I have in the past tended to follow national politics, so much louder and glitzier than the local variety. But a few years ago I began tracking state legislation for our ACLU and a whole new world opened up. And sucked me into it.
Local politics is not pretty. And it is exhausting work documenting so much stupidity. But somebody ought to do it. Because we really, really need to know what is going on up there in Columbia. Because it has so very much impact on our lives.
Here in South Carolina, the dark work of the legislature is evident in our "minimally adequate" schools, with extraordinarily high dropout rates and inadequate employment. Whenever a South Carolinian does not go to a doctor because they are uninsured, we can thank our legislature and our governor for refusing the federal Medicaid expansion dollars that are actually our federal taxes. "No thank you, I don't want my money."
It was the wisdom of our state legislators that, in light of the horrific mass shootings in our country, passed a law allowing guns in drinking establishments, making restaurant and bar owners responsible for posting when guns are not welcome. Of course, the thing about guns is that when you don't want them you anger the people with the guns.
And oh my, our infrastructure. Any homeowner with an ounce of sense would make use of a windfall to make needed repairs -- keep up that important investment. Yet when the price of gas falls precipitously, instead of looking at our crumbling and dangerous roads and bridges and seeing the opportunity to make them right argue about "new taxes." We remain a poor state because we squander any kind of financial opportunity.
Meanwhile -- and you have all heard me rant about this -- the idiots at the Statehouse continue to flood the docket with new anti-abortion bills that say the same thing as the old ones. We also apparently need a bunch more bills that honor and revere the 2nd amendment. Instead of paying for better education, our tax dollars are going to go to plaques in every school that declare that "In God We Trust." I guess with the poor state of our education, those yahoos figure we'd better pray.
And they are all over the threat to our state presented by poor Mexican immigrants, gays, Muslims, atheists, pregnant women, low wage-workers, and workers attempting to form unions. They are on guard protecting the interest of big out-of-state businesses who have the god-given right to pollute and profit here in South Carolina. Nikki Haley has fought the valiant fight to channel millions of tax dollars to big corporations while anyone living below the poverty line -- and there are quite a number of us here -- are subject to scorn and the threat of laws that would require drug testing and other humiliating and near-impossible requirements. And pay attention, small business owners. When our legislators say they are "for small business," y'all better check your pockets.
So we can track the legislation, call and write senators and representatives, but unless we change the makeup of the Statehouse, we are shouting into the big winds caused by global climate change that our legislators mostly deny.
Here it is, 2016, and every damn member of the legislature is up for re-election. The sad thing is that in way too many cases, they will be re-elected without a breath of protest. We can complain about gerrymandering, and it would be a legitimate complaint, but the fact is that most voters want the same things, and don't have (or don't think they have) anyone to vote for that would get us there.
If there are few courageous individuals that are willing to speak loudly to the abuses of our current legislators, not only will there not be options, voters will not even be aware of those abuses or the better options.
I don't believe that the majority of the people that re-elect Lee Bright really are voting against abortion, although I'm sure he does stay awake nights imagining all the dirty doings that create that "preborn child." His war against anything that looks like a tax -- which I believe is the secret to his longevity -- needs to be countered with facts about how much more it costs most of us when taxes are cut.
We Dems don't tend to run on the need for taxes because we have let ourselves wear the "tax and spend" label even when it has proven false. And yet, here is Bernie Sanders getting support from republicans who see him as more responsive to their needs than Trump or Cruz. If we believe in good government services, we need to learn to sell it. As Trump has shown, politics is mostly about sales. And in sales, you have to believe in yourself or no one else will believe in you.
I am hoping that our State Democratic Party this year will show some of that fearlessness. I am hoping that they will encourage people to run against the right-wingnuts that we have for too long thought were impregnable. And put some money behind it. A candidate that runs against a right wing wacko needs funding, needs publicity. And our party needs to find a way to support all the Democratic candidates that are stepping up to fight this entrenched and old party.
