Saturday, February 02, 2019
Democratic Field Expands To 10 (With More To Come)
This will not be the final total. There are probably at least a dozen other candidates who have expressed some interest, or who are expected to enter the race. The two biggest names who have yet to declare their intentions are former Vice-President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders,
I'm sure that Democrats will debate the policy positions of all the candidates -- especially the leading candidates. But I hope they don't forget the main, and overriding, issue facing them. They must nominate a candidate that can beat Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a clear and continuing danger to this country, and removing him from office is more important that any policy agenda of the various Democrats.
Here are the candidates that have shown they can draw some support so far:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): The Massachusetts senator is the biggest name in the field so far. She is proudly progressive, though she tends to position herself as wanting to fix capitalism rather than replace it. She wants to outflank Trump on trade and give workers seats on corporate boards and tax extreme wealth. Warren is already on the ground in Iowa and other early states.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA): The former California attorney general started generating White House hype almost as soon as she got to the Senate in 2017. As a younger black woman, she personifies the Democratic Party’s changing nature. She’s endorsed Medicare-for-all and proposed a major middle-class tax credit, though her days as a prosecutor may present problems with the progressive grassroots.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): The former Newark mayor and part-time firefighter is another fresh face with big ideas like savings accounts for newborns, and he’s also running in a Democratic primary with a lot of black voters. He’ll have to contend, though, with his work promoting charter schools (not a favorite of the teachers unions) and the perception that he’s close with Wall Street.
And here are the other candidates currently in the race. None of them has yet to show they can draw significant support (above 1%-2%), but they still have some time to gain traction. The first Democratic debate is not until june of this year. And the first primary/caucus is not until February 3rd of next year.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): Gillibrand has evolved over the years from a centrist Democrat in the House to a progressive who endorses Medicare-for-all and universal paid family leave; a pillar of her Senate career has been cracking down on sexual assault in the military. Gillibrand is presenting herself as a young mom in tune with the #MeToo era and the Democratic women who powered the party to historic wins in the 2018 midterms.
Former San Antonio mayor and HUD Secretary Julián Castro: Castro got VP buzz in prior elections; now he’s running in his own right after serving in Barack Obama’s Cabinet, on an aspirational message as the grandson of immigrants.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI): Gabbard fires up a certain strain of antiwar progressive. She’ll face tough questions, though, about her apparent friendliness with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and her past comments on LGBTQ rights.
Former Rep. John Delaney: The most notable thing about Delaney is he’s already been running for president for two years, more or less living in Iowa, the first state on the presidential calendar. But he was the first choice of just 1 percent of Iowa Democrats in a recent poll.
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg: Something of a viral political star, though he leads a city of “just” 100,000 people, Buttigieg is a military veteran and a Rhodes scholar, and he would be the first openly LGBTQ president in American history. Redevelopment and infrastructure projects have been staples of his tenure as mayor.
Andrew Yang: Humanitarian-mind entrepreneur who also served under the Obama administration. He’s running on a policy platform that includes, among other things, a universal basic income that would pay out $1,000 a month to every American over age 18.
Mariannae Williamson: A self-proclaimed “bitch for God” who has been a spiritual adviser to Oprah. Her previous political experience is a failed run for Congress as an independent in 2014.
Friday, February 01, 2019
Too Many Families Are Living On Too Little Income In U.S.
The charts above are from The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. They were contained in a May 2018 report titled Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017. It shows far too many U.S. families struggle to keep their heads above water in this country.
The top chart shows the percentages of families that make certain income levels. Note that 27% of all families make less than $25,000 a year. That's more than a quarter of all families. And anyone who thinks that $25,000 is an adequate income for a family doesn't have to live on that amount. That income would put a family of four below the official poverty level.
And it gets worse. About 38% of families make less than $40,000 a year, and 46% make less than $50,000 a year. That's nearly half of all families. And the median family income is slightly over $59,000 a year. That's $9,000 more than 46% of American families make.
THIS IS INEXCUSABLE IN THE RICHEST NATION ON EARTH!
The second chart shows 41% of families could not pay for a $400 emergency without borrowing or selling some possessions. They are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and wouldn't have the money to meet that $400 emergency. And $400 is not an excessive amount, since many emergencies (car repair, home repair, medical emergency, etc.) can easily surpass $400.
