In a recent article on The Grio, NAACP President Ben Jealous outlined the fact that jobs and related employment issues will be a priority of the NAACP in the coming months. To support this new focus of the NAACP, Jealous also announced a march sponsored by his organization that will take place in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 2, 2010, aimed at "jobs and justice." In addition to the NAACP, 100 other organizations are also sponsoring the march.

It has become almost reflexive for many black people to belittle anything the NAACP does. I must admit there has been plenty to criticize over the last several years. However, it is only fair when providing criticism to be able to give praise when it is due. Thus, I must give Jealous credit for many of the things he has done since taking over at the NAACP. Jealous seems to have listened to critiques directed at the NAACP, such as the belief that it is a "do-nothing" organization and relic of the civil rights era unable to adapt to present times. He has taken measures to focus on issues that are directly relevant to the lives of millions of black people of varied socioeconomic status. I have to commend the fact that Jealous has decided to focus on jobs -- and do something about it!

CNNMoney.com just released its 2010 list of top small cities to live in. The top 10 are:

1. Eden Prairie, MN
2. Columbia/Ellicott City, MD
3. Newton, MA
4. Bellevue, WA
5. McKinney, TX
6. Fort Collins, CO
7. Overland Park, KS
8. Fisher, IN
9. Ames, IA
10. Rogers, AR

Now, any "best" list has to be taken with a grain of salt; however, looking over this list of cities would not be a bad starting point for someone who is searching for employment and is willing and able to relocate. These cities are comfortable places to live with a reasonable cost of living. If you are looking to move from a more competitive, congested or stagnant area -- especially if this move is warranted by a job loss -- a city on Money's Best Places to Live 2010 list may be for you.

It's easy to see personal finance as a complicated manner, but in some ways the old advice holds true. Let's revisit some of that old-school financial advice that your grandma used to give:

1. Limit (or don't use at all) credit cards or other forms of high-interest credit: Although I was a stubborn child who had to learn things the hard way, I remember my parents and other elders telling me repeatedly to leave the credit cards alone. At most, they would say, keep an "emergency" card for that purpose only. If you can't afford to pay for something, just wait! Never let yourself think, "let me use my credit card." And never (although it should not even have to be said) take out a payday loan; this is simply legalized loan sharking.

A recent article featured on The Root focuses on a controversial alternative to the traditional methods used to enforce parental responsibility in this country. In a proposal by Brown University professor, Frances Goldscheider, a "financial abortion" would allow a man who makes it known to his partner prior to sex that he does not want to be a father to void all responsibility for any pregnancy that results from subsequent sexual activity. This means that at no point would that man be liable for financially supporting any children that he produced.

Ideally, all fathers would be present in their children's lives and also provide for them financially; however, reality tells us that this is not always the case. Many men who want to provide financially for their children, simply aren't able to. This of course disproportionately harms working class black men, who are impacted heavily when they are unable to make court-orders support payments. Is offering these men the option of a "financial abortion" the solution?


The Root outlines Professor Frances Goldscheider's position:

Did you know that a black man owns the second-largest airport in London? According to an article from The Network Journal, a Nigerian entrepreneur with an impressive resume of accomplishments recently purchased a British airport. Adebayo Ogunlesi, chairman and managing partner of Global Infrastructure Partners, purchased Gatwick Airport, the second largest airport in London in December of 2009 for approximately $2.2 billion. Global Infrastructure Partners is Mr. Ogunlesi's investment company.

Mr. Ogunlesi's purchase of the Gatwick airport is just another in a long line of impressive achievements. After graduating from England's Oxford University, Mr. Ogunlesi attended Harvard Law School, where he obtained a law degree and an MBA. Upon graduating from Harvard, he earned a prestigious clerkship with the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. He followed that up by practicing law at a major corporate firm for a while, before eventually joining Credit Suisse First Boston in 1983. While helping to turn around the then struggling investment bank, he rose to the position of Executive Vice Chairman.

A recent CNN article explains how credit card users may still have leverage in negotiating lower interest rates despite the rhetoric coming from many of the larger U.S. credit card issuers. Many of those issuers have claimed that the recently passed Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act would be devastating to customers, because it would require the companies to raise prices, and reduce consumer choices and access to credit cards. Interest rates have increased, but not as dramatically as increases prior to the enactment of the CARD Act legislation. In addition, credit card companies will be forced to adapt to the new rules that benefit consumers, and provide access to credit to a variety of customers, in order to stay in business.