Instead of thinking that money spent on a Democratic candidate may be money lost, we should believe that money spent to give a Democratic candidate airtime is money spent on the future of the Democratic party. I believe that our platform is the right one. I believe that responsible taxation creates jobs, improves our standard of living, and pays it all forward.
And on the other side, I see the party that claims to be for small government stealing from small business owners to give to big corporations and taking away workers' rights to fight for better working conditions so that those big corporations can boast bigger profits. I see this party that fought Obamacare on the grounds that it would bring big government into our doctors' offices propose twenty or more bills doing just that to women, from conception to the disposition of a fetus.
That old party is the party that fights government regulation if it means making our neighborhoods safer, our air and waters cleaner, our children better educated. Yet they propose bills to regulate the poor and monitor refugees. Yes, under this bunch there would be laws that require immigrants and refugees to produce documentation, but they invite those from other states to bring in y'all's guns, and oppose background checks and bans on assault weapons. Because as they say, if they can stop just one terrorist from coming into South Carolina it will be worth denying all those others the right to live free. But if you take one gun away from one gun nut, you are denouncing American values and bringing down the nation.
So we have a lot of hypocrisies that need to be confronted. And we have lots of smart people who could do the confronting. So let's get our Democratic Party behind them. And let's give them the opportunity to be heard this election year.
Showing posts with label South Carolina politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Carolina politics. Show all posts
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Monday, September 7, 2015
Speaking for Sanford
Nobody knows why Barton Swaim does not name Mark Sanford as his boss in the non-fiction The Speechwriter: A Brief Education in Politics. After all, not only does he name names of SC legislators, but in the book bio it states that he was Governor Sanford's speechwriter from 2007 to 2010. Whatever. This is a quick read. There is no biographical information about Sanford before the events of his last term in office. It really is pretty much about what it is like to work as Sanford's speechwriter.
And it is a thankless job. He not only is unable to articulate what he wants from his staff, he is merciless in his criticism. He is also just plain old inarticulate, which is what prompted Swaim to actually ask for the job interview. Sanford's staff hates him, mocks him behind his back, and uses devious and comical strategies to deal with his conflicting and at times nonsensical demands. Swaim finally studies Sanford's own letters and speeches and compiles a list of words and phrases that he would otherwise never use in order to write to please his boss. Which also makes his characterization of Sanford spot on.
Other than it is an interesting quick read, there are a few bits of information that we as voters, constituents, activists, or merely residents in South Carolina should know, mostly about Sanford, but also about the SC legislature and the characters that reside therein.
I don't believe Sanford is intellectually astute. But he does understand his base. At one point, he criticizes Swaim's writing this way: "...you've got to know your audience. The mechanic in Greenwood doesn't go around talking about things being 'the extent for which'." While Sanford's bumbling manner of speech appears to be real, he is very much aware of its impact, and it certainly does the job of appealing to his base, which truly feels that, despite his wealth, he is a good ole boy just like them. In other words, barely literate.
His gimmicks are notorious. From bringing pigs to the Statehouse to protest "pork,"
And it is a thankless job. He not only is unable to articulate what he wants from his staff, he is merciless in his criticism. He is also just plain old inarticulate, which is what prompted Swaim to actually ask for the job interview. Sanford's staff hates him, mocks him behind his back, and uses devious and comical strategies to deal with his conflicting and at times nonsensical demands. Swaim finally studies Sanford's own letters and speeches and compiles a list of words and phrases that he would otherwise never use in order to write to please his boss. Which also makes his characterization of Sanford spot on.
Other than it is an interesting quick read, there are a few bits of information that we as voters, constituents, activists, or merely residents in South Carolina should know, mostly about Sanford, but also about the SC legislature and the characters that reside therein.
I don't believe Sanford is intellectually astute. But he does understand his base. At one point, he criticizes Swaim's writing this way: "...you've got to know your audience. The mechanic in Greenwood doesn't go around talking about things being 'the extent for which'." While Sanford's bumbling manner of speech appears to be real, he is very much aware of its impact, and it certainly does the job of appealing to his base, which truly feels that, despite his wealth, he is a good ole boy just like them. In other words, barely literate.
