My CongressmanTakes Government Money, But Denies Food Stamps For The Poor

The person pictured to the left is my congressman, Mac Thornberry. He is a Republican who represents the 13th Congressional District in Texas (which includes numerous counties and stretches from Wichita Falls to the tip of the Panhandle).

He is a rancher from Clarendon (about 50 miles east of Amarillo) in Donley County, and he doesn't mind taking government assistance. He has received at least $29,774 in farm subsidies from the U.S. Agriculture Department (not counting possible government support for crop insurance premiums) -- and he wants that government money to keep on coming. That's why he voted to keep the farm subsidies in the recent Agriculture budget passed by the House.

But while he thinks it is fine for government money to go to him (even though he is worth somewhere between a quarter and a half million dollars), he doesn't think poor people deserve any help from the government -- not even to help them buy food for their children. Thornberry is one of those Republicans that voted to cut funds for the SNAP program (food stamps) out of the Agriculture budget completely. He, and his fellow Republicans, decided the $20 billion cut to food stamps was not enough, so they just cut the program out of the Agriculture bill.

I am embarrassed and angry over Thornberry's mean-spirited vote. It is unacceptable for any elected official (or political party) to continue government payments to wealthy farmers and ranchers, while refusing to help feed this nation's poor (many of them children). It's just indecent.

NOTE -- There are 13 other Republicans who voted this way, and receive government money from the Agriculture Department. You can go to this website by Rep. George Miller (D-California) to find out who they are.

Teabagger Reversal

Political Cartoon is by John Branch in the San Antonio Express-News.

Equal Rights Are A Constitutional Issue

Those who oppose same-sex marriage in this country would have us believe that marriage has always been as they want it to be. They call it "traditional", but the truth is that there is no real traditional marriage. Marriage has differed in different cultures and in different periods of time. And the idea of same-sex marriage has been both accepted and rejected by differing cultures at different times. There is even some evidence that the early christian church had special rites for, and performed same-sex marriages.

The truth is that just because something was accepted as being correct in the past doesn't mean it always has to be that way. Things can change, and a society can become more enlightened over time. A perfect example of this kind of change is interracial marriage. It hasn't been all that long ago since most people in this country thought it was wrong for Blacks and Whites to marry each other -- and I'm sure many of them could find some kind of Bible verse to support that opinion.

Back in 1958, according to a Gallup Poll, only about 4% of Americans supported marriages between Blacks and Whites. But that was before the country started to face its serious racial problems. In the 1960's a series of civil rights laws were passed, and in 1967 a landmark case (Loving vs.Virginia) was unanimously decided by the Supreme Court, declaring state laws against interracial marriages were unconstitutional -- and attitudes began to change.

Today, about 87% of the public in the U.S. supports the right to marry a person of a different race (see top chart). People consider this to be an equal rights issue (as the Supreme Court did). There are still racial problems in this country (jobs, economics, housing, etc.), but the issue of interracial marriage has been pretty much laid to rest.

Now it is time to do the same for same-sex marriage. The LGBT community should have the same right guaranteed all other Americans -- the right to marry the person of their choice (with all the rights and privileges that accompany marriage). Oddly enough, the attitudes of the public have progressed farther than the Supreme Court on this issue. While the court decision in 1967 sparked a change in public attitude on interracial marriage, the opposite is true of same-sex marriage. A majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage (see bottom chart above), but the court has been too timid to approach the issue as a constitutional guarantee of equal rights.

It is time for this to be rectified. It is silly for this to be an issue that must be fought out in each state. While there are issues that each state should decide on its own, equal rights is not one of those issues. No American should be denied equal rights because they happen to live in a backward state ruled by fundamentalists. The Constitution guarantees that all citizens have equal rights under the law -- and it is time for both the Supreme Court and the Congress to recognize that and address it.

Old Habits Die Hard

Political Cartoon is by Nick Anderson in the Houston Chronicle.

Marijuana Laws Should Be Changed

Marijuana has never been a dangerous drug. In fact, it may be the least dangerous drug we know of, since it is not addictive and an "overdose" cannot cause death. Even common over-the-counter drugs like aspirin are more dangerous than marijuana, and some legal drugs (like alcohol) are far more dangerous.

Marijuana was made illegal for economic reasons (because corporations involved with lumber, cotton, and other things didn't want the competition hemp provided), and for reasons of social control (control of minorities, and later student activists, who dared to challenge the establishment). The government just used the "dangerous" label as an excuse to get the law accepted -- and a lot of the population bought into that lie (and many still do).

