Economics

Reparations For Unjust Enrichment

Published

7 years ago

June 14, 2019

Rev. Curtis O. Robinson, Sr.

God on Wall Street

Rev. Curtis O. Robinson, Sr.

On November 20, 1866, General Oliver Otis Howard, along with 10 other people, played a key role in the founding of Howard University.

General Howard understood that former slaves would need opportunities that only a good education could afford them, if they were to succeed in the new America. But it really wasn’t a new America, as angry whites continued their evil assault upon blacks. When blacks tried to educate themselves in newly formed schools by abolitionists such as General Howard, fires erupted and burned them down. When blacks tried to seek sanctuary within churches for educational purposes, fires erupted and the churches burned down.

I read in Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, where Howard said, “The opposition to Negro education made itself felt everywhere in a combination not to allow the freed men any room or building in which a school might be taught. In 1865, 1866, and 1867, mobs of the baser classes at intervals and in all parts of the South occasionally burned school buildings and churches used as schools, flogged teachers or drove them away, and in a number of instances murdered them.”

In addition to being the namesake of one of the tremendous institutions of higher learning in America, Howard was also instrumental in providing leadership for the Freedman’s Bureau. I read in History.com that, “The Freedmen’s Bureau, formally known as the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, was established in 1865 by Congress to help millions of former Black slaves and poor whites in the South in the aftermath of the Civil War.” The Freedmen’s Bureau could be a major component in the passing of legislation that authorizes the U.S. government to make material and spiritual advancements towards making reparations a reality. According to Encyclopedia.com, “FORTY ACRES AND A MULE was a phrase echoed throughout the South in the aftermath of the Civil War, asserting the right of newly freed African Americans to redistributed lands—particularly those plantations confiscated by U.S. troops during the war—as compensation for unpaid labor during slavery.”

However, with more research, we may be able to decipher the code that could lead to liberty. For instance, “unjust enrichment,” is a barometer for proving the need for reparations. There are three elements that must be present; the defendant received a benefit; at the plaintiff’s expense; and, under circumstances that would make it unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without commensurate compensation.” It’s called “Unjust Enrichment,” and it’s the law!

Rev. Curtis O. Robinson, Sr.

Posts by Rev. Curtis O. Robinson, Sr.

Up Next

News of Freedom Gets to Texas Two Years Late, Giving Rise to Juneteenth

Don't Miss

Opinion: Redevelopment of Henry J. Kaiser Center Must Not Ignore Community Voices

Rev. Curtis O. Robinson, Sr.

Click to comment

Business

California Launches Study on Mileage Tax to Potentially Replace Gas Tax as Republicans Push Back

Under current law, California depends heavily on revenue from the gas tax to fund roads, highways, and infrastructure, but those revenues are projected to shrink as electric vehicle use grows and overall gasoline consumption drops. The mileage study would look at a “road charge” system where drivers pay based on how many miles they drive, rather than how much gas they buy.

Published

5 days ago

February 10, 2026

Oakland Post

Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City is the author of AB 1421. File photo.

By Tanu Henry, California Black Media

California lawmakers are moving forward with a study to explore a mileage-based tax as a potential replacement for the state’s traditional gas tax — a shift supporters say is driven by declining fuel tax revenues as more drivers switch to fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

The research, tied to Assembly Bill (AB) 1421, would extend and support work by the state’s Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee through 2035.

The bill does not yet enact a new tax. Instead, it extends the study and advisory work until 2035 and would have the Legislature receive findings and recommendations, with a report due by Jan. 1, 2027.

Republicans in the California Legislature have been vocal in their opposition. Assembly Republican Leader Heath Flora criticized the proposal.

“We already pay the highest gas taxes in the nation. Now Sacramento is talking about adding a new tax for every mile people drive,” Flora said. “Piling on another tax right now shows just how out of touch politicians in Sacramento are with the reality working families face.”

The plan has drawn broader GOP criticism from leaders outside the Legislature as well. California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton called a mileage fee “absolutely outrageous” and said, if elected, he would veto the tax, adding that tracking and charging drivers for every mile is unacceptable.

Supporters say the study is a pragmatic response to long-term funding challenges.

On the Assembly Floor on Jan. 29, Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D–Suisun City), the bill’s author, said that California’s transportation funding is “becoming less stable, less equitable, and less sustainable as more drivers switch to fuel-efficient and zero-emission vehicles.”

“Drivers using the same roads often pay different amounts for that use,” Wilson continued. “Low income and rural commuters who must drive farther and less efficient vehicles can pay more while others contribute less despite roadway impacts.”

Wilson and other supporters contend that a per-mile road charge could ensure that all drivers contribute fairly to the costs of maintaining roads, regardless of the type of vehicle they drive.