His gimmicks are notorious. From bringing pigs to the Statehouse to protest "pork,"
to standing in front of MUSC debating a poster of Nancy Pelosi:
Mark Sanford is as good as any cigarette advertising executive at getting attention, getting a laugh, getting the support of right-wing South Carolina. He doesn't have to make sense, and he knows it.
Here's another interesting detail from Swaim's years as Sanford's speechwriter. One of his tasks during those years was to write "surrogate letters." In other words, he would pen letters to the editor as though they came from Sanford supporters, send them off to those supporters, who would then submit them to the state's newspapers. That's right, some of those barely readable letters praising Sanford's policies were written by Sanford's speechwriter. Swaim claims that this is a common practice in politics. I imagine that the Karl Roves of the political world would agree. But I wonder if this is true, or if Swaim just needed to be convinced.
While Sanford felt that letters to the editor were a valuable way to convince people to support him, Swaim doesn't have a lot flattering to say about them. He says, "Of course, very few letters to the editor come anywhere near coherence. Mostly they're platitudes basted with the rhetoric of outrage." I like to think this bias is because he spent his time reading the ones that were favorable to the governor (and for which Sanford insisted Swaim send thank-you's under his name).
While Swaim seems to detest Sanford personally and in his professional interactions, he admires Sanford's politics and his refusal to back down. This (along with the gimmicks) appears to be key to his success. If reality is working against him, he ignores reality, as with public opinion after the Appalachian Trail scandal. He is stubborn in a way that only a true narcissist can be stubborn. He will wait out adversity and damn if he isn't able to outwait us every time.
I would like to end by saying that this book is a rollicking jaunt through Mark Sanford's last term as governor. In fact, it would be a great deal more fun if the jackass wasn't serving in the US House of Representatives, where he is likely to have an uncontested seat for as long as he wants it.
Even so, it is a painless -- and entertaining -- way to know your enemy.
Monday, May 11, 2015
The (Absolute) Least We Can Do
While other states, mostly those that aren't busy trying to dictate women's reproductive health and make sure there are guns in every home, business and classroom, have increased the minimum wage, our legislators are still mostly not sure if that's necessary. In 2015, there are 29 states which have increased the minimum to wage to levels above the federal minimum wage.
Now, the fact that we have to do that anyway really reflects just how out-of-touch our Congress is with the needs of its citizens. Not only do our elitist senators and representatives assume that their extraordinary wages and benefits (and extra goodies) are well deserved, they just can't see a need for their constituents to be making a living wage. Of course this represents the philosophy that what goes into the pockets of American workers is going to come out of the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires who are the people they really truly work for. Out-of-touch meaning really far away from the rest of us, and pretty much holding hands with guys like the Kochs.
But it is what it is, and it's good that states have recognized that waiting for Congress to do the right thing is decidedly the wrong thing.
And here in South Carolina, there is a bill in the Senate, S 146, which proposes to put the question of raising our state minimum wage on the 2016 ballot. We don't want to rush into anything here, because those who are struggling to try to live on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour sure wouldn't have a problem waiting. And of course raising the minimum wage to $1 an hour over the federal rate would hardly be called providing people with a livelihood.
We've heard all the lame arguments about why idiots like Jim DeMint (remember him???) are opposed to increasing the minimum wage: it's only kids who live at home that make the minimum wage, it would be so costly to employers that they would have to cut jobs, it's anti-American for the government to set a minimum wage. DeMint may be hiding out at the Heritage Foundation instead of wasting space in Congress, but folks like Tim Scott are happy to fill his expensive shoes. So we aren't going to see a reasonable federal minimum wage anywhere in the near future.
And the fact is, it takes so long to move our federal lawmakers to increase the minimum wage that by the time it goes into effect it is still too low to make a dent.
