By Marc H. Morial, President and CEO
National Urban League

To Be Equal #30

“It is clear that the unemployment numbers throughout the country require effective legislation and tangible action to address the crisis. To address the unemployment crisis and the need for job creation solutions in underserved communities, the CBC has called upon the private and public sectors to immediately remedy the crisis by going into communities with legitimate, immediate employment opportunities for the underserved.”  U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II

This past week, NAACP President Ben Jealous and I forcefully entered the debt ceiling debate during a meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office.  During our meeting, we made it clear that as a final deal is hammered out to raise the debt ceiling and prevent the nation from defaulting on August 2nd, no steps should be taken that will shred the social safety net — the last line of economic defense for millions of working class and middle class  Americans.  With African American unemployment at 16.2 percent and the jobless rate for Hispanics also in double digits at 11.6 percent, it would be unconscionable to cut Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare benefits, education, job training or housing services now, especially while businesses and wealthy Americans are protected from any tax increase.
 
The President has insisted from day one that a final agreement must involve shared sacrifice.  After our meeting he issued a statement which read in part: “We cannot afford to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans, including the middle class, low-income families, seniors and students.”  Ben Jealous and I wholeheartedly agree with the President, and we intend to stand with him as he steadfastly defends that position.  

The President also agreed with us that we need to complete a debt ceiling deal quickly so we can turn our full attention to the most pressing issue facing the nation – high unemployment and the lack of jobs.  I urged the President to act on the job creating solutions contained in the National Urban League’s 12-point Jobs Rebuild America plan.  We also urged support for New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s Urban Jobs Bill which would make critically needed investments in education and training to prepare young people most in need for jobs.

One day after our meeting, the debt ceiling talks broke down over the refusal by those on the other side of the negotiating table to pursue a balanced approach.  They continue to insist on a one-sided plan of spending cuts, including cuttingbenefits for the most vulnerable Americans, and no tax increases for the wealthy.  It should be noted that this is the first time in almost 100 years that a raise in the nation’s debt ceiling has been linked to deficit reduction.  

Ben and I agree: America must get its fiscal house in order so we can invest in job creation and maintain the benefits that protect our must vulnerable citizens.  And we adamantly disagree with those who would jeopardize the nation’s credit worthiness and risk a financial meltdown much worse than the recent greatrecession – all because they refuse to compromise.

The NAACP President and I came away from our Oval Office meeting convinced that President Obama understands fundamentally that deep budget cuts to safety net programs and programs that affect urban communities would be harmful, not just to our constituents, but for the nation at large.  

We will continue to insist that the concerns of Black and urban America have a voice in this debate.

120 Wall Street ▪ New York, NY 10005 ▪ (212) 558-5300 ▪ WWW.NUL.ORG

New America Media

By Kat Aaron and Mary Kane

Investigative Reporting Workshop

Synopsis: Is Maryland’s foreclosure mediation program failing the country’s wealthiest majority-black county?

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Md. — A widely touted strategy aimed at keeping Maryland residents from losing their homes by bringing banks and homeowners to the bargaining table has met with little success as the nation braces for another wave of foreclosures.

Maryland passed a law a year ago that gave homeowners in foreclosure the right to mediation, if they ask for it. The Justice Department reported in a November study that there were 25 mediation programs in 14 states.

As of May 31, just 56 homeowners in the state have gotten a modification of their loan through the mediation program. Borrowers complain that lenders are more interested in foreclosing than negotiating. One borrower was horrified to discover that the bank had sold her home during the mediation process.

Foreclosures slowed in the early part of 2011, as lenders dealt with accusations of “robo-signing” ‚Äî approving foreclosure documents without looking at them. But now, they’re coming back with a vengeance: In March, almost 30,000 notices of intent to foreclose were filed, more than twice as many than in any month since the state began keeping records in 2008, according to an analysis of state records by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

For communities of color around the country, a “lagging collapse” may be ahead, said Alan Mallach, a nationally known housing expert who has done extensive on-the-ground research into the foreclosure crisis. Prince George’s county is a case in point. The nation’s wealthiest majority-black county, it has been devastated by the foreclosure crisis. Heavily targeted by subprime lenders in the boom years, the county is now staggering under the weight of abandoned homes and plummeting prices. The county received more than 7,100 notices of intent to foreclose in March.

“I think it’s grim. And it’s going to be grim for a while. I’m not sure we’re anywhere near the aftermath yet. We’re still in the middle of the storm,” said Mallach.

A year after the Maryland law was passed, fewer than 1,000 borrowers had applied for mediation, and just 56 borrowers had received a loan modification as of the end of May, according to the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.

Another 159 cases ended with a so-called contingent resolution, meaning that the borrowers were promised a modification pending additional paperwork. In total, 829 mediation cases have been closed since the law took effect.

Despite the low participation rates, mediation sessions have been good for borrowers, said Carol Gilbert, assistant secretary for neighborhood stabilization at the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development.

“Whether or not they prevent foreclosure, they do get to closure, by understanding what their lender’s position is and understanding what their options are, or are not,” she said.

What the mediation program has accomplished is “getting both sides of the (lending) shop to communicate,” Gilbert said. “The foreclosure side of the shop that’s working in turbo drive is very effective, and the modification side is not.”

“We were seeing so many consumers fall through the cracks who were midstream in their modification process and next week they were getting foreclosed upon,” she said.

Except that’s still happening.

Antoinette Barber, a homeowner in Baltimore, requested a mediation session, using the information provided by her lender, HSBC Bank. But paperwork problems plagued her case from the start, including that HSBC listed her home as abandoned, said her attorney, Legal Aid lawyer Gretchen Reimert.

Trouble started when the envelope that foreclosure attorneys representing HSBC gave to Barber to send in her mediation request was labeled with an incomplete address. The paperwork never arrived at its destination, so no mediation session was scheduled. Barber received a second notification of her mediation rights and submitted a second request on March 9.

But HSBC’s attorneys had already scheduled a foreclosure sale for March 11. And although the court scheduled a mediation session for April 13, and notified the foreclosure attorneys about it, the foreclosure firm didn’t cancel the sale. Barber’s house was sold two weeks later. Barber, a single mom with two children, arrived at the April mediation session in tears.

HSBC’s servicer said that Barber’s file had been transferred to another department and couldn’t be found. HSBC’s foreclosure attorney said she wouldn’t agree to anything that day, unless Barber would allow the foreclosure sale to go through. Barber refused, and Reimert has filed a motion to rescind the sale and stop the foreclosure.

“Mediation is a joke,” Barber said. “I was really counting on it helping me. But they did nothing for me. It was a waste of time.”

‘HSBC has a strong commitment to home preservation and regards foreclosure as a last resort. We are looking into the matter,” said Neil Brazil, vice president for public affairs at HSBC. He said the company had no further comment, citing pending litigation.

Borrowers and counselors around the country have complained that the modification process breaks down because the people at the servicer call centers don’t have the power to change the terms or balance on a loan.

The mediation problems in Maryland are yet another indication that so far, government efforts aren’t putting a dent in the foreclosure problem. Mallach isn’t optimistic they will any time soon.

“This is the disgrace of the whole thing,” Mallach said. “Basically, the lenders who made these loans are paying huge amounts of money to the investors that they defrauded. But the problem for these communities is that basically the lenders got away with murder, and they are continuing to get away with murder.”

Investigative Reporting Workshop data editor Jacob Fenton contributed to this report.

 Equal Voice Newspaper

They are lost in limbo, their lives on hold, and their contributions sidelined while politicians debate their value to society even as they excel at school, volunteer in their communities, and serve in the U.S. military.

Their crime is having been born on different soil – Mexico, the Philippines, Honduras, Cuba, Colombia – then brought to the United States by families who wanted only to give them a better life.

They are the DREAMers – an acronym for the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors. For more than a decade, Dreamers and their allies have been pushing for a national Dream Act – a pathway to legal residency for children brought to the U.S. by undocumented parents.

While Democrats and Republicans debate social security and Medicare and cut or cap other vital programs to ease the $1.4 trillion federal deficit, Congress has overlooked a ready and willing source of revenue – the thousands of children of undocumented immigrants who, if allowed to follow their dreams, would help rebuild the economy by paying income tax and purchasing homes and cars.

About 65,000 undocumented students graduate from U.S. high schools each year, according to a study by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that passage of the Dream Act would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next decade.

In a report last year, Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a professor at UCLA, wrote that the higher earning power of newly legalized workers, including the Dreamers, would translate to a tax revenue increase of $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in the first three years.
Supporters call the national Dream Act “an investment, not an expense.”

In the decade since the Dream Act was first introduced in Congress, a patchwork of state laws has emerged. Some states allow undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition rates. On the other end of the spectrum, Alabama recently passed an immigration law that bans undocumented students from attending any state college.

California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation Monday that provides undocumented college students with access to private college funds. But it can’t complete the dream by offering a chance for citizenship.

“If they don’t have a future, why would they even finish high school? We want to let them know there is a way to pursue their dream,” said Joshua Hoyt, executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), which pushed for passage of the state’s Dream Act.

When Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signs his state’s version of the Dream Act on August 1, it will be a major step forward in helping low-income, immigrant students realize their goal of going to college.
Until Congress passes a national dream act, many Dreamers like 22-year-old Cindy, whose parents brought her to the United States when she was 3, face an uncertain future.

Cindy didn’t know she was undocumented until she was in sixth grade. She wanted to attend a summer school computer class, but without a social security number, she couldn’t apply. At that time, she didn’t fully understand the implications, but by high school, her situation became clearer.

“I was thinking I was just like everyone else,” said Cindy, who doesn’t want her last name used because of her family’s resident status and so she can speak more freely.

Cindy’s father works in the fast-food industry; her mother is a hotel housekeeper. They labor long hours but have never doubted they made the right decision by emigrating from Mexico to the U.S. They provided their family with a better life – and gave Cindy her passion to succeed.

Despite her worries that she wouldn’t be able to attend college, Cindy studied hard, took honors courses, and graduated at the top of her high school class in Illinois, earning a full-ride scholarship to the University of Chicago. Dreaming of becoming a public school teacher, she majored in comparative human development. In June, she graduated from college – the first in her family to do so.

But with college graduation, Cindy realized the full irony of her situation.

As an undocumented immigrant, she is unable to work legally in the United States or even get a driver’s license. She wants a career, to buy a car and someday a house, and to contribute to the country she considers her own – a country that refuses to recognize her.

“Psychologically, it is difficult. You want to better yourself, but there is not really much you can do,” she said.

“I can’t work, unless I get paid under the table. The only jobs available like that are in the food industry. It’s not really what I want to do after graduating from college,” she said.

“I think a lot about how life would be different if I could just work and have the proper documentation and not be in this limbo.”

Cindy had reason to hope when national Dream Act legislation passed in the U.S. House of Representatives last year, but the bill died in the Senate.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D–IL) re-introduced the legislation this year.

“When I look around this room, I see the future doctors, nurses, scientists and soldiers who will make this country stronger,” he said, nodding to the undocumented students who joined him for his opening remarks in Washington, D.C.

Durbin has asked religious leaders nationwide to hold a Dream Act Sabbath Sept. 23–25 to spread the word to their congregations and rally support for passing the law.

“It is wrong to punish children for the actions of their parents,” Durbin said.

While religious leaders call passage of the Dream Act a moral responsibility, opponents argue that the legislation will only attract more undocumented immigrants.

Even the most hopeful concede that it will take a miracle for the legislation to pass this year.

“Realistically, as long as we have the current leadership in the other chamber, it’s unlikely this legislation is going to pass out of Congress and reach the president’s desk,” said Fred Tsao, policy director for ICIRR. “What we can do is continue to work to raise the profile of the legislation.

“The need is still there. The students are still there with their hopes and ambitions. They still want to contribute to this country that they call home. They are committed, and we are committed,” said Tsao.

No matter where people stand on the Dream Act, most agree that national immigration reform is needed, although what that reform would look like differs widely.
Illinois, one of a dozen states that allow undocumented students who graduate from local high schools to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities, is leading the way for more rights for students who were brought into the country as children.

The new legislation brings the dream a few steps closer by setting up a Dream Fund supported by private donations, to create scholarships to help undocumented students pay for college. The law will also provide additional education for high school counselors so that they can better advise undocumented students about their college options.
The Illinois Dream Fund is necessary because undocumented students can’t apply for federal Pell Grants or state financial aid. For low-income students who are U.S. citizens, federal Pell Grants provide up to $5,550 a year in college financing. State grants can provide an additional $4,500.

“They have gone through the Illinois public schools, but they don’t have the financial means to attend college,” said Paul Frank, vice president for government relations for the Federation of Independent Illinois Colleges and Universities.

“It is a big hurdle when you compare them to other students with need. They are missing out on $10,000 a year,” said Frank.

Now, many are waiting and watching to see if private donors will, indeed, step up and contribute the money needed to make the Illinois Dream Fund a reality.

If it works, Illinois Dreamers like Carla Navoa would have a better chance of attending college.

Navoa was 5 years old when her family came to the United States on a tourist visa from the Philippines to visit relatives. They never went back.

“I really focused on school a lot because of my parents,” said Navoa. “My parents told us that we would be able to pursue good jobs, have more opportunities and have a better life. That’s why we stayed here, for a better life.”

When it was time to apply for college grants and scholarships that would help pay for college, Navoa was faced with the harsh reality that, as an undocumented immigrant, she was not eligible for government financial aid.

Navoa, now 22, won private scholarships and scraped together money from her parents and odd jobs to pay the $6,000 per semester tuition at the University of Illinois in Chicago.

Now, although Navoa is just a couple of semesters short of graduating, her money has run out and her dreams are on hold. She hopes the new private funding will be available eventually so that she can finish her education. Like Cindy, Navoa would love to become a teacher.

However, without passage of a national Dream Act, both Navoa and Cindy face uncertainty, unable to work legally and contribute to the national economy, even with a diploma in hand.

Unable to follow her dream to be a teacher, Cindy volunteers in her community, working for changes in immigration laws and rights.

“It is frustrating for my parents. They didn’t think this is what would be waiting for us at the end,” she said. “I still thank them for the opportunity they gave me by bringing me here.”

(http://www.equalvoiceforfamilies.org/pages/grantee_in_the_news/illinois_a_sign_of_hope.html)

Why Are So Many Suffering in Silence? It’s Time for Survivors and Supporters to Talk About Grief

Denise Hall Brown, author of 2Grieve 2Gether

Frederick, MD (BlackNews.com) — People often grieve in silence. It is common for people to feel isolated and alone when they mourn. But there is healing in support. Denise Hall Brown saw a need to promote the power of relationships and resources to aid in the healing process, starting with the publication of her first book, 2Grieve 2Gether: A Journal from the Heart Helping Survivors and Supporters Navigate the Healing Process (ISBN 9780983317005).

When Brown was 29, her mother was killed by a drunk driver. She lost her 5-month-old son tragically 10 years later. Since then, she’s buried her husband and an aunt who was like a mother-figure to her. From each hardship, Brown learned that grief is not something you ever get over, rather you get through. She experienced firsthand the wide range of emotions brought on by the rawness of grief. She has learned to be gentle with herself through each ordeal.

The premise behind 2Grieve 2Gether is that grief is a process that should not be handled alone. The book is unique in addressing both Survivors (those who are dealing with the death of a loved one) and Supporters (those who are trying to help them). The book is a compilation of journals that Brown kept following the deaths of her loved ones. The engrossing entries, followed by insightful reflections and tips on dealing with grief, show the highs and lows of her emotions in the days and months and years after the deaths. The book also includes helpful resources to assist the bereaved and their supporters.

According to Brown, anyone who has dealt with the death of someone close to them, or knows someone who has, can benefit from this book. “I wrote 2Grieve 2Gether because I’ve met so many people who are hurting and even more who want to help someone who’s grieving but are unsure about what to do. In this book, readers get a very real glimpse of what I experienced following the deaths of my loved ones and what both survivors and supporters can learn and apply as a result.”

Brown will discuss and sign copies of her book on Wednesday, August 3, 2011, from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Delaplaine Center, 40 South Carroll Street, Frederick, MD. There will also be a memorial balloon release.

For more information, contact the author at denise@2Grieve2Gether.org or 888-378-0202.

About Denise Hall Brown

Denise Hall Brown spent 20 years working in the insurance industry. Five years of that time was spent directly helping clients with their life insurance needs and the recovery that happens after someone dies. During that time, she experienced the deaths of four family members and committed to learning as much as possible about grief. Denise currently attends Hood College in Frederick, MD, where she earned a Certificate in Thanatology, the study of death and bereavement, and is currently working toward her Master’s Degree in that field. 2Grieve 2Gether is her first book. To learn more about the book, visit www.2Grieve2Gether.org.

• All individuals deserve equal access to quality, affordable, inclusive and accountable health care.
• The social safety net and its key components, including health care, must be maintained to reflect our shared commitment to protecting vulnerable populations.
• Concern for the most vulnerable in our community, particularly low-income women, men and children and people with disabilities, is at the heart of our sacred texts and an affirmation of our common humanity.
• Caring for our elders and treating them with dignity demonstrates the value we place on our enduring responsibility to enable all persons to live out the fullness of their days.

Schools statewide receive a total of $4.7 million to increase
fruit and vegetable offerings; More students have access
to healthy eating choices

Springfield, IL — The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) announced today that 215 schools in Illinois will participate in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) during the 2011-12  school year. The public and private schools will share equally in more than $4.7 million, up from last year’s grant amount of $3.3 million that served 186 schools.

“Thanks to these federal funds, more children will have access to a wide range of fresh fruits and vegetables during the school day as well as lesson plans that underscore their importance,’’ said Illinois State Board of Education Chairman Gery J. Chico. “Improved access means it’s more likely that children will make smart choices that fuel their brains and bodies. It’s another tool as we try to reverse the tide of childhood obesity.’’

The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program requires participating schools to allocate between $50 to $75 per enrolled student with the majority of those funds being spent on fresh produce. Program funding runs through June 30, 2012.

FFVP provides all students in participating schools access to a variety of free fresh fruits and vegetables throughout the school day. It allows schools to make available the additional produce anytime during the regular school day, except during breakfast and lunch when the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs are in effect.

The goal is to expose students to lifelong healthy eating habits. For example, schools can incorporate nutrition education into numerous daily classroom activities such as math, health, geography and science, by developing lesson plans involving fruits and vegetables. Some schools have initiated a “Vegetable of the Day,” to entice students to try produce they might otherwise not have access to and increase nutrition education efforts.

The USDA first piloted the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program in 2002 and it was expanded to include all states for the 2008-09 school year. Nearly 370 schools statewide applied for the 2011-12 grant. Each school will be reimbursed on a monthly basis for allowable expenses up to the school’s total awarded amount. The fresh produce purchased under this program cannot be used to replace fruits or vegetables already being served to students at breakfast or lunch.

The complete list of 215 schools in the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program as well as a map of the selected schools is online at: http://www.isbe.net/nutrition/htmls/ffv_program_awards1112.htm.

“Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.     

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.” – President Barack Obama, addressing the nation July 25 on the debt ceiling crisis

(Obama’s complete speech)

Good evening.  Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt — a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in.  In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus.  But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office.  To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more -– on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off.  These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable.  But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy.  More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans.  Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books.  Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -– the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand.  And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it.  And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do.  I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending.  Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President.  Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars.  Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare — and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations.  Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much.  It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt.  And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan.  While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared.  While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.”  And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach — a cuts-only approach -– an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all.  And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about –- cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices.  Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need.  The debate is about how it should be done.  Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get.  How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries?  How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?  

That’s not right.  It’s not fair.  We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -– things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research. 

And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all.  None.  In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families.  What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -– millionaires and billionaires -– to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make.  And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in.  In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit.  The first time a deal was passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment?  And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan.  But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach -– an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, by myself, and by many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate.  So we’re left with a stalemate. 

Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -– a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before. 

Understand –- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money.  It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.  In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine.  Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it.  President Reagan did it 18 times.  George W. Bush did it seven times.  And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.  

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.   

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -– bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses. 

For the first time in history, our country’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet.  Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people.  We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington.

So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate.  And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default.  But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now.  In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.  

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result.  We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.    

But there’s an even greater danger to this approach.  Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now.  The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach.  Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions.  Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare.  And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way. 

This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth.  It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now.  Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake.  We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare. 

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward.  The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months. 

I think that’s a much better approach, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform.  Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign.  I’m confident we can reach this compromise.  Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before.  And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues.  But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons.  Yes, many want government to start living within its means.  And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few.  But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word.  They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table.  And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington.  They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans.  They’re offended by that.  And they should be. 

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.  So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard.  If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know.  If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise.  As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding:  that out of many, we are one.  We’ve engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote:  “Every man cannot have his way in all things — without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.” 

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed.  But those are not the Americans we remember.  We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good.  We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.  

That’s who we remember.  That’s who we need to be right now.  The entire world is watching.  So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth –- not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation. 

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.