Tag Archives: senate spot

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

In the era of trump and republicans – repost


By

The Crazy Things The Republican Candidates Said, And The Important Things They Left Out

first posted in 2015

Yesterday morning the Cleveland Plain Dealer featured a front page story about the “vanishing middle class.” The writers couldn’t have predicted the middle class would vanish from the presidential debate as well: after nearly three and half hours of debating between the two events, there was virtually no mention of working families and middle class workers.

Over the two debates, the words “middle class” were said exactly two times by candidates. Instead, the cadre of Republican candidates disparaged immigrants, called for repeal of the Affordable Care Act, war-mongered, and ignored working families altogether. Not that it mattered: the few places the GOP candidates offered policy proposals were for the same outdated policies that crippled those families in the first place.

We took a look issue by issue at how the candidates’ debate rhetoric doesn’t match reality:

Economy

As the economy recovers, more and more of the country’s economic gains are going to the wealthy few as the middle class get increasingly squeezed. Rather than offer new ideas for how to help middle-class families, the Republican candidates clung to the same old, failed trickle-down theories.

 

  • Governor Jeb Bush touted his trickle down record in Florida, saying that he cut taxes every year. He continues to support tax plans that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy, such as eliminating capital gains. However, doing so would mainly benefit the wealthy few in Ohio—92 percent of Ohio’s millionaires would benefit, but the middle class will receive next to nothing.
  • Governor Chris Christie went out of his way to praise his record of economic growth in New Jersey, touting that he “brought the budget into balance with no tax increases.” But, national employment grew almost two times faster that it did in New Jersey since he became governor.
  • Governor John Kasich bragged about how he turned around the economy in Ohio “with jobs and balanced budgets and rising credit and tax cuts.” But Ohio’s middle class is not seeing the benefits. A new report from CAP Action shows the median income in the state is trailing the national average by $5,541 and median income has gone down since 2010—the year before Kasich took office. On the eve the debate, an editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer cited CAP Action’s analysis, calling it “eye-opening” and lamenting that tax cuts became “articles of Statehouse faith, robbing Ohio of money it could have invested in education, including early-childhood education, and university-driven innovation.”
  • Senator Marco Rubio pushed his tax plan. But, if enacted, the Rubio plan would be a massive, costly tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans, while slashing $2.4 trillion in revenue and ballooning the budget deficit.
  • Governor Scott Walker showcased his leadership in Wisconsin, saying “the voters in Wisconsin elected me last year for the third time because they wanted someone who aimed high, not aimed low.” But in Walker’s Wisconsin, Wisconsin ranked 44th in the country for middle-class income growth.

Immigration

GOP candidates continued to oppose sensible action on immigration that would help millions of undocumented immigrants while boosting the U.S. economy. They offered no new solutions, but clung to unworkable ideas such as a big wall at the border.

  • Governor Scott Walker claimed that the president “messed up the immigration system in this country” when he expanded federal actions that focus immigration enforcement on felons, not families. In reality, implementing DAPA and expanding DACA is estimated to help over 5 million individuals to work legally and live here without fear of deportation, and will grow the U.S. economy cumulatively by $230 billion over 10 years.
  • Donald Trump claimed that the Mexican government is sending criminals across the border, saying “the fact is, since then, many killings, murders, crime, drugs pouring across the border, are money going out and the drugs coming in. And I said we need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly.” But in reality, the border is more secure than ever before.

Health Care

The Affordable Care Act is here to stay and it’s working. It’s helped bring affordable health insurance to millions of people and reduced the uninsured rate. Although the American people oppose efforts to repeal the ACA, the GOP candidates want to take us back to the broken healthcare system we had before.

  • Donald Trump called the ACA a “complete disaster.” Actually, the ACA has succeeded in bringing quality, affordable health insurance to 16.4 million Americans. And since the ACA went into full effect, the uninsured rate has dropped almost 6 percentage points to 11.4 percent in the second quarter of 2015.
  • Governor Jeb Bush continued his attacks on affordable healthcare tonight, saying he would “get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something that doesn’t suppress wages and kill jobs.” Reality check: Since the ACA went into effect, 11 million jobs have been created and unemployment is down by half.

Women’s Health

During the debate, the ten men on stage quickly rushed to attack women’s health, striving to outdo one other on how extreme each can be. But access to quality, affordable health care is not just a right, it’s a matter of economic security for women.

  • Governor Scott Walker boasted about how he “defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago.” But Planned Parenthood provides critical health services to millions of Americans. In 2013, Planned Parenthood served more than 2.7 million women, men, and young people; 1.5 million of those patients received services through Title X, the nation’s family planning program.

Education

The GOP presidential contenders offered zero ideas to improve our education system. Instead of ideas to increase access to a quality education for all children, we heard more of the same conservative talking points to eliminate the Department of Education and lip service about the need for high quality education from the same governors that have cut education funding in their own states.

  • Former Governor Mike Huckabee said, “there is no role at the federal level for the Department of Education.” At least five other Republican candidates also believe the U.S. Department of Education should be eliminated. But the Department of Education is critical for the nation’s children, especially at risk and high need students. The Department targets resources to the most at risk and highest need students to receive a quality education and afford college including $28.83 billion in Pell grants per year and over $25 billion to low-income and special needs students.
  • Governor Scott Walker emphasized the importance of education saying that we need to, “give people the education, the skills that the need to succeed…That’s what I’ll do as president, just like I did in Wisconsin.” But during his time as governor, he cut school funding per student more than any other governor in America.

The Topics The Candidates Left Out

What’s just as shocking as the claims the candidates did make are the very important topics that were left out of the debate.

  • A few days after the Clean Power Plan launch, climate change was not mentioned once. Climate change has an impact on every corner of the world – from public health and the environment, to national security and the economy. Earlier this week, the Obama administration released the final version of the Clean Power Plan, the biggest climate action the United States have taken to curb carbon emissions.
  • On the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, voting rights was not mentioned once. 50 years ago yesterday, the Voting Rights Act was signed into law that prohibited racial discrimination in voting and paved the way for millions to cast ballots. The VRA is often held up as the most effective civil rights law ever enacted, yet many of the candidates have taken steps to further disenfranchise minority voters.
  • Despite its centrality to so many important issues, economic inequality was not mentioned once. Four out of five Americans will experience at least a year of significant economic insecurity at some point during their working years, yet inequality was not brought up in the first Republican debate. Nor was an important aspect of that: the minimum wage. In fact, many of the Republican candidates do not support raising the minimum wage even though it would save taxpayers $52.7 billion over the next ten years.
  • The entire conversation around #BlackLivesMatter lasted a total of 47 seconds. While the Fox News moderators did ask one question on how to address the problem of “overly aggressive police officers targeting young African Americans,” it was quickly deflected by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. What’s more, no Republican candidate has yet to reference the movement in their campaigns, except to dismiss and criticize it.
  • The debate was a “gun-free zone.” In the wake of the shootings in Charleston, Chattanooga, and the Lafayette movie theater, no plan was offered for what to do about America’s level of gun violence, which far exceeds that of peer countries. In fact, though a common talking point of conservatives is that so-called “gun free zones” invite gun massacres, neither the Fox News moderators nor those on stage commented on the irony that the debate venue, the Quicken Loans Arena, is a gun-free zone.

BOTTOM LINE: We could have predicted there would be some fireworks at last night’s Republican presidential debate, and there certainly were. But while last night’s debate may have made for good entertainment, that is just about where its value stopped. For what the candidates did choose to talk about, the rhetoric was either extreme or simply not matched by the policy reality. And more surprisingly, the candidates chose not to talk at all about some of the critical challenges — strengthening the middle class, improving the democratic process, tackling inequality, addressing climate change — that face the next president.

#staywoke and see what trump voters missed … you voted against your own best interests as well as those of your friends family and coworkers

Nativegrl77

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

The State of Social Security and Medicare ~ a repost 2015


a repost

By

What You Need To Know From The Latest Social Security Trustees Annual Report

The latest annual report from the trustees for Social Security and Medicare came out today. It provided some very good news on the health care front: the report extended Medicare’s solvency by four years from 2026 to 2030. This improved financial health can be attributed in part to the Affordable Care Act, which is helping to reduce costs.

Just a few years ago, before the Affordable Care Act was fully implemented, the trustees predicted that the Medicare trust fund would run out by 2016. Another reason to be thankful for the ACA.

On the Social Security front, some news reports are focusing on the financial shortfall that the program faces in the next 75 years. But it is both expected and manageable. Here are the four key takeaways, from a post by Center for American Progress experts Rebecca Vallas and Christian E. Weller:

1. Social Security can continue to pay all promised benefits for the next two decades. As was the case in last year’s report, the Trustees continue to estimate that Social Security will be able to pay all scheduled retirement, disability, and survivorship benefits through 2033. Social Security has two trust funds: one for the retirement and survivorship benefit programs, and one for the much smaller Disability Insurance (DI) program (although experts generally consider the two funds together due to the interrelated nature of Social Security’s programs). Individually, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund is projected to deplete its reserves in 2035, and the DI trust fund will do so in 2016. After 2033, the Trustees project that Social Security income from payroll taxes will be sufficient to cover 77 percent of promised benefits after 2033, unless policymakers implement changes before then.

2. Social Security’s shortfall is modest. The Trustees project that the entire Social Security shortfall for the next 75 years will be about 1 percent of GDP, or 2.88 percent of taxable payroll. The bulk of this shortfall, 2.55 percent of payroll or 88.5 percent of the entire shortfall, is attributed to OASI. The Trustees have long projected both the OASI and DI shortfalls. While an aging population is frequently discussed as the driving factor, recent analysis by Monique Morrissey at the Economic Policy Institute finds that as much as half of the shortfall is attributable to rising inequality and wage growth that has lagged behind gains in productivity.

3. The fact that action will soon be needed to address Disability Insurance’s finances has long been expected. As with last year’s report, this year the Trustees continue to project that the DI trust fund will be exhausted in 2016—something that has been expected for nearly 20 years.

4. A routine step would ensure that Social Security can pay all benefits in full through 2033. Rebalancing—an adjustment in the share of payroll taxes allocated to each of the trust funds—has occurred in a bipartisan manner 11 times in the program’s history to account for demographic shifts or other changes. About half the time funds have been reallocated toward OASI, and about half the time toward DI.

BOTTOM LINE: The trustees for Social Security and Medicare brought the good news that Medicare’s financial health is better than expected. And the predictions it makes for Social Security are both expected and manageable–permitting our elected officials can take action to strengthen this program that is a bedrock of economic security for working Americans.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Rescind my city’s cruel anti-homeless feeding ban … still?

3 Comments

Randall Kallinen

Helping my city’s homeless could land me in jail with a $2000 dollar fine.

Last November, a 90-year-old Florida man was arrested and faced 60 days in jail for feeding the homeless. A few months later, a San Antonio woman was hit with a $2000 dollar fine for doing the same.. These “feeding bans” have popped up all over the United States. In fact, more than 70 cities around the country have instituted or tried to institute similar ordinances.

My name is Randall Kallinen, and I am deeply saddened to say that my beloved city of Houston has followed suit. Now, a good deed could cost you $2000 here, too. This is just the wrong direction to be taking. It’s anti-compassion and anti-humanitarian, and we need to turn it around.

Tell Mayor Annise Parker and the Houston City Council that feeding the homeless isn’t a crime. Change the law and allow good samaritans to feed the hungry.

As a civil rights lawyer for over  21 years, homeless advocate and the president of Houston’s ACLU chapter for 3 years, I speak from experience when I say that humane acts of kindness should be rewarded, not punished. When Houston passed this ban 3 years ago, organizations from across the religious and political spectrum spoke out because they understood that being a good samaritan isn’t a religious or political issue, but rather a  matter of human rights. Now most have been frightened off from giving to the needy. Helping those in need should be considered a fundamental right, particularly now when more and more people are experiencing food insecurity and the government is failing to fix the problem. Houston’s cruel “anti-feeding” ordinance stands in the way of that right, and it is up to you and me to overturn it.

Because of our size, as Texas goes, so goes the rest of the country in many political matters. Too many cities have already adopted these anti-humanitarian measures. Getting Houston to rescind this draconian ordinance where you must seek permission as where and when to feed more than 5 less fortunate outside on public property could go a long way toward turning the tide across the nation.

Criminalizing charity penalizes our community’s most vulnerable. Can you help to make sure that doesn’t happen?

Let’s put an end to this misguided ordinance and return the spirit of giving and charity to the city of Houston. Join me and tell Mayor Annise Parker and the Houston City Council that every human deserves compassion. Tell them to rescind the “anti-feeding” ordinance.
~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Donald Trump … Él no es tu amigo

2 Comments

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

New thinking about the Caribbean


June 14, 2015

In North America and Europe there are from time to time international conferences that quietly enable new thinking. It is mostly an unseen process whereby governments, foundations or think tanks facilitate conversations, in ways that variously attempt to address intractable problems such as those in the Middle East, form a consensus on future policy, or enable the participants to look over the horizon.

These events allow invited participants to escape from their day-to-day responsibilities and usually in a group of 50 or less, debate and explore new ideas or solutions in private. The value is not just in the dialogue and the outcome, but in the freedom to say what you think knowing that no one will quote you, in the personal contacts made in the margins, and the associated trust that develops which can last throughout a career.

Such events rarely focus on the Caribbean, but a little over a week ago about sixty invited guests from the Caribbean as a whole, the UK and North America met at Wilton Park in the English countryside.

The objective of ‘Caribbean 2030: new thinking for a new generation’ was to bring together a mix of voices, young and more experienced, to consider what the region might look like fifteen years from now, and to hear in particular how younger participants from politics, government, the private sector, academia and civil society see the Caribbean’s future and how they might play a role in taking it there.

The conference, which was developed in conjunction with the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI) and Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was wide-ranging in its scope, but a number of general themes emerged which suggest a different Caribbean in fifteen years time.

One of the more significant discussions that ran throughout the conference was whether the future fortunes of the region lay in economic convergence between complementary economies. It was suggested that rather than politically-led solutions, it was trade, investment and financial services between networked groups of nations that would create future growth and integration. One consequence was that participants from the northern Caribbean, and in particular from Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, argued that there was greater value in Jamaica, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic having a stronger economic relationship that might also involve Cayman as a financial hub. The view of some was that such an approach would enable the Caribbean to escape being defined through its colonial past.

This was not to say that in terms of foreign relations and on issues of international or thematic importance that the region should not act through Caricom, nor for most was it to suggest that Caricom should be set aside; but many participants felt there were better opportunities for growth through a more rational approach to economic integration linked to improved infrastructure. The suggestion was that this thinking ought to drive policy across the region.

FYI: Caricom members include

 Antigua and Barbuda 4 July 1974
 Bahamas 4 July 1983 Not part of customs union
 Barbados 1 August 1973
 Belize 1 May 1974
 Dominica 1 May 1974
 Grenada 1 May 1974
 Guyana
 Haiti 2 July 2002 Provisional membership on 4 July 1998
 Jamaica 1 August 1973
 Montserrat 1 May 1974 British overseas territory
 Saint Kitts and Nevis 26 July 1974 Joined as Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla
 Saint Lucia 1 May 1974
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 May 1974
 Suriname 4 July 1995
 Trinidad and Tobago 1 August 1973 Founder of the Organization before handing over to Guyana
Associate  Anguilla July 1999 British overseas territory
 Bermuda 2 July 2003 British overseas territory
 British Virgin Islands July 1991 British overseas territory
 Cayman Islands 16 May 2002 British overseas territory
 Turks and Caicos Islands July 1991 British overseas territory
Observer  Aruba Country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
 Colombia
 Curaçao Country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
 Dominican Republic
 Mexico
 Puerto Rico Commonwealth of the USA
 Sint Maarten Country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
 Venezuela

There were of course dissenting voices, particularly in some of the working groups. Some in particular from the Eastern Caribbean and from academia objected and declared themselves all but wedded to making what the region already had work, though when it came to the detail there was little to demonstrate how this might take the Caribbean beyond where it is today.

A second prevailing theme was that of the new economy and the growing irrelevance of borders.

These thoughts came especially from some of the younger participants involved in information technology, new media, tourism and the private sector more generally, who made clear that what they were doing made traditional geographic concepts and the size of the Caribbean irrelevant.

The conference was also notable for leaping the language and cultural divide with participants from the Dominican Republic being able to demonstrate in a neutral setting how their experience in many areas from alternative energy to tourism had relevance to most of the region. It also allowed them to set out the country’s thinking in terms of how it might be better connected with and work more closely with the nations of Caricom.

As you might expect there were detailed exchanges on energy security, the environment, and education which all agreed was a development priority if the region was to succeed. There were interesting mentions of the blue economy − the region’s largely unrealised offshore resource − and important exchanges on governance and security about which more in a future column.

There was not a stand-off between the politicians and the private sector. In fact there was a surprising degree of consensus that both needed one another and that the region had to end this false dichotomy if growth were to be achieved. It was suggested that as the generations changed this may no longer be so much of an issue. However, for some, the balance between the competing interests of social equity and the role of the market in Caribbean development needed to be resolved if the region was ever to experience significant economic growth.

For some of the younger participants the real problem that the region has to face in the next fifteen years was to escape from the dead hand of the region’s public sector. In a rarely voiced opinion it was suggested that it is the public sector and those who work with it who have a vested interest in ensuring that thinking and their influence remain the same.

The suggestion was that this was holding the region back.

Strikingly the relationship with the UK, Europe and the US was little mentioned by the younger participants. It was as if the Caribbean had moved on and had a much more balanced view of when and on what issues it wished to relate to a much broader range of external partners. In this context it was unclear whether China’s presence in the region was a threat, an opportunity, or both.

The downside of the meeting was that there was no authentic Cuban voice able to discuss the way it saw the region, the way in which detente with the US may change the Caribbean’s political and economic centre of gravity.

These are of course personal observations, and in due course there will be a report with suggested actions.

The value, however, of this quite different conference will only be known if the synergies, new thinking and the relationships established begin to change the Caribbean for the better.

Previous columns can be found at www. caribbean-council.org