But we got what we got, and what we got here in South Carolina is S 146. And on Wednesday, May 13, at 10 a.m., the bill will go before a Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Subcommittee. Here are the members of the subcommittee, and their phone numbers:
Kevin Bryant, Chairman (R) -- 803-212-6320; 864-202-8394
Glenn Reese (D) -- 803-212-6108; 864-592-2984
Shane Massey (R) -- 803-212-6024; 803-480-0419
Kent Williams (D) -- 803-212-6000; 843-362-0307
Lee Bright (R) -- 803-212-6008; 864-576-6742
Or you can send an email by going to scstatehouse.gov, click on "Senate" and then click on "email" and then click on the senator's name. Unfortunately, you can't do it as a group but you can copy and paste your message in each email. Put S 146 in the Subject line, and be sure to begin the message by 1) saying if you are a constituent (you don't have to be a constituent to write, but if you are you should let the guy know) and 2) saying "Please support S-146, to allow South Carolina voters to decide on whether there should be an increase in the minimum wage."
Then you can add a sentence or two stating that people can't live on $7.25 an hour, a raise in the minimum wage would take people off the food stamp rolls, an increased minimum wage would put more money into the economy and be good for business in South Caroline, etc. Don't worry about your literary skills, some of these guys are minimally literate anyway. They just need to see how many of us are behind this ballot measure.
This is what I just sent to each member of the committee (yeah, even Lee Bright):
I am writing to urge you to support S 146 which would allow voters to decide whether the minimum wage in South Carolina should be raised.
Raising the minimum wage would be a boon to the economy, as the increased wages would be spent in businesses throughout the state. It would make employees less dependent on government assistance to survive.
Please vote Yes on this bill.
And here's another thing you can do: you can go to the Statehouse on Wednesday to lobby for a raise in the minimum wage. Nothing makes a legislator want to say yes than having to look a constituent in the eyes. If you are able to make it up to Columbia, would like to sign up for a ride, or would like more information, contact Loreen Myerson at:
LoreenJMyerson@gmail.com or 415-637-9119.
Our legislators can do this, but they need to know we are watching.
Now, the fact that we have to do that anyway really reflects just how out-of-touch our Congress is with the needs of its citizens. Not only do our elitist senators and representatives assume that their extraordinary wages and benefits (and extra goodies) are well deserved, they just can't see a need for their constituents to be making a living wage. Of course this represents the philosophy that what goes into the pockets of American workers is going to come out of the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires who are the people they really truly work for. Out-of-touch meaning really far away from the rest of us, and pretty much holding hands with guys like the Kochs.
But it is what it is, and it's good that states have recognized that waiting for Congress to do the right thing is decidedly the wrong thing.
And here in South Carolina, there is a bill in the Senate, S 146, which proposes to put the question of raising our state minimum wage on the 2016 ballot. We don't want to rush into anything here, because those who are struggling to try to live on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour sure wouldn't have a problem waiting. And of course raising the minimum wage to $1 an hour over the federal rate would hardly be called providing people with a livelihood.
We've heard all the lame arguments about why idiots like Jim DeMint (remember him???) are opposed to increasing the minimum wage: it's only kids who live at home that make the minimum wage, it would be so costly to employers that they would have to cut jobs, it's anti-American for the government to set a minimum wage. DeMint may be hiding out at the Heritage Foundation instead of wasting space in Congress, but folks like Tim Scott are happy to fill his expensive shoes. So we aren't going to see a reasonable federal minimum wage anywhere in the near future.
And the fact is, it takes so long to move our federal lawmakers to increase the minimum wage that by the time it goes into effect it is still too low to make a dent.
But we got what we got, and what we got here in South Carolina is S 146. And on Wednesday, May 13, at 10 a.m., the bill will go before a Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Subcommittee. Here are the members of the subcommittee, and their phone numbers:
Kevin Bryant, Chairman (R) -- 803-212-6320; 864-202-8394
Glenn Reese (D) -- 803-212-6108; 864-592-2984
Shane Massey (R) -- 803-212-6024; 803-480-0419
Kent Williams (D) -- 803-212-6000; 843-362-0307
Lee Bright (R) -- 803-212-6008; 864-576-6742
Or you can send an email by going to scstatehouse.gov, click on "Senate" and then click on "email" and then click on the senator's name. Unfortunately, you can't do it as a group but you can copy and paste your message in each email. Put S 146 in the Subject line, and be sure to begin the message by 1) saying if you are a constituent (you don't have to be a constituent to write, but if you are you should let the guy know) and 2) saying "Please support S-146, to allow South Carolina voters to decide on whether there should be an increase in the minimum wage."
