i just found a fun way to examine how the government does or doesn't work for you ... benefits.gov
super helpful if you are trying to help someone in need!
Our Mission
Benefits.gov (formerly GovBenefits.gov) was launched in an effort to provide citizens with easy, online access to government benefit and assistance programs. Eight years after its initial launch, GovBenefits.gov underwent a major redesign and became Benefits.gov. However, the program's mission remains the same: reduce the expense and difficulty of interacting with the government while increasing citizen access to government benefit information.
The site's core function is the eligibility prescreening questionnaire or "Benefit Finder." Answers to the questionnaire are used to evaluate a visitor's situation and compare it with the eligibility criteria for more than 1,000 Federally-funded benefit and assistance programs. Each program description provides citizens with the next steps to apply for any benefit program of interest.
i think it is time for some serious change in this city. we have had a city council that looks almost exactly the same for the whole time i have lived in the city. most people are re-elected over and over again. this keeps people like marion barry in office for 30 years.
apparently a referendum was passed in the 90's to limit the terms of elected officials, but the elected officials voted it down (how is that possible?). i think it is time to resurrect this idea.
so how do you get a referendum started? does anyone know?
it should be noted that dc council members make $125,583 per year . . . i have a feeling, that many of them stay as long as they do, because it just might only be the only position they could get that would garner them that type of salary. maybe that is just a reflection of how i feel about the professionalism of my current council member. at anyrate, i think it is worthy of note. maybe if more people knew this, they wouldn't feel so bad about running?
October 1, 2008, 10:22 AM
When a City Council Repealed Term Limits
Anthony A. Williams, mayor of Washington from 1999 to 2006, did not support repealing term limits. (Photo: Haraz N. Ghanbari/Associated Press)
For months, the City Council debated whether to repeal term limits, which voters had approved in a referendum in the 1990s. Critics said some members of the City Council were simply trying to hold onto their jobs. Others said that term limits were poor public policy and restricted voters’ choices.
New York City in 2008? No. Washington, D.C., in 2001.
In 2001, as a reporter for The Washington Post, I covered the debate over term limits in the nation’s capital. In a 1994 referendum, 62 percent of voters in the District of Columbia agreed to impose a limit of two consecutive four-year terms on the mayor and members of the City Council and the Board of Education.
In some ways, the 1994 referendum had been a strange outcome. That same year, the city’s voters gave a fourth term to Marion S. Barry Jr., a former three-term mayor whose political career had seemed to be derailed by his 1990 arrest and subsequent conviction on drug charges.
By 2001, Mr. Barry had retired and been replaced by Anthony A. Williams, a reformist, bow-tie-wearing numbers cruncher who was elected in 1998 after rescuing the city from near-bankruptcy as its chief financial officer.
The term limits law in Washington took effect in 1995 and would have forced five council members from seeking reelection in 2004 and seven in 2006.
Momentum to repeal the term limits gained steam in early 2001. One councilman, Jack Evans, noted that more than 50,000 of the 186,311 voters who cast ballots in the 1994 referendum recorded no opinion on term limits.
But at a public hearing, most people who testified assailed the effort to repeal term limits. “The people have spoken, whether we agree or disagree,” said Wilhelmina J. Rolark, a former councilwoman who argued that term limits gave more residents a chance to fill the city’s relatively few elected positions. (The District of Columbia has no senators and one nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives. Its government was directly under federal control until 1973, when it achieved limited home rule.)
Mayor Williams did not support repealing term limits, and specifically asked that if the Council went ahead and abolished the limits that it exclude the office of the mayor.
The Council disagreed. On June 5, 2001, the Council voted, 9 to 4 — a veto-proof majority — to abolish the term limits for all elected officials. “If citizens don’t want someone, they vote them out,” the Council chairwoman, Linda W. Cropp, said.
Although term limits had been invalidated by several courts, it marked one of the first times an elected body had overturned a term-limits initiative without the consent of voters, Paul Jacob, national director of U.S. Term Limits, said at the time.
Since then, several legislatures have repealed term limits, including Idaho in 2002 and Utah in 2003.
Although term limits were abolished, the City Council has undergone much turnover. Only 5 of the current 13 members were on the Council back in 2001. Ms. Cropp, who was chairwoman of the Council when term limits were ended, ran for mayor in 2006 but lost in the Democratic primary to a councilman,Adrian M. Fenty, who went on to succeed Mr. Williams.
this whole discussion about dc being a "federal city" makes me nuts!
can you imagine if, when we were "rebuilding" iraq, we had said iraq needs to have a country-wide elections, but baghdad can't vote b/c it is the seat of government. no one in the international or american community would stand for that. that is how it is for us living in dc.
this is from wiki:
Because the United States Constitution places the District of Columbia under the sole control of Congress, all acts of the [district city] council are subject to congressional override, and thus the council has less power than most city councils in the United States. However, because the District is not part of any state, Congress has devolved many powers normally exercised by state governments to the District's government; thus, the council considers many matters that would fall to county and state legislatures elsewhere in the United States.
this means the ability of dc to make laws that provide safety (gun ban) and freedom (gay marriage) for ourselves is impossible. even if a law is passed by referendum in dc with overwhelming support of the citizens of DC, congress can change the law. which they recently did when they said that our ban on guns was unconstitutional.
essentially, people from hawaii to massachusetts, who aren't even living temporarily in DC, determine what laws are ok and how our taxes should be spent. WHAT?!
the people that make decisions about our "state" are the following, please note that elenor holmes, the only person elected from DC, and living in DC, doesn't have the right to vote. she can argue, but cannot vote. here is the make up of the committees:
for a city that historically votes quite democrat, it is amazing to see some of THE most conservative junior members of congress on the house committee.
currently they are waging a battle to resend the district council's decision to allow gay marriage and apparently the speaker of the house has high hopes for making the district school system better through the stroke of his almighty (and huge) gavel . . . below michael steele defends bohner's decision. it is a good discussion between steele and maddow about DC's ability to govern itself . . . and some stuff on the resurrection of the culture wars.
isn't it time that dc get to start running itself? i mean it is a bit scary, we continue to elect marion barry to be a councilmember BUT isn't that what democracy is about? shouldn't we be able to elect a fool if we so desire? america elected dubba, and though i hated it (and felt really the supreme court kinda decided that for us) i respect the democratic process and our right to execute it.
i can't imagine that the people of the united states would support the idea that any other country's capitol city's citizens should not be able to vote. paris, no vote for you. london, sorry! or what if all the sudden china decided to have an elected government, but sorry bejing, NO VOTE FOR YOU! . . . we would call FOUL!
the framers of the constitution set things up this way because at the time the city was full of people who worked on the hill, in the white house, or as servants to those that did. obviously, that is not what the district is today. the district is full of people who work in all sectors of society and we should be able to both rule our own state AND have representation in congress.
the head of the committee is from a small town outside of greenville, sc. and for all my arizona peeps, the second guy is from flagstaff. none of the republicans live in the district (even as temporary residents during their term in office).
can someone explain what a guy from flagstaff can understand about the violence, drugs, and culture of this city. also, what is their motivation for doing right by the people of DC? it is true that my "state" tax dollars are often "earmarked" for roads and schools in california, south carolina, and probably flagstaff.
so while we suffer with horrible schools and crappy roads here, the people of flagstaff get my taxes (not federal but my state taxes) to improve their schools and roads to make some congressman look like he can deliver for his constituents.
wanna talk about a tea party! wasn't the tea party about being taxed without representation? i have one of the highest tax rates an american can have, and because my state can't control its own budget AND because we have no voice in congress, our dollars are stolen from us and put to use all over the US.
so, no wonder we can't end the violence, fix the decrypted schools, repair the pot hole ladened roads, clean up the atrociously unkempt parks, etc . . . our hands are tied behind our backs. DC is not a good representation of the people who live. we are a progressive lot. we want safety, good schools, access to healthy food, and despite all this effed up government we share a strong sense of community. this city is a victim and clear demonstration of selfish behavior in congress. pure and simple. unless you can help me understand why this arcane rule is still in place, i will believe the problems of DC as one of the bright and shinny symptoms of congressional greed.
i'm sick of it. it is stupid, un-American, and mean. its all politics. my guess is most people agree that i should have representation in congress. but then people start to think it through and realize that DC usually votes democratic, so then suddenly partisan politics have to come into play.
though, i tip my che hat to orrin hatch and joe lieberman. they proposed a totally decent idea. utah would get an additional house seat in exchange for DC getting one vote in congress. it's kinda silly, but it was a middle ground. that way DC doesn't disrupt the balance of power. but even that didn't fly. the senate passed it 61-37 then john ensign decided he could add a line about us having to let weapons rule our streets (so much for being able to control your own destiny) and it pass 62-36 (i'm guessing he changed his vote) but the house went no where with it . . . do i have to nancy to blame for this?
i can't imagine what my home district (AZ-6) would do if some folks from DC decided that we were going to over-rule some of the laws that they had struggled to pass, AND we decided that we were going to take some of your state, county, and city taxes because our city has to pay to get the snow removed so that the federal government can function so, shouldn't every community getting federal dollars pay for the snow removal? seems bit crazy, but make WAY more sense than some dude in flagstaff deciding that schools in flag should be paid for by my taxes. as much as i care about the kids in flag, my feeling is the people living in that community should pay for their schools, not me.
i could go on an on. if you wouldn't mind posting a comment to help me understand what the rest of america thinks of this, i'd be most grateful.
or if you want to do something that might have more impact (though i think a discussion here might help flesh out ideas):
Letters-to-the-Editor
A great way to help raise awareness of DC's plight is to write letters-to-the-editor of your hometown, local, and national newspapers. You can be creative about where you send letters by reaching out to magazines, alumni newsletters, community newsletters, e-mail lists and blogs too.
this is one of my neighborhood friends responding to the listserv . . . i think she makes some really great points:
The meetings, the vigils, the oh-so-sincere concern ... they're always the same. But nothing ever changes because the status quo is too entrenched, and people are too afraid to challenge their established prejudices. For example, the much-scapegoated methadone clinics, which not only don't contribute to neighborhood problems, but actually helped (while they were here) to reduce them.
This innocent citizen was the victim of a huge, huge cultural divide. He tried to do what seemed to him as the only decent thing, and because of his color and his demeanor (as well as, maybe, other things), it cost him his life. People don't want to acknowledge the constant tension between the two worlds that uneasily co-exist side-by-side in the neighborhood. I see it as cultural, but there's a very big racial component to it.
I can guarantee you that some black man, probably a young black man, was acting thuggish somehow. The citizen - who represented everything this hypothetical young man hated - got involved, and the young man's anger was instantly redirected. He may not have meant to outright kill the citizen, or he may not have cared either way. He was likely under the influence of alcohol, and also probably feeling the need to uphold his hard-core image.
Inner city culture is very predatory. It reflects our predatory society. I see it all as connected, but people like Kathy Henderson and others on the listserv see it in black and white, citizens vs criminals terms. Kathy and her disciples think an extreme authoritarian approach is the only solution, and that anyone who disagrees (like me) is siding with the criminals ... even though time and time again, this path has provably only made things worse.
To be safe, you need to learn which set of rules is appropriate for whatever situation you're in. Until then, don't put yourself in situations you're not 100% sure of. I don't mean you can't physically be there, just stay focused on your business, don't be distracted by anyone or anything you witness, and don't get involved in other peoples' activities. Be civil, be respectful ... but not friendly. Living your life in fear is riskier than the things you, right now, may feel afraid of.
Yes, it would suck to have to turn away from someone who needs your help, but you never, ever put your life or physical safety on the line for the sake of someone's personal property, or to help them save face. And you never, ever get involved in domestic disputes. Above all, you never let your ego into the driver's seat. Whatever's going on, it's almost certainly not about you - usually even when it seems like it is. So avoid staring, leave the area quietly and inconspicuously. Then once you're at home or in a safe area, call the police.
Oh yeah: learn to tell the difference between firecrackers, backfiring cars, and gunshots. And if you hear gunfire, hit the deck or get behind something. If you're not sure, watch what other people are doing.
This is for sure the highest profile violent crime to have occurred in the ten years we've lived here. I hope with the real economy getting worse and times getting so hard, this isn't a sign of bad things to come.
What we need is (a) for both sides to learn a lot more about each other's mannerisms and cultural imperatives (b) an end to the Drug Wars which, underneath, fuel the engine that drives this whole underground scene
over the past couple of days there has been a heated debate (though mostly constructive) on the eckington listserv about this heinous crime. participating in this debate has helped me see more clearly how we often choose distraction. many on the list are focusing on things that we cannot change. which stands in the way of actually making change.
i grew up being very familiar with the serenity prayer: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change, courage to change the things that i can, and the wisdom to know the difference." i hope my community can do this!
at first, when i heard the screaming & gun shots, woke up to the police tape and the investigation taking place, read the first reports, etc., i assumed a gang-banger had been shot. most of the violence in this city, and cities around the country, is related to drug trade and gang related muck. gang related violence is often ridiculously senseless, nevertheless it is also reality that most violence stems from this (in my 'hood).
my belief of this helped me feel safe. if you don't want to be shot, don't be in a gang. easy! it made me feel like my neighbors, friends, and self were safe.
billy's murder changed this.
he did what i would have done. he did what my friends would have done; on his way home from a play at the shakespear theater with his mom, he saw a woman in distress and he tried to help her. (you can read more about it here . . . its chilling) i have done this a number of times. most of the people i know in this city have seen this stuff and reacted similarly. his "Good Samaritan" instincts got him killed.
not only have i defended others. i've defended myself. i have yelled at cab drivers who drive dangerously close to me while i'm on my bike; i have told schizophrenics yelling at people to "be nice"; etc. i feel like it is my duty not to walk away from someone who is being hurt. i believe doing so, makes me an accomplice.
i don't like to live in fear! so i refuse to stand down. but now i have to rethink . . . will i stop the next time i see someone being abused? would i open the cab door to yell at the west african cab driver who TWICE tried to run me off the road? probably not.
though, i want to still be able to. i want to still be able to defend the woman in distress. i want to be okay with people taking the metro or bus to my house. but right now i'm not.
so, how do we get out safety back?
this has been the topic of discussion in eckington this week. the community response has been interesting to me. there are some who believe we should all have guns. that arming eckington will make it safer. much of the discussion has moved away from improving community safety and into a discussion on loosening gun laws.
this is completely ironic to me. not only because even dick cheney is saying we might want to tighten gun laws in response to the attempted assasignation of gabby giffords, and all the others killed and injured in tucson two weeks ago. but also, had billy's hate filled lunatic murderer not had a gun, billy would be alive.
those who believe that guns are the way to safety, say that if the guy who killed billy was worried at all that billy had a gun, he wouldn't have pulled his. i disagree! they just might now both be dead.
it is also way off track. it isn't something we can actually do something about. the people of eckington are going to change the SCOTUS' decision on Heller. and thus, we are distracted by the things we cannot change and are being foolish in not recognizing it.
there are things we CAN do! sometimes, doing what we can is scarier than talking about what others should do. when we are empowered and have the "courage to change the things that we can", we feel better. we also have responsibility. that is intimidating to many. in this case it may mean having to go to monthly meetings, having conversations with police, etc etc.
regardless, i will choose, no matter what, to stand with gandhi and martin luther king jr.; "an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind".
plus i hate guns. i don't want a gun in my house! i certainly don't want to have to carry a gun in my neighborhood so that i can feel safe.
the truth is just seeing a gun makes me feel unsafe. a gun killed my cousin greg (at point blank range in the face when he tried to calm down some bad guys that invaded his girlfriend's home while he was taking a friend to work. he came home and the robbers/drug dealers had a gun to her head. he tried to smooth things over, and was killed).
my dear aunt sydeny was killed with a gun. she turned the gun on herself. she had started drinking again (after about 30 years of sobriety) and she hated herself for it. she studied long and hard the best way to kill herself. though my uncle galen knew she was suicidal, he insisted that he "had a right to bear arms", (which makes me believe he should be charged as an accomplice to murder"). she used one of his "arms" to kill herself. wrapped herself up in 2 plastic shower curtains, laid down in an empty bathtub, and pulled the trigger -- because "one should never leave a mess."
i believe greg and sydney would still be alive today if it weren't for handguns.
please don't think this worldview stems from me being some pansy-ass liberal that has never handled a gun. in fact, i grew up on a hobby farm in arizona (and you know arizonans do love their guns).
my dad hunted an arizona white tailed deer every year, and we ate that deer all year long. (see the photo to the left of my grandma, my dad, me, and our deer) when i got old enough, he taught me to clean and handle a gun LONG before i ever shot one. then we went out shooting. he had mostly rifles: shotguns, 22's, etc. he did have a muzzle-loaded handgun.
looking back now, i realize that the reason my dad would take me out shooting with his friends so often was because i was a pretty amazing shot.
i'm good at it. i know the rush of it. in college, one of my friends had a semi-automatic (why ???) that we took to his cabin and shot cans with. i amazed myself at how easy it was for me to hit down all the cans (and totally schooled the boys who were acting very bravado about having the gun and their ability to use it . . .who were hitting MAYBE on can at a time. i knocked down all 6 in my first try.)
but here is the deal: i think i should be able to live in a community that is safe enough that i'm not required to carry a weapon. police should have the guns and should be efficient and engaged enough to stop people with illegal guns and protect me, so that i don't have to protect myself. otherwise, what are the taxes i/we pay for?
my/our tax dollars pay the salaries and operating costs of the MPD, so that we are safe and protected. but they aren't really helping me feel safe OR protected. instead i feel ignored and frankly a bit inconsequential by those who are supposedly protecting my safety.
this is basic rule of law stuff.
i agree that police aren't the entire solution, they should be accountable to stand by their oath to "protect & to serve". paul suggested that we need to be out walking our kids and dogs more. that we need to have people out on the street at night. i say, we need the police to do their job first. then we might feel better walking our dogs, or even taking our trash out. which right now, to me, feels dangerous to me.
i've been trying to get ahold of the district commander, the investigator assigned to my burglary, the drug unit, etc since october 24th. i have left countless messages and received no response. i have noticed more cops driving through the alley, but i don't think being in a car going 25 MPH is really going to help change things. we need engaged community-oriented police. they need to be on bikes or on foot really patrolling their beat, not playing video games in their cars. they need to know us, and we need to know them. this type of community-policing is proven to be more effective. this engenders trust in the police.
i hope my community can work through this. that we can create a safer space here. that billy's life will be remembered and honored. he stood up to the bad guys and tried to protect people. we should all do that, and do it together, with the police so that dc can be safer. it is horrible that billy died. its disgusting! but i think we can honor his legacy of service by creating a city where women don't need to be defended as often and people are safe to walk home from the theater.
if you want to see dick cheney talk about strengthening gun control laws see this video:
i'm pretty freaked out about guns right now. on wednesday i heard a woman scream twice and then 2 gun shots, then the woman screamed again and i heard another gun shot. i called the police as soon as i heard the shots. i heard the woman scream twice and then 2 shots. then there was a silence, then i heard another scream, and then another shot. by the time, the of the 3rd scream, i was calling 911.
it took at least 5 minutes until i heard the first police car. the 911 operator had no sense of urgency. the moment the call was answered i said "Police!Police!Police!Police!", but she just went through her script, it took at least a minute just for her to understand that someone had been shot. she just refused to hear me until it was time in the script for me to tell her the reason for my call. . . this is what had happened
i want to know why there aren't more police around here? i've reported seeing people shooting heroin in my alley; i was burglarized in october; i've seen drug deals go down and reported it; i asked for our alley and that corner be put on a special watch. I've called the district commander, with no return calls. i've tried to get ahold of the investigator of my burglary a number of times, no returned calls or emails. the police force in DC is simply unresponsive. and i actually have a hard time understanding how they can sleep at night. a woman, living alone, in a "transitional" neighborhood calls and says she is scared, and even that can't get a call returned ??!!!
oh, and i learned a couple of minutes ago another person was stabbed in the head just a block away from where this murder took place.
when i first came to DC, i worked at the National Institute of Justice, where demonstration projects around the country showed that community-oriented policing steeply reduces crime. it requires police to have relationships with the people they are supposed to be protecting. Obviously, this is not happening here, when i can't even get an assigned investigator to call me back.
and thank-you republicans for striking down our gun ban. truthfully, because of our pathetic laize faire police force, when we were able to ban guns we didn't enforce it. the truth is, i'm sure the gun that guy had was illegal. why not just start asking people to see permits? i really love this argument between an arizona member of congress and a talking head on the shootings in tucson. they are debating whether extended capacity ammo clips should be legal . . .