When the Republicans passed their tax cut, they promised workers would get an average raise of $4,000 a year, and a massive number of good-paying jobs would be created. Neither happened. Wages remained basically stagnant while the rich fattened their bank accounts substantially. It was another in a long line of failures for the Republican's "trickle-down" economic theory. Giving more to the rich does not benefit everyone (and never has).
It's time to stop worrying about the rich. They are doing very well. It's time to take action that will help the workers in this country. There are many things that could be done (once the Republicans are voted out of power). I suggest we could start by:
1. Raise the minimum wage substantially. This would lift many families out of poverty. It would also put upward pressure on the wages of those making more, And it would even benefit businesses, since millions of people would have more money to spend on their products.
2. Make it easier for workers to join unions. And work to eliminate "right-to-work" laws (which are just really anti-union laws).
3. Stop rewarding companies that export good American jobs with tax cuts.
Wages should not be so low that they force families to struggle. Those willing to work should be fairly reimbursed. Anything less is immoral -- and it's bad economic policy.
Pelosi's Job Approval Is Highest Of Political Leaders
This poll is not going to make Donald Trump happy. While his job approval rating has dropped after the government shutdown fiasco, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's job approval has risen. In fact, her job approval is the highest of any of the political leaders in Washington -- Pelosi (42%), Trump (37%), Schumer (31%), McConnell (24%), and McCarthy (21%).
Speaker Pelosi is also the only one of these leaders that does not have a negative net approval rating (figured by subtracting disapproval from approval). While she has a net approval rating of 0, Trump's is negative 16, Schumer's is negative 11, McCarthy's is negative 10, and McConnell's is negative 21.
I think the public is happy that finally there is someone with the intelligence, power, and political know-how to stand up to Trump.
The chart above uses information in a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between January 27th and 29th of a national sample of 1,500 adults, with a 3.2 point margin of error.
Over 40% Think Whites Suffer Discrimination In The U.S.
The charts above are from the latest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between January 27th and 29th of a national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,313 registered voters). The margin of error was 3.2 points for adults and 2.8 points for registered voters.
The top chart shows that most Americans recognize that racism still exists in this country. About 73% of all adults and 76% of registered voters says Blacks are discriminated against in the United States.
It is the second chart that troubles me. It shows that 41% of all adults and 42% of registered voters think Whites are discriminated against in this country. I don't understand how that can be. The population is still majority White, and Whites control most institutions and the legislatures (both national and in the states). How then, are they discriminated against?
I suspect they are confusing equality (the loss of some White privilege) with discrimination. They don't seem to understand that equality (equal rights) is not a pie. Giving equal rights to other groups does not take any rights away from Whites. And losing the White privilege we have had in the past does not denigrate our rights either.
If a person thinks losing White privileges is discrimination, then they are a racist. They may not like hearing that, but defending privilege is a racist act. Whites are NOT discriminated against in the United States.
3 Troubling Aspects Of Schultz's Plutocratic Candidacy
Starbucks magnate Howard Schultz has decided to run for president as an Independent. He doesn't seem to have and agenda -- except to keep Democrats from raising taxes on the rich (especially him).
Here is what former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has to say about the Schultz candidacy:
There are 3 big reasons why Howard Schultz’s self-proclaimed candidacy is troubling:
1. He could be a spoiler in 2020, splitting the vote and putting Trump back in the White House. Even Bill Burton, a former Obama adviser who has joined the Schultz team, publicly warned against third-party voting in 2016.
2. His message is without substance (he uses empty catchphrases like “silent majority” and “common sense solutions”) and his policy proposals are zilch. When asked by John Dickerson on CBS This Morning what his “big idea” was, Schultz declared: “The big idea is very simple: to unite the country. For us to come together. To do everything we can to realize that the promise of America is for everyone.” To the extent Schultz has defined his candidacy, it’s focused on what he’s against—for example, Democratic proposals to raise taxes and provide Medicare for All.
3. He represents the very worst aspect of America’s new billionaire class in politics: He simply anoints himself as a presidential candidate, declares he’s running as an independent so doesn’t have to put himself and his ideas through any party primary contest, and can spend an unlimited amount of his own money marketing himself and his candidacy. American democracy wasn’t built for this.
At this point, there’s not much we can do except tell every pollster we hear from that Howard Schultz should go back to selling coffee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)