Then you can add a sentence or two stating that people can't live on $7.25 an hour, a raise in the minimum wage would take people off the food stamp rolls, an increased minimum wage would put more money into the economy and be good for business in South Caroline, etc. Don't worry about your literary skills, some of these guys are minimally literate anyway. They just need to see how many of us are behind this ballot measure.
This is what I just sent to each member of the committee (yeah, even Lee Bright):
I am writing to urge you to support S 146 which would allow voters to decide whether the minimum wage in South Carolina should be raised.
Raising the minimum wage would be a boon to the economy, as the increased wages would be spent in businesses throughout the state. It would make employees less dependent on government assistance to survive.
Please vote Yes on this bill.
And here's another thing you can do: you can go to the Statehouse on Wednesday to lobby for a raise in the minimum wage. Nothing makes a legislator want to say yes than having to look a constituent in the eyes. If you are able to make it up to Columbia, would like to sign up for a ride, or would like more information, contact Loreen Myerson at:
LoreenJMyerson@gmail.com or 415-637-9119.
Our legislators can do this, but they need to know we are watching.
Friday, May 8, 2015
The Threat of a Union
Why, we wonder, do people vote against their own interests? Why are we so vulnerable to the attacks on unions by right-wing politicians?
One of the greatest fears we have in this country is loss of our livelihood. There may have been a time in your life -- there have been a few in mine -- where I was looking at losing a job, or not being able to find a job, alongside a nearly empty bank account. Terrifying.
Add to that financial disasters, like that of the mid-70's, with gas lines and prices doubling, tripling and quadrupling. Employers squeezing unions, forcing them to choose between cuts in benefits and layoffs. We hear about how Obamacare has forced employers to cut staff from full-time to part-time, but that has been going on (check with your elders) since the seventies.
All it takes is an economic pinch for corporations to take advantage of our fears. And since the seventies, it has worked.
The other strategy that has worked quite well for corporations is painting the union itself as the bad guy. Politicians and lobbyists have no problem twisting the truth to make it appear that unions will cause us to lose our job security. That unions are corrupt, pocketing your dues to benefit themselves.
It is the same argument, ironically, that is used against taxation. If not for taxation, we would have higher employment, better wages, more job security and -- my favorite -- better government services.
It's all nonsense. But if you say it often enough to people in insecure times it is going to work.
In Little Accidents, a 2014 movie recently released on DVD, there are fierce pressures by members of a mining community on the only surviving witness to a deadly accident caused by negligence to cover up the company's responsibility. The palpable fear is that the government will force the closure of the mine and loss of work. People willing to risk their lives in order to earn a living.
Loss of work is the fear of any whistleblower. Edward Snowden had to weigh the consequences of what he knew would be a major attack on the government's credibility, with major fallout. But in smaller ways, most of us reach points in our lives when we could complain about something that is wrong, or close our eyes, even participate. And most of us rationalize why we should just do as we're told. Because otherwise we would lose our jobs, our homes, our friends, our families. It is not so easy to take a stand.
And when Nikki Haley builds her right-wing creds by union bashing, she is touching that same nerve. Fear that leads to isolation, that leads to rage, that turns the fear around from being afraid your employer will let you go to anger at the union rep that has shaken your faith in the security of your life and livelihood.
Haley has used the union issue to garner fame and a future from her corporate handlers. She has done it by creating fear in people who just want to make a living. She knows that if unions were to get a fair hearing, employees would listen, and just might consider letting them in. And Boeing, despite their pretense of being open to unions, would lose the power to make the demands on its employees that it currently holds.
Good for Boeing to be able to sound reasonable and let people like Nikki Haley do their dirty work. Which she does happily.
Meanwhile, though, we need to provide a platform for workers to tell their stories, to tell us what they would want from union membership. We need to hear the things they are afraid to say in public while they are not protected by a union. As long as South Carolina's workers live in an atmosphere of fear, the information vacuum will work both ways, and Nikki Haley will continue to thrive from the power she holds.
One of the greatest fears we have in this country is loss of our livelihood. There may have been a time in your life -- there have been a few in mine -- where I was looking at losing a job, or not being able to find a job, alongside a nearly empty bank account. Terrifying.
Add to that financial disasters, like that of the mid-70's, with gas lines and prices doubling, tripling and quadrupling. Employers squeezing unions, forcing them to choose between cuts in benefits and layoffs. We hear about how Obamacare has forced employers to cut staff from full-time to part-time, but that has been going on (check with your elders) since the seventies.
All it takes is an economic pinch for corporations to take advantage of our fears. And since the seventies, it has worked.
The other strategy that has worked quite well for corporations is painting the union itself as the bad guy. Politicians and lobbyists have no problem twisting the truth to make it appear that unions will cause us to lose our job security. That unions are corrupt, pocketing your dues to benefit themselves.
It is the same argument, ironically, that is used against taxation. If not for taxation, we would have higher employment, better wages, more job security and -- my favorite -- better government services.
It's all nonsense. But if you say it often enough to people in insecure times it is going to work.
In Little Accidents, a 2014 movie recently released on DVD, there are fierce pressures by members of a mining community on the only surviving witness to a deadly accident caused by negligence to cover up the company's responsibility. The palpable fear is that the government will force the closure of the mine and loss of work. People willing to risk their lives in order to earn a living.
Loss of work is the fear of any whistleblower. Edward Snowden had to weigh the consequences of what he knew would be a major attack on the government's credibility, with major fallout. But in smaller ways, most of us reach points in our lives when we could complain about something that is wrong, or close our eyes, even participate. And most of us rationalize why we should just do as we're told. Because otherwise we would lose our jobs, our homes, our friends, our families. It is not so easy to take a stand.
And when Nikki Haley builds her right-wing creds by union bashing, she is touching that same nerve. Fear that leads to isolation, that leads to rage, that turns the fear around from being afraid your employer will let you go to anger at the union rep that has shaken your faith in the security of your life and livelihood.
Haley has used the union issue to garner fame and a future from her corporate handlers. She has done it by creating fear in people who just want to make a living. She knows that if unions were to get a fair hearing, employees would listen, and just might consider letting them in. And Boeing, despite their pretense of being open to unions, would lose the power to make the demands on its employees that it currently holds.
Good for Boeing to be able to sound reasonable and let people like Nikki Haley do their dirty work. Which she does happily.
Meanwhile, though, we need to provide a platform for workers to tell their stories, to tell us what they would want from union membership. We need to hear the things they are afraid to say in public while they are not protected by a union. As long as South Carolina's workers live in an atmosphere of fear, the information vacuum will work both ways, and Nikki Haley will continue to thrive from the power she holds.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
The Tim Scott Conundrum
Proving that it's a great day for Tim Scott if not for his constituents, polling indicates that he is South Carolina's "most popular politician." I try very hard to understand this phenomenon, as I have never heard him utter a meaningful thought. But this, I fear, is the secret to his success.
Scott has been groomed by the .01 percent who own this country. To be fair, he has an obsequious, non-threatening demeanor. Just as Nikki Haley is the woman the right-wing loves to have speak for them, Tim Scott is the black man that the Kochs want mouthing their values. And I did hate writing that sentence. But the fact is, Tim Scott is not going to be the person to ever, EVER question the wealthy and powerful of this country.
He is able to be an Everyman whose polite sincerity makes credible the damaging positions he defends.
Of late he is stepping up on the floor of the Senate to defend the Senate's vote to challenge the National Labor Relations Board's recent streamlining of election rules. With typical Orwellian panache, the right wing is calling the NLRB rule change the "Ambush Election rule."
Scott paints for us a portrait of those evil unions trying to force employers and employees to bend to their will. In his speech, he talks about "the hyperpartisan, pro-union entity" trying to tear down South Carolina's "pro-business, pro-employee environment." In a diatribe bringing to mind a schoolyard whine, he claims that the NLRB's general counsel "made jokes about destroying the American economy and call(ed) members of Congress names."
In that hometown manner we know so well, Scott reminisces about those years when he was a small business entrepreneur, and how if the NLRB had had their way, he would have been forced to take time and money away from his small business, neglecting his life's work as well as his employees, to comply with the new election rules in less than 10 days. In fact, the rules would allow for elections in 14 days, but what's a few days distortion? And the push behind the opposition to these rules comes from corporations like McDonald's and Walmart. The modest rule changes would in fact prevent only to some extent the stalling and strong-arm tactics that have been used to keep workers from learning about and joining unions.
Now, Tim's no dummy, in the sense that he appears to have smart people tailoring his message. In his weekly email, he highlighted his fight to protect us from the evil union bosses by saying that this rule:
By an unprecedented amount, he means cell phone numbers and email addresses of employees. You know, contact information. The employer would be forced to collect information -- which they already have -- and share it with the unions, which is what Scott sees as an unfair advantage. Of course, what Scott's corporate partners would prefer is that union officials have no access to employees. And the more time they have before a union election, the more opportunity those corporations have to pressure employees to reject the union. This is the situation that Tim Scott believes is fair to employers. In reality, anti-union corporations believe that they own the shop and they own the employee. All others keep out. And underneath all the sincere concern, Scott believes this as well.
But the thing about Tim Scott's sales pitch is that he talks about himself as one of us. His only interest is seeing that we get a fair shake, that we aren't taken advantage of. So when he does the Orwellian flip, he truly seems caring and credible.
And, fact is, I believe that Tim Scott believes what he is telling us. And he always will, because he will not hear or believe anything that contradicts those who have taken him under their wing.
And therein lies the danger of Tim Scott.
Scott has been groomed by the .01 percent who own this country. To be fair, he has an obsequious, non-threatening demeanor. Just as Nikki Haley is the woman the right-wing loves to have speak for them, Tim Scott is the black man that the Kochs want mouthing their values. And I did hate writing that sentence. But the fact is, Tim Scott is not going to be the person to ever, EVER question the wealthy and powerful of this country.
He is able to be an Everyman whose polite sincerity makes credible the damaging positions he defends.
Of late he is stepping up on the floor of the Senate to defend the Senate's vote to challenge the National Labor Relations Board's recent streamlining of election rules. With typical Orwellian panache, the right wing is calling the NLRB rule change the "Ambush Election rule."
Scott paints for us a portrait of those evil unions trying to force employers and employees to bend to their will. In his speech, he talks about "the hyperpartisan, pro-union entity" trying to tear down South Carolina's "pro-business, pro-employee environment." In a diatribe bringing to mind a schoolyard whine, he claims that the NLRB's general counsel "made jokes about destroying the American economy and call(ed) members of Congress names."
In that hometown manner we know so well, Scott reminisces about those years when he was a small business entrepreneur, and how if the NLRB had had their way, he would have been forced to take time and money away from his small business, neglecting his life's work as well as his employees, to comply with the new election rules in less than 10 days. In fact, the rules would allow for elections in 14 days, but what's a few days distortion? And the push behind the opposition to these rules comes from corporations like McDonald's and Walmart. The modest rule changes would in fact prevent only to some extent the stalling and strong-arm tactics that have been used to keep workers from learning about and joining unions.
