Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Monday, May 26, 2014
Do Texas Democratic Candidates Really Want To Win ?
I firmly believe it is the latter. It has become almost a tradition among Democrats to move far to the right once they are nominated. There seems to be a belief among party leaders in the state that you cannot win by espousing progressive values -- that Texas is so conservative that only a right-winger can win a statewide election. And those leaders have convinced the party's candidates (even some with progressive credentials) to hide their beliefs and run as a conservative. That doesn't give Texas voters (most of whom don't know the candidates until election time rolls around) much of a choice -- support a right-wing candidate (Republican) or a right-wing-lite candidate (Democrat).This, of course, has resulted in a long string of losses for Texas Democratic candidates. After all, if the voters wanted a right-winger, then they know that the Republican Party offers that. Why would they vote for a Democrat who offers basically the same thing? They wouldn't. Trying to appeal to the right-wing voters is now, and always has been, a losing proposition for Texas Democrats. The right-wingers will always vote Republican, and other voters will mostly stay home in exasperation.
There are 13,601,324 registered voters in Texas (71.9% of the voting-age population). Do you know how many voted in the last gubernatorial election in 2010? A pathetic 38% (less than 5 million voters). That means 62% of registered voters didn't bother to vote -- probably because they didn't see much difference between the conservative Republican and his only slightly less conservative Democratic opponent. There was no real choice, and a majority of voters knew that.
And that was not an anomaly at all. Democrats have been posing as conservatives, and most voters have been not bothering to choose between the candidates (who seem very much the same) for several gubernatorial elections. In 1998, 32.4% of registered voters showed up on election day -- and in 2002 it was 36.2%, and in 2006 it was 33.6%. I don't know about you, but that looks like a pattern to me -- a pattern that needs to be changed.
A few months ago, I thought Texas Democrats had learned this lesson -- and were finally willing to offer the voters a real choice. Wendy Davis (top picture) was talked into running for governor, and Leticia Van de Putte (bottom picture) was encouraged to run as the party's candidate for lt. governor. Both of these women have a progressive record they could run on, and they sprang to statewide prominence by defending women's rights. Finally, it looked like the voters were going to be offered an alternative to the failed policies of the right-wing.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working out that way. Both women, at least so far, have run tepid campaigns that seem to position them as moderately conservative. They seem to have fallen for the same old fallacy that has infected Texas Democratic candidates for 20 years (and insured they would lose). Look at their website, and peruse the issues they are telling the voters are most important to them. They are the same old issues that any candidate (regardless of party) could run on -- better education, better economy, help the veterans.
Wendy Davis doesn't even mention women's rights on her website (the issue that propelled her to prominence), and Leticia Van de Putte mentions that almost as an afterthought. Neither mentions taxing the rich and the corporations, neither mentions opposition to fracking or stopping pollution, neither mentions expanding Medicaid (even though an April poll showed only 35% of Texans opposed it), and neither mentions the minimum wage should be raised (although that same poll showed 55% support for a $10 an hour minimum wage). Where are the progressive issues? Where are the issues that show they would make a real change from the current policies in place in Austin?
Frankly, with each passing day, I become more afraid that the Democratic candidates in Texas are opting to go down the same losing road that others have trod for the last twenty years. They are trying to pose as conservatives, afraid to stand up publicly for progressive values -- and it is going to result in another election where the turnout is in the mid-thirties and the Republicans win. I'm starting to wonder if Texas Democratic candidates really want to win (or believe they can win).
I hope I'm wrong, and after the state convention both Wendy and Leticia stand up for progressive values -- offering the voters a real choice and a reason to go to the polls. I think they would find a lot of Texas voters have been waiting for that.