It is time to recognize the truth, and legalize the growth, possession, and use of marijuana.

Pro-Life Or Anti-Woman ?

Americans Still Support Affirmative Action

I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised by the results of this recent Gallup Poll (conducted between June 13th and July 5th of a random sample of 4,373 adults -- with a margin of error of 2 points). It seems that a clear majority of Americans (58%) supports affirmative action as a vehicle to correct the social and economic inequities suffered by minorities in this country.

And that support is pretty widespread -- cutting across both racial and educational lines. The only group with a significant majority opposing affirmative action is Republicans (53%). A plurality of Independents give their support (49% supporting and 45% opposing), while 80% of Democrats support the program.

The poll also showed that significant majorities of all major racial groups thought the government should have role in helping to erase these inequalities -- with 76% of the general public, 71% of Whites, 90% of Blacks, and 88% of Hispanics believing the government should play either a major or minor role.

NOTE -- There is one area where a majority of Americans don't want to see affirmative action used -- in college admissions. About 67% of the general public, 75% of Whites, 44% of Blacks, and 59% of Hispanics think college admissions should be determined by merit only, with no consideration given to the race of the applicant.

Intentional Blindness

Political cartoon is by John Cole in the Scranton Times-Tribune.

Federal Court Strikes Down Discrimination In Texas City (Again)

I have posted before about the anti-immigrant efforts of the city of Farmers Branch, Texas (a city of about 29,000 people bordering the northern edge of Dallas). The city council of that community is convinced that they should be able to usurp the authority of the federal government, and decide immigration policy for themselves.

Since 2006, Farmers Branch has passed a series of laws designed to discriminate against immigrants (especially those who are undocumented) -- and each time those laws have been slapped down by federal courts. Their latest effort is a city ordinance that requires landlords to get a permit from the city building inspector before renting out their property (either a house or an apartment). The city inspector was supposed to investigate the legal status of the prospective renter before issuing a permit.

The ordinance never went into effect, because a federal judge immediately issued a restraining order when it was passed. And last Monday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case. On a 9 to 5 vote, that court struck down the city's ordinance. Using the Supreme Court's 2012 decision invalidating much of Arizona's SB 1070, the appeals court said "legislation of (this) type is not entitled to wear the cloak of constitutionality". After learning of the court's decision, legal and policy director of ACLU-Texas Rebecca L. Robertson said:

"All of Texas benefits from the contributions of immigrants who live and work in our state. We fervently hope that this case marks the end of the anti-immigrant laws that target our friends, our neighbors, and our family members for harsh treatment."

I agree with the sentiment expressed by Ms. Robertson, but I think it's just a bit naive. Those who want the right to impose racial and ethnic discrimination here in Texas have proven themselves to be a hard-headed lot. I expect they will either waste a lot more of the city's money by trying to appeal this decision, or try to find another way to achieve their venomous and discriminatory crusade.

The Bushwhacker

Political Cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Congress (Especially Republicans) Still Unpopular With The General Public

I found the above charted parts of the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll to be very interesting. The poll was conducted between July 17th and 21st of a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults -- and has a margin of error of 3.1 points.

As usual, it shows that the American public is not really happy with anyone in Washington right now. But they are far unhappier with Congress than the president, and more unhappy with Republicans than Democrats (blaming Republicans more for their partisanship and inflexibility, resulting in gridlock).

I think if the Democrats play their cards right and get out their vote in 2014, they have a good chance to make some inroads in the House. If the Republicans do hold on to the House, it will not be because most Americans like the Republicans. It will be because of the outrageous and effective gerrymandering they were able to get through many state legislatures after the 2010 census (which is what saved their House majority in 2012 -- when GOP representatives got over a million votes less than Democratic representatives).

Sabotage

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Protect Social Security & Medicare

Bernie is exactly right. Social Security was designed to give seniors a minimally decent standard of living, and keep them from falling into abject poverty when their working years are over -- and it has done exactly that. And Medicare has protected those same seniors, by making sure their small incomes aren't devastated by medical bills. While some federal programs haven't worked nearly as well as it had been hoped they would (and should be fixed), Social Security and Medicare are not among those. These two programs have worked exactly as they were designed to work.

But the Republican Party, which has always been opposed to both of these programs, would like to do away with both. They have indicated a desire to privatize Social Security and abolish Medicare. Their proposals would put seniors at the mercy of the thieves on Wall Street and the greedy private insurance companies, leaving many seniors without retirement income or medical protection. They must be stopped.

This is one more reason (among many others) why it is important to unseat as many congressional Republicans as possible in the 2014 election.

For Our Daughters