Now, Tim's no dummy, in the sense that he appears to have smart people tailoring his message. In his weekly email, he highlighted his fight to protect us from the evil union bosses by saying that this rule:
requires an unprecedented amount of an employee’s personal information to be given to union representatives
By an unprecedented amount, he means cell phone numbers and email addresses of employees. You know, contact information. The employer would be forced to collect information -- which they already have -- and share it with the unions, which is what Scott sees as an unfair advantage. Of course, what Scott's corporate partners would prefer is that union officials have no access to employees. And the more time they have before a union election, the more opportunity those corporations have to pressure employees to reject the union. This is the situation that Tim Scott believes is fair to employers. In reality, anti-union corporations believe that they own the shop and they own the employee. All others keep out. And underneath all the sincere concern, Scott believes this as well.
But the thing about Tim Scott's sales pitch is that he talks about himself as one of us. His only interest is seeing that we get a fair shake, that we aren't taken advantage of. So when he does the Orwellian flip, he truly seems caring and credible.
And, fact is, I believe that Tim Scott believes what he is telling us. And he always will, because he will not hear or believe anything that contradicts those who have taken him under their wing.
And therein lies the danger of Tim Scott.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
...and If You Hate Obamacare...
I am one of those South Carolinians waiting with bated breath for the U.S. less-than-Supreme Court to rule on the Affordable Care Act. It infuriates me that in this country, so many who are fortunate enough to have health care security will continue to rant and obstruct the program that has given so many of the rest of us the same. The what's-in-it-for-me crowd is so blinded by greed and rage that they are unable to see how, in fact, making health care a right instead of a privilege has been a major factor in the dramatic upswing in our economy.
We have gone in a short time from an economy crippled by high unemployment, in which the younger job-seekers were shut out because we older folk had to hang on till we were eligible for Medicare. We stayed with jobs we hated, jobs that hurt our aging bodies, jobs that often did not pay a living wage, so that we could cling to that health insurance that each year cost more and covered less. Employers called the shots because they knew they had something we needed -- and it wasn't that barely living wage.
The health insurance industry, with a strong house advantage, never lost the insurance gamble. They took in the young and healthy and priced out of the game anyone who actually might cause them to have to pay out. The cost of people growing sicker and dying because of lack of adequate health care never showed up on the health insurance industry bottom line.
It is true that the health insurance industry made sure to take care of its own when reform became inevitable. They made promises in exchange for the ability to make even more money. They did this by allowing our government to subsidize those fat premiums. And their lobbyists made sure the public saw the government as the enemy and not the industry itself.
So for pretty much the entirety of President Obama's terms in office, we have been listening to the uninformed parroting the vitriol against health care reform. I've heard people complain about Obamacare in the same breath that they admitted they were now paying less for coverage. They rage against "Obamacare" as though it is responsible for the global warming they deny and pretty much everything else (Melissa McCarthy as Tammy: "Four dollars a gallon. Thanks, Obamacare.").
It is also true that the ACA has only slowed the rise of health care costs. Well, if Democrats had spines and Republicans had consciences, we just might be able to tackle the greed of the insurance industry. I'll bet they could have enough profit without raping the all-too-willing government. It might even be that regulation of the industry would result in a better product.
But we were left with the worst of capitalism, that bit that decries government involvement, unless of course, it is writing the checks. If you look closely at your "affordable" health insurance, you will see that the government is picking up the tab for most of what continues to be a ginormous premium. And yet you still have to pay all those cleverly named additional amounts when you actually need health care.
Yet people like me do have affordable health insurance. For now. Because even though all those idiotic votes to repeal in the US House, and despite states with governors with Tea Party dreams like ours, the federal government passed a law that has stood up. Democracy, right?
But now that libertarian Koch darling, the Cato Institute (support with "the Gift of Stock") is leading the challenge to the ACA in the Supreme Court. And the hook this time is four words in the law, which may eliminate federal exchanges in states like South Carolina, where we insist that the best way to help people without health insurance is to deny them health insurance.
I only just today learned that argument will be heard on Wednesday. Most of us, happily insured, are totally uninformed on this fight for our very health and well-being. I worry that while we look away, we will lose our health care security once again. And ironically, a lot of those who are going to lose are the Obamacare haters. Imagine that.
We have gone in a short time from an economy crippled by high unemployment, in which the younger job-seekers were shut out because we older folk had to hang on till we were eligible for Medicare. We stