Unemployment is likely to remain above 6 percent for at least three more years, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said during testimony in front of the House Financial Services Committee today. Responding to questions from Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Bernanke said a “reasonable guess” for when unemployment will finally come down to 6 percent is 2016:

FITZPATRICK: The Fed has indicated it believes long-term unemployment rates will settle at around 5.2 percent or 6 percent.

BERNANKE: That’s our best guess.

FITZPATRICK: An understanding I heard your testimony earlier about predicting the future. When would you say we might get to around 6 percent? And also, the American people, they believe natural unemployment is actually much lower than that given what we experienced in the 1990s. Maybe your suggestion as to how we address that expectation.

BERNANKE: Again, it’s hard to predict. But a reasonable guess for 6 percent would be around 2016.

Watch it:

That unemployment remains high and will continue to do so for at least three more years would seem yet another argument against sequestration, the automatic budget cuts that will begin taking effect Friday. Indeed, Bernanke was outspoken in his opposition to further fiscal contraction during his testimony, repeatedly saying the budget cuts could damage the economic recovery and that the Federal Reserve, which has been acting to stimulate the economy through monetary means for months, could use help from Congress.

Instead of offering that help, Congress remains focused on deficit reduction, even as evidence mounts that the only spending problem America has right now is that the government isn’t spending enough. But Republicans have repeatedly blocked efforts to further stimulate the economy, choosing instead to push spending cuts that have held back the recovery. The looming round of cuts will only make that worse: the Congressional Budget Office projects that sequestration will knock 0.6 percentage point off economic growth while resulting in the loss of more than 700,000 jobs.

Budget cuts under the so-called “sequester” will go into effect on Friday. Independent estimates shows that the cuts will cost anywhere from 700,000 to 750,000 jobs. And the end result may be very little deficit reduction as well, as a more depressed economy will not produce as much in the way of revenue, as economist Adam Hersh explained.

During a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee today, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke patiently tried to explain this to Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI), who wasn’t having it:

DUFFY: Instead of encouraging responsibility, you come in and say “listen to cut 2 percent of our budget, you can’t do it. It’s going to have a great impact on our economy.” Mr. Chairman that doesn’t make sense to me.

BERNANKE: Well, I think most economists, including the CBO, would say this will cost a lot of jobs in the short run. And you can achieve the same results with longer-term programs. [...]

DUFFY: So then are you here telling us if we cut $85 billion in a more reflective way — in the bad spending that I just referenced — you would support it? It’s a good idea if we’re not doing it by way of the sequester, but we had a little more reflective analysis on the $85 billion.

BERNANKE: It would be better.

DUFFY: So is it better or you agree with us that we should actually reduce spending?

BERNANKE: I’m still concerned about the short-term impact on jobs. And you don’t get as much benefit as you think, because if you slow the economy that hurts your revenues and that means your deficit reduction is not as big as you think it is.

Watch:

For evidence of what Bernanke is talking about, one needs to look no further than Europe, where austerity — rather than sparking a recovery — has led to weak growth, high unemployment, and yes, more debt. In fact, the EU’s debt “was barely changed at 90 percent of gross domestic product in the third quarter of 2012 compared with 89.9 percent for three months earlier…It was up from 86.8 percent of GDP a year earlier,” even after the continent embraced deep spending cuts and reforms.

Barring a last minute agreement, the automatic across-the-board spending cuts that were included in the Budget Control Act will go into effect on Friday, affecting everything from food safety inspections, to HIV testing kits, and domestic violence programs. On Monday, Immigration of Customs Enforcement even began releasing some 10,000 nonviolent detainees from Immigration Detention Centers, citing the looming budget cuts. “I’m supposed to have 34,000 detention beds for immigration,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. “How do I pay for those?”

Republicans — who have remained silent on the cuts that would effect health care and education programs — immediately expressed outrage, arguing that the Obama administration was purposely releasing immigrants to scare the public. “This is very hard for me to believe that they can’t find cuts elsewhere in their agency,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said in an interview with CBS. “I frankly think this is outrageous. And I’m looking for more facts, but I can’t believe that they can’t find the kind of savings they need out of that department short of letting criminals go free.”

The party finally found a cut it didn’t like, even though all of the immigrants released were being held on non-violent, immigration-related offenses and are still being tracked by ICE.

Taxpayers are forking over roughly $5.1 billion to the private prison industry every year to pay for detention centers, which hold thousands of immigrants who have not been convicted on any crime.

At around $164 per day per immigrant in detention, the centers are a huge burden on the U.S. economy and are home to multiple human rights violations.

There are several plans floating around to replace the so-called “sequester” spending cuts scheduled to kick in on Friday. Senate Democrats and the Congressional Progressive Caucus have both released their own plans, while House Republicans have not released a new plan, but point to one passed in the last Congress.

According to a new poll commissioned by the Business Insider, the Progressive Caucus’ plan is the most popular of the three:

– Surprisingly, the plan that polled the strongest was the House Progressive Caucus plan. More than half of respondents supported it compared to sequestration and just a fifth of respondents were opposed.

– A plurality of people — 28 percent — believed the House Progressive Caucus Plan would have the least financial impact on them personally. This makes the most sense, as only 14 percent of respondents reported having income over $150,000.

– Shockingly, 47 percent of Republicans preferred the House Progressive plan to the sequester. This means that Republicans supported the House Progressive plan just as much as they supported their own party’s plan.
Support for the Senate Democrat plan was weak, with just fewer than half of respondents preferring that plan compared with the sequester.

– Opposition to the House Republican plan was strong, with 57 percent preferring the sequester to that plan.

The CPC’s plan involves replacing the sequester with $960 billion in new revenue — raised via closing loopholes that benefit the rich and corporations, as well as ending wasteful subsidies — $278 billion in defense cuts, and investment in new job creation measures, including spending $160 on America’s crumbling infrastructure. The House Republican plan, meanwhile, replaces the sequester with a basket of cuts to food stamps, Medicaid, and the social services block grant (which, among other things, funds Meals on Wheels).

Across the country, millions of American children struggle to get the food they need, a crisis that impacts educational attainment and their futures. But even though about 21 million American children are eligible for school programs that provide them with free or reduced-price meals, only half are regularly eating breakfast at school, according to a new study on food insecurity and childhood hunger.

Only 11 million of the 21 million children eligible for school lunches and breakfasts eat breakfast at school, according to the study from Deloitte and the No King Hungry campaign:

Connecting eligible children to the breakfast program would enhance academic achievement and school attendance, according to the authors. If 70 percent of the students who were eating school lunches also ate school breakfasts, there would be 3.2 million students achieving higher standardized test scores, 4.8 million fewer absences, and 807,000 more high school graduates, the study says.

No Kid Hungry suggests that to expand access to more eligible children, schools should move their breakfast programs out of the cafeteria and into the classroom, making breakfast part of the regular school day. The study examined schools in Maryland that have made that transition and found that serving breakfast in classrooms increased participation from 46 percent in 2010 to 56 percent in 2012. Schools that served breakfast in classrooms, it found, saw a decline in chronic absenteeism, while students who received breakfast in the classroom were 12.5 percent more likely to achieve proficiency on standardized tests.

As President Obama pushes to increase the national minimum wage, Mississippi Republicans are digging in their heels to prevent any similar efforts in the Hospitality State. A bill working its way through the Republican-controlled Mississippi legislature aims to ensure that no local government enacts a mandatory minimum wage or other worker protections. Mississippi has no statewide minimum wage whatsoever (so it follows the national minimum wage).

The 2012 national Republican platform made clear that the party believes in local decision-making. Endorsing the notion of “solving local and State problems through local and State innovations,” the GOP pledged to “restore the proper balance between the federal government and the governments closest to, and most reflective of, the American people.”

But the idea that local governments might pass legislation to guarantee workers a livable hourly wage scares legislators like State Rep. Jerry R. Turner (R). His proposal, House Bill 141, mandates:

No county, board of supervisors of a county, municipality or governing authority of a municipality is authorized to establish a mandatory, minimum living wage rate, minimum number of vacation or sick days, whether paid or unpaid, that would regulate how a private employer pays its employees.

The bill claims that such a law is “necessary to ensure an economic climate conducive to new business development and job growth in the State of Mississippi.” While it notes that any debate on such matters “should be assigned to the Mississippi Legislature,” it also specifically states that the majority is “not suggesting a state minimum wage or minimum benefit package.” The bill passed the House earlier this month and now awaits action in the Senate’s Accountability, Efficiency, Transparency Committee.

Turner drew attention earlier this year for a bill prohibiting localities from establishing New York City-style regulations on unhealthy foods or requiring additional nutritional labeling at fast food restaurants.

During the Great Recession, the wealth gap between whites and African-Americans nearly doubled, leaving white with nearly 22 times as much in household wealth. According to a new study from Brandeis University’s Institute on Assets and Social Policy, this merely exacerbated a much longer trend during which the wealth of whites exploded while that of African-Americans stagnated:

In 2009, a representative survey of American households revealed that the median wealth of white families was $113,149 compared with $6,325 for Latino families and $5,677 for black families.

Looking at the same set of families over a 25-year period (1984-2009), our research offers key insight into how policy and the real, lived-experience of families in schools, communities, and at work affect wealth accumulation. Tracing the same households during that period, the total wealth gap between white and African-American families nearly triples, increasing from $85,000 in 1984 to $236,500 in 2009.

The report shows that the disparity is driven by “policy and the configuration of both opportunities and barriers in workplaces, schools, and communities that reinforce deeply entrenched racial dynamics in how wealth is accumulated.” For instance, whites are far more likely to receive familial assistance when buying a home (due to previously accumulated wealth), therefore allowing them to purchase a home earlier and hold it for longer. They are also more likely to live in a place where home equity rises more quickly. The same familial advantages allow whites to graduate college with far less student debt. All of this compounds on an already existing disparity, making it that much harder for African-Americans to catch up.