Memorial Day
As we pause today to honor those who gave their lives serving in the military of the United States, I thought it might be good to give a little history of this solemn holiday. Here are some excerpts from the holiday's history as told on Wikipedia:
The first widely publicized observance of a Memorial Day-type observance after the Civil War was in Charleston, South Carolina, on May 1, 1865. During the war, Union soldiers who wereprisoners of war had been held at the Charleston Race Course; at least 257 Union prisoners died there and were hastily buried in unmarked graves. Together with teachers and missionaries, black residents of Charleston organized a May Day ceremony in 1865, which was covered by the New York Tribune and other national papers. The freedmen cleaned up and landscaped the burial ground, building an enclosure and an arch labeled, "Martyrs of the Race Course." Nearly ten thousand people, mostly freedmen, gathered on May 1 to commemorate the war dead. Involved were about 3,000 school children newly enrolled in freedmen's schools, mutual aid societies, Union troops, black ministers, and white northern missionaries. Most brought flowers to lay on the burial field. Today the site is used as Hampton Park. Years later, the celebration would come to be called the "First Decoration Day" in the North. . .
On May 26, 1966, President Johnson signed a presidential proclamation naming Waterloo, New York, as the birthplace of Memorial Day. Earlier, the 89th Congress adopted House Concurrent Resolution 587, which officially recognized that the patriotic tradition of observing Memorial Day began one hundred years prior in Waterloo, New York. According to legend, in the summer of 1865 a local druggist Henry Welles, while talking to friends, suggested that it might be good to remember those soldiers who did not make it home from the Civil War. Not much came of it until he mentioned it to General John B. Murray, a Civil War hero from Waterloo, who gathered support from other surviving veterans. On May 5, 1866, they marched to the three local cemeteries and decorated the graves of fallen soldiers. It is believed that Murray, who knew General John A. Logan, told Logan about the observance and that led to Logan issuing Logan's Order in 1868 calling for a national observance. . .
The preferred name for the holiday gradually changed from "Decoration Day" to "Memorial Day", which was first used in 1882. It did not become more common until after World War II, and was not declared the official name by Federal law until 1967. On June 28, 1968, the Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, which moved four holidays, including Memorial Day, from their traditional dates to a specified Monday in order to create a convenient three-day weekend. The change moved Memorial Day from its traditional May 30 date to the last Monday in May. The law took effect at the federal level in 1971. After some initial confusion and unwillingness to comply, all 50 states adopted Congress' change of date within a few years. . .
On Memorial Day, the flag of the United States is raised briskly to the top of the staff and then solemnly lowered to the half-staff position, where it remains only until noon. It is then raised to full-staff for the remainder of the day. The half-staff position remembers the more than one million men and women who gave their lives in service of their country. At noon, their memory is raised by the living, who resolve not to let their sacrifice be in vain, but to rise up in their stead and continue the fight for liberty and justice for all.
Bernie's Memorial Day Statement
“On this Memorial Day weekend, I want to thank all veterans who have put their lives on the line to defend our country and especially the families of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. On this solemn occasion, Congress must reaffirm its commitment to make sure that every veteran in this country and their families get the health care and other benefits that they have earned and deserve.
“During the past several years, we have made significant progress. We have expanded education and employment opportunities, reduced homelessness, improved the processing of claims for disability benefits and given new support for the caregivers of disabled veterans. In the coming year, I look forward to working with veterans all across the country and their representatives here in Washington as we redouble our commitment to the men and women who have given so much for our nation.”
(The image of Senator Sanders is by DonkeyHotey.)
Sunday, May 25, 2014
The Difference Between The GOP's Words And Actions
Republicans make lots of promises. The problem though is that they rarely vote to keep those promises. Far too often they let their hatred for the president and their love for Wall Street & the giant corporations dictate how they vote in Congress, and wind up voting against the very things they promised voters to defend. Here are just a few examples:
Republicans promise to support veterans.
This is probably the most relevant promise on this Memorial Day weekend -- when you will hear a lot of GOP officials talk about supporting those who have served in the military. And they are also whining loudly about shortcomings at the VA hospitals. But while the Republicans love to create more veterans (by engaging this country in unnecessary wars), they seem loath to care for those veterans once they come back from those wars. What they would like for you to forget though is that it was the Republicans in Congress who voted almost unanimously to refuse more funding to help veterans to get better medical care and job opportunities. While they eagerly say the right things, they vote just the opposite way (and it is the voting, not the words, that matters).
Republicans promise to protect Social Security.
This is another promise that the GOP is happy to make but doesn't intend to keep. They know the public likes this program, and wants to see it protected -- so they say they will do that. But the truth is the Republicans have always hated Social Security. They voted against its creation, and have been voting to hurt it ever since then. They have voted to privatize the program (so their friends on Wall Street can make money off worker contributions to the program), and when that proved to be very unpopular, they scaled back on their efforts to hurt Social Security. They now want to increase the age to qualify for the program and then figure cost-of-living-adjustments on a "chained-CPI" (instead of the real inflation rate). They claim it is to "protect" Social Security -- but it really is just a devious way to cut benefits for the elderly who survive on Social Security.
Republicans promise to protect health care for the elderly.
All elderly Americans are protected for medical problems through Medicare (a very popular program that works). Like Social Security, the Republicans have always hated Medicare. They voted against its creation, and have voted to cut its benefits many times since then (hoping those cuts would destroy the program). In the 112th and 113th Congresses, they went even further by voting to eliminate the Medicare program. They would instead give the elderly a small subsidy to help them buy private insurance (even though the private insurance companies don't want to insure the elderly -- knowing they are much more likely to have health problems). This would result in may of elderly Americans being unable to afford health insurance, and the rest having to pay much more for their health insurance. It is nothing more than another Republican broken promise.
Republicans promise to stimulate economic growth & create jobs.
The problem is that they still cling to their failed economic policy of "trickle-down economics". This policy says if the government cuts taxes and regulations for Wall Street and the giant corporations (and destroy unions), it will result in an economic growth that will benefit all Americans. This policy has been in effect since about 1980 (and was doubled-down on during the Bush administration). What did it produce? It crashed the economy, lost millions of jobs, created the largest gap between the wealthy and the rest of America since before the Great Depression, resulted in a stagnant (and now falling) median national wage, and is shrinking the size of the middle class. This policy has been a disaster for most Americans, and yet the Republican continue to vote for that policy.
Republicans promise to cut the budget and decrease the national debt.
Republicans have always tried to portray the Democrats as big spenders, and themselves as being economically conservative in spending. That is an outrageous lie. The budget deficit (and the national debt) has increased under every single Republican president since World War II (including GOP icon Ronald Reagan). Only two presidents (Clinton and Obama) have presided over a lowering of the budget deficit. Clinton eliminated that budget deficit completely, and left Bush with a budget surplus -- which he almost immediately turned into a massive budget deficit (through huge tax cuts for the rich and two unnecessary wars). The Republicans actually spend more than the Democrats. They just don't spend it to help hurting Americans. Instead, they spend it to give the rich (and giant corporations) more tax cuts and spend more on the military budget (in spite of the fact that budget is already too bloated -- with the U.S. spend nearly half of the world's spending on the military (and more than the next 15 countries combined). The Republicans are by far the biggest budget-busters.
The list of broken promises by Republicans is much longer, but my space is limited and I think the point has been made. There is a difference between words and actions. The GOP is good at saying the right words, but their record of following up on those words with actions is abysmal.
Intelligence Doesn't Close Men/Women Pay Gap
We already know that a substantial pay gap exists between men and women, and that gap persists through all education levels (from high school to Associate's or Bachelor's degrees). That has been shown by studies in the past.
Now there is another study, soon to be published in the Eastern Economic Journal, that shows this gap is not lessened by women who do well in school. Those with a high grade point average wind up making less than men with a comparable average -- and in fact, women with an "A" average make less than men who have only a "C" average.
This is ridiculous. There is no reason why women doing the same job should not make the same wage as men doing that job. And it makes even less sense that smart women on the job will make less than men with only average intelligence.
There is one political party wanting to maintain the pay gap between men and women -- the Republican Party. And there is only one reason why those Republicans want to maintain that pay gap (and have voted against eliminating it) -- they consider women to be second-class citizens, and not worthy of equal pay (or equal rights).
Why would any woman (or any man who respects and loves the women in his life) ever vote Republican?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)