-class white
people, right? The old saw about people voting against their own
self-interest may very well hold true here.
I'm
wondering how the racialization of the image of poverty and of the
people we think of using these sorts of programs and the rise of the Tea
Party -- which some of us believe foments a certain amount of racial
resentment or is fueled by it -- how do those two things work together?
PE:
There has been a racial element to conservative politics, going back to
the end of the time when the George Wallaces of this world simply stood
up and used the "N" word. Then that became incorrect to say, and we
have to remember that it was President Nixon of whom sometimes people
say, "He wasn't so bad."
AMS: Right. By comparison, he looks almost liberal.
PE:
Well, that's a somewhat careless rewriting of the history because he's
the one who invented the Southern strategy. What was the Southern
strategy? It was about saying to conservative white Democrats in the
South that they really would find a much more congenial home in the
"modern Republican Party."
Lyndon Johnson had said when he signed the
Voting Rights Act that the price would be sort of the end of the
Democratic Party as we know it and the loss of the South for a
generation.
AMS: It turned out to be several generations.
PE:
Well, he was quite right, and it's interesting if you unpack it with a
little bit more detail because there were all those very interesting
governors in the South in the '80s. Not just Bill Clinton, but
Dick Riley in South Carolina,
Bill Winter in Mississippi,
Lawton Chiles in Florida,
Jim Hunt
in North Carolina. It was a considerable list. There was a kind of a
New South for a while and Democrats did win, but now it much more
reflects a fulfillment of Nixon's strategy.
There were two things
that the Republicans did to make sure that there was a racial element to
their politics. The most important was what they did, around the
country, to the criminal justice system, because the number of people
who are in prison in 1970 was a fraction -- a small fraction -- of the
number of the 2.3 million who we now incarcerate, and of course, the
drug war is connected to that, but not [it's not the] only [reason],
because [you have to consider] the whole system of mandatory minimum
sentences and the “three strikes and you're out” laws. It's [both of
those things] together, so that if you look at the prison population in
this country, you actually find that two-thirds of the people who are in
our jails and prisons are older than 25 years old. Crime is an activity
of the young disproportionately. What's happened is people that are in
[prison for much longer]. The prisons now have their geriatric units
now. The prisons have all these people who have been there for long,
long periods of time and they're aging, literally aging, as inmates.
That
all was a major piece of racial politics, and then, secondly, that was
about the man, [and removing him from the family]. And of course, that
has an enormous effect in racializing poverty as a matter of fact, as
well as in the politics of it, because if you have these guys who, when
they do get out of prison, have absolutely no prospects and the law
makes it extremely difficult to put their lives back together again. For
that whole period of time that they're imprisoned, the men aren't in
the community and it has an enormous terrible effect on family
structure, and has a horrible effect on kids, the self-worth of children
and their sense of possibility in their lives.
The companion
piece of the racial politics was what [Republicans] did to welfare,
starting with the war on welfare that goes all the way back to the very
late '60s and into the '70s. And it's just this steady attack on welfare
recipients as being lazy and wanting to collect their checks. The image
that is conveyed is a racial image. Ronald Reagan talks about the woman
who drives up to the supermarket in her white Cadillac and goes in with
her food stamps and buys the choice cut of meat. Everybody knew who he
was talking about; he never said it: an African-American woman who lives
in New York City who's on welfare.
We've had this inculcation of
racial politics in those two major ways, and so it has these two
interlocking facts, because on one hand, partly it's a consequence of
the criminal justice policy. You have a racial disproportionality in the
poverty itself and then you have, as a consequence of the changes in
family structure in the neighborhoods of concentrated poverty in the
biggest cities, you would have some bad things that happen in terms of
behavior. Then it becomes easier to make the racialized stories stick in
the politics. You end up with 27 percent African American, Latino,
Native American poverty -- which is actually down over the decades from
where it was. It was 55 percent in 1959 -- African-American poverty --
when they started measuring poverty, so we actually made progress on
that, even though white poverty is 10 percent.
It's really a vicious circle because the image of African-American poverty feeds the negative politics.
AMS: Right, and then white people don't see themselves as people who could fall into this, too.
PE: The fact is that the largest group of people in the country [on welfare] are white.
AMS:
Right, of course, which is not the image that people have. My personal
opinion is it encourages white people not to identify with the people
who avail themselves of public assistance.
Getting
to all of this, the difficult conversation is, as we euphemistically
call discussions about family structure, is this is a mine field. I'm a
feminist, and there is always a delicacy within the feminist communities
about talking about this issue as one that is too easily used to blame
women for the plights of their families.
PE: Yeah. Well, I
don't think I would blame anybody; the first thing we have to
understand is the question of women having children in an instance where
if they're not married to the father, that's a worldwide phenomenon. I
mean, it's all over. It's in Europe, as well.
AMS: That
fascinated me because I have observed this within my own family and
community. I've seen it among young white women who are, broadly
speaking, middle-class, but who might be considered on the cusp of the
working-class.
PE: Right. While it's true that there is a
racial disparity in the numbers, in fact, if you look at the trends and
the numbers of origin, increases [in babies born to single women] in
the African-American community took place in the 1970s. It's been pretty
steady since then, and in fact, in terms of [the birth rate among]
adolescents, that's going down. It's still too high, but it's still on
the decline. The increases in births to unmarried women -- all of the
increases since 1980 have been [among] whites and Latinos. Who knows
that?
Talking about what's happening across the board, the trends,
well, they're higher in some groups than in others...And you even have
Charles Murray, who draws lots of conclusions that are wrong, [talking] about the kind of change of behaviors in the white community.
But
this is about how the economy functions. This is about what's happened
to the job market. This is about the flood of low-wage jobs. The
conversation about poverty much too easily turns to welfare -- and there
is a big problem in terms of the huge holes that we've got in the safety net at the bottom.
But
in terms of the heart of the problem, without the intrusion of race
into it, the heart of the problem is about low-wage jobs. Half the jobs
in the country pay less than $34,000. And a quarter [of those jobs]
don't pay even up to the poverty line for a family of four, [which is]
$23,000. No wonder families are falling apart.
AMS: You
also referenced your knowledge of the Great Depression early in your
book and I think I recall reading that during the Great Depression, the
abandonment of families by men was an issue.
PE:
Abandonment? They could not find any work in their own community and
then went off and hopped on the road to see if they could find something
somewhere, so they could send money back home! This is what happens.
We're
not facing up to what's happened. Well, there's a structural change in
the economy. Globalization has taken away the jobs that built the middle
class in this country, which, by the way, you didn't have to have a
high school education to have. It was at the height of -- which was
never so high in the United States -- but at the height of union
influence. In those manufacturing plants, there was organizing. We were
by ourselves in the world. The infrastructure of Europe and Japan had
been destroyed. We were at the top of the roof in the world and so we
built the middle class. The modern middle-class was built between 1945
and 1973, and it included a significant increase in the income of black
men during that period. The statistics that we have about the situation
of black men begin to turn downward in 1973, after having gone steadily
upward from 1945 to 1973.
You have globalization as a factor for the entire lower half, and of course, the economy isn't stuck. There is
more income [than before]. It's just all going to the top.
AMS:
That was quite stunning -- even though I suppose I should have known
that. But to see the data as plainly as it is shown in your book,
because we're so used to this mantra of the economy, of course, since
2007-2008, being a mess, right? That when you look at the aggregate
overall picture, we're really pegging all of these problems to something
that happened in 2008, when it all began long ago?
PE:
Right, right. It started happening a long time ago. That's absolutely
right, although it continues, 2009 to 2011. The income of the top 1
percent went up by 11 percent, and over that three-year period in the
height of the recession, depth of the recession, the [income of the]
other 99 percent went down by 0.4 percent...We really are not focusing
on the fact that so many people in this country just can't make enough
money....
I think that in terms of the economic, any woman or man
who is, by themselves, raising children ought to be able to earn enough
by herself or himself to support those children. Of course, if it's a
woman, right there for openers, she's likely to have 77 percent of the
income of the man, and then she's much more likely to have one of these
low-wage jobs. We know that by herself, just for openers, she's likely
to end up in poverty or near poverty.
It's very much a terrible
interaction between the wave of low-wage jobs and how many single moms
are out there. The largest group of poor people in the country is the
children of single mothers, almost 50 percent across racial lines.
[...]
There's
a responsibility of women and men. You need to separate out the
structural issues that affect everybody and that have to be dealt with
as such, but you'd also need to be talking about responsibility. It's
important to somebody who fathers a child to take responsibility for
that child. It's important, too, that the father, A) have that kind of
wherewithal to pay child support, but B) pay the child support...we all
have a parental responsibility and people need to live up to that.
It's
not enough to say that there's a cradle to the present pipeline. There
is. It needs to be fixed, but insofar as people who are not even trying
because of some attitude that they have, there has to be work to change
that. Insofar as people are having children and haven't got the least
idea of what it means to be a parent, there have to be ways that are
respectful to reach out to those parents to help them understand what
their responsibility is...Anybody who says the whole problem is
structural is just wrong, misguided, whatever it is -- anybody who says
it's all a matter of personal responsibility is, of course, making a
horrible mistake.
AMS: But can you ever really separate it
out? How do you make a distinction between the evolution of economic
structure and the evolution of culture. I mean those two things go
together, right?
PE: That's such an important point
because when we talk about the personal responsibility, this isn't
saying that somebody was born and they were irresponsible. They were
born as a baby and then they grew up, right? There's no irresponsibility
gene...I mean we just really have to pursue all of this, and if we
could just get more kind of wide in the middle, if you will...You ask:
how do we do those things? And in terms of what I'm suggesting, the hows
about the different politics and the different politics is about people
who organize and advocate in order to--the people will participate and
act in a way that that really addresses problems that they have.
AMS:
The numbers that you have on child poverty are really mind-blowing. You
report that the U.S. has the highest rate of child poverty in the
industrialized world.
If you have so many kids
growing up with that experience in poverty, how does that shape them for
finding their way through life?
PE: It's terrible, and
it's a terrible interaction between the poverty, the child poverty and
what happens at school. Forty percent of black children are born into
households in poverty. Forty percent.
Twenty percent of African-American children grow up in poverty for more than half of their childhood. Twenty percent.
AMS:
This gets back us to what you were talking about concentrated poverty
and why you think that's such a critical issue even though we have
widespread poverty -- the increase in the suburban poverty and the rural
poverty.
PE: The increase in suburban poverty is very
important. With rural poverty, there are diminishing numbers of rural
people, but rural poverty is in some places quite hopeless, [as in]
Appalachia, the Indian reservations, Mississippi Delta, Colonias in
South Texas, and so on. If you're in a neighborhood where you have --
[according to] the census tracks are all 40 percent poor or more -- we
know what happens, right? The schools are going to be terrible. Too many
of the men are in prison. Too many children are born to people who
aren't married or to a mother who is not married, and there's violence
all over the place.
The most persistent poverty is
intergenerational poverty. It's the people who are the least included in
the larger society. It's the place that we've done the very worst and
it is true that part of our efforts have to be to promote personal
responsibility, but not by preaching. Let's actually do something that
creates some hope and possibility.
AMS: Right. Some of what you advocate is creating community centers around schools, such as the Harlem Children's Zone program.
PE:
Well, let's start with schools that teach before we go to community
centers. Let's do everything we can to get effective teachers.
AMS:
That's another controversial thing in the progressive movement, because
we have seen school reform used as a means to cut into unions...
PE:
...I think that's a very complicated subject. I think there is
polarization in both directions. There surely are people who want to
destroy the public school system and voucherize everything and have
charters that are really for-profit businesses, and to have a market
model. There surely are such people.
To say from a progressive
point of view that charters are, blanket, a bad thing or that any
criticism of the union is being a union-buster, that's not right either.
But there are some things that a broad scope of people do agree on. The
left -- and certainly many conservatives -- we want a public school
system that works for every child. Anybody who thinks that you're going
to charter your way out of these problems, it's conceptually wrong.
There are school systems -- look at Union City in New Jersey, which
David Kirp has [written] a book about and [who] had a terrific
piece in the Sunday Review section of the
New York Times.
It's
a gritty town -- and there are lots of places in the United States that
are similar that have terrible schools -- and they have just done a
wonderful job. I will say that one of the things that happened there is,
in New Jersey, they have a piece of litigation that's still going on,
Abbott vs. Burke, which is to force the state under its own constitution to provide adequate funding for the poorest districts in the state.
There
are places where there are things going on that actually bring
effective teaching to low-income children. Well, let's figure out what's
going on and do more of that. If you take the union question -- [there
are] some places where the local unions are cooperative and they're
working very hard on the reforms, and to paint with a broad brush is
totally wrong. You'll find other places where, I'm sorry to say, they're
part of the problem...
AMS: Okay, fair enough. You make a
very strong point about the proliferation of these low-wage jobs,
problems with our education system, concentration of poverty, all that
stuff. But you don't see that changing in a big way anytime soon, right?
You don't have a fix for the low-wage job thing. Nobody does, right?
PE:
I have some partial fixes. When it comes to low-wage work, beyond the
minimum wage, the major things that we can do which would be quite
substantial if we did them, are to do, in a full and complete way, the
things that a decent society does for all of its people. There should be
childcare for every family that needs help with it. The federal funding
for childcare reaches 1 out of 7 children who qualify for it now. We
have a housing affordability crisis in this country -- and not just from
mortgage foreclosures. We had the problem before and we have it now.
AMS: Rents are crazy.
PE:
Rents are crazy and...housing vouchers only reach 1 out of 4 people who
qualify for those things. The other things that are a lot better in
healthcare, where we've made a major move with Medicaid and the
financing of post-secondary education -- well, if we actually provided
help on childcare and housing, so that everybody who needs help would
get, it would be a very substantial increase in the effective income of
people. The heart of this is you have to do everything you can do to
raise wages and pay attention to that, and more leadership that calls in
people and essentially says to Walmart: "How come you're different from
Costco?" Get that out in a much more public way...
AMS: Do you think that's a failure of rhetoric and framing, or is it a failure of activism?
PE: It's partly a failure of activism, and to some extent, a failure of message, yes.
Fundamentally,
there is a structural flaw in the economy -- no question about that.
And that's difficult to change, but the amelioration could be
substantial. We should celebrate the fact that we have 40 million people
that we're keeping out of poverty because of what we've done in public
policy...we would have 86 million if we didn't have Social Security and
food stamps, which is a great success, and the Earned Income Tax Credit
and the Child Tax Credit.
We need to be having a discussion in
this country about the real meaning of the Earned Income Tax Credit and
the Child Tax Credit, which are income supplements, because if jobs are
not for, as long as we can see, going to pay enough to live on, we need
to be talking about the role of public policy in having a wage
supplement in this country. That's not even on the table now.
AMS:
Right. Now, of course, there are some progressives who say: "Well,
that's subsidizing corporations so that they don't have to pay a living
wage."
PE: I understand that. It is, and it would not be
my preference -- I prefer to raise the minimum wage more than I do to
have wage subsidies...
AMS: But we're not going to have a $15-an-hour minimum wage.
PE:
Well, you would have to have a tension between a minimum wage and
Earned Income Tax Credit. The businesses would love it if you never
raise the minimum wage and you gave them the wage subsidies. That's
wrong. There has to be a tension in that, and of course, you want to
avoid unnecessarily giving a gift to the business side of it. That's
wrong.
AMS: You make the point that activism -- that
there's a danger in the activism being focused on the wealthy side of
the inequality and not as much in the language and rhetoric dealing with
the other side of it.
PE: I think Occupy did some very good things, but I wish that there had been more sustainability to it.
AMS: To the actual people in the streets?
PE:
Well, just in general that it should have--in a variety of ways have
reached large numbers of people and activated them for political change
in this regard. The people with more capacity like the Service Employees
International Union certainly tried, and there were others. Yeah, there
was more attention in inequality for that period of time and for quite a
while on inequality than we had had in many, many years. It was
effective.
AMS: They certainly did shift the discussion
away -- temporarily -- from the debt and deficit to this question of
inequality. Now, we seem to be back.
PE: Yes. Well, the
nature of the politics as such that it's difficult to have that
conversation when you have essentially a block of people in the Congress
who are capable of just putting sand in the gears in order to grind
everything to a halt. The president was successful, as we know, in
giving at least some of the cause of the huge inequality that comes from
the tax structure, a modest amount of change, and just getting us
partway back to where we had been before 2001.
I often said -- and
I say it in my book -- that not only do we have to talk about the 1
percent. Let's talk about the 99 percent, but be sure that when we talk
about the 99 percent we mean everybody down to zero, because clearly,
the person in the 99th percentile is quite different from the person in
the 1st percentile.
AMS: Even different than those in the 50th, right?
PE:
In the 50th [percentile] is somewhere in between -- but not just in the
law of averages. It's qualitatively different from both ends. That's
quite right. That's the challenge. We have to deal with the question at
the top for multiple reasons. One, very simply is that in order to run
our country in a way that's consistent with the values that we espouse,
we have to have more revenue. In a way that income is divided, the
people who can afford to make a greater contribution in the revenues
than we receive are the people at the very top.
That's for a lot
of reasons. That's not simply because the people at the bottom have so
much less income. That's about the quality of life, and it also relates
to power because those people at the top, the more economic wherewithal
they have, the greater their political wherewithal. They are in what
looks at the moment like an inexorable march [of the 1 percent] toward
greater power and greater hegemony and it becomes more and more
difficult to resist that.
Citizens United is the headline, but the additions to political power through the translation of the money into governance is deeply troubling.
AMS: Thank you for having me in.
Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Washington correspondent. She co-edited, with Don Hazen, the AlterNet book,
Dangerous Brew: Exposing the Tea Party's Agenda to Take Over America. Follow her on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/addiestan . Send tips to:
adele@alternet.org
No comments:
Post a Comment