In addition to being able to negotiate lower rates, there are other positive changes for consumers that have been occurring through CARD. The good news for us is that the CARD Act:

-Requires credit card companies to provide notice to customers before raising rates or fees;
-Requires monthly statements to show how long it will take to pay off your total balance if you are paying the minimum each month;
-Strongly limits advertisements for credit cards aimed at college students and young adults in general; and
-Requires mandatory consistent payment dates and times to be spelled out by credit card companies.

States across the country are struggling with budget deficits due to the recent economic meltdown. According to Yahoo News, this economic turmoil is having a devastating impact on the country's public school system, and there doesn't appear to be much help on the way. Many school systems are being forced to cut basic elements of the school experience: college prep help, art classes, sports and various elective classes. In addition, numerous districts nationwide either have or will cut thousands of jobs in attempts to reduce their budgets. This includes terminating teachers, guidance counselors and other necessary school staff.

The dire situations of public school districts is even worse for the many schools that are located in predominately black and impoverished areas. The perpetual irony in public schooling is that the schools most in need of additional resources are often the last to receive them, and the first to lose them. Many of these poorer schools were already in disarray prior to the recession. It is painful to imagine what will happen to these schools in African American and other low-income areas (and most importantly, the children in them), if nothing is done to stop the loss of resources allotted for education.

The recent uproar over Arizona's new immigration law has re-focused attention on an issue that has festered for several years. Immigration reform has been a hot-button political issue for a long time, though little has been done by the federal government to actually address the problem. This lack of government response has been one of the main reasons many people sympathize with (and even support) Arizona's over-the-top legislation.

One on the main areas in which illegal immigration affects people directly (particularly black people) is employment. It is no secret that many companies hire illegal immigrants because they know that they can pay them less and work them more hours without worry. An illegal immigrant is highly unlikely to complain about being overworked or underpaid for fear of being deported. It is a basic business practice to attempt to get the cheapest labor possible with the maximum amount of production. In that context, it is virtually impossible for American citizens to compete with the thousands of illegal immigrants now filling many low-paying, unskilled positions. Even in skilled trades (such as the construction industry) the situation is the same. From a pure business standpoint, it's just common sense. Who would you hire? An employee who is willing to work long hours for half the salary and no benefits or the one who will demand a decent wage, benefits and a reasonable shift?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently proposed changes that would require Internet service providers (ISP's) to treat all content equally -- meaning that providers could not discriminate in any way against websites, even if certain sites and applications may put extra strain on their network. These changes, called "net neutrality," would put regulations an industry (Internet service providers) that has operated with little regulation for many years.

Some of the arguments made by proponents of net neutrality are that:

1. It will promote an environment of creativity and innovation.
2. It will prevent Internet service providers from blocking access to popular sites that place a heavy burden on their networks. And,
3. It will prevent service providers that own media companies from showing favoritism toward the content that they own.

Opponents of net neutrality say that:

1. Net neutrality would slow Internet access, and increase cost due to more regulations. And,
2. It is an unnecessary hindrance for an industry that has functioned very well without government regulation for many years.

There is a civil war of sorts in the black community regarding the proposed Performance Rights Act (H.R. 848). The legislation, sponsored in the House of Representatives by Rep. John Conyers, would require traditional radio stations to pay a royalty to artists as compensation for playing their music. (Satellite radio, internet radio, cable TV music stations and radio stations that stream their signal online already pay performance royalties.)

Opponents of the bill (most notably Kathy Hughes, president of Radio One) claim that it will bankrupt small and black-owned radio stations, which will not be able to afford the fees required by the legislation. Supporters say that it will fairly compensate artists for their work.

It is very difficult to get excited about supporting either side of this debate. The main spokesperson for the "save black radio" crowd is Kathy Hughes, founder of Radio One. Others speaking out against the Performance Rights Act are Rev. Al Sharpton, Tom Joyner, Dick Gregory and several members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The key supporters of the Performance Right Act are Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Bobby Scott, Dionne Warwick and several other prominent artists. Clearly, both sides have self-serving motives in the positions that they hold, which in itself is not wrong. However, the way both sides are framing the issue is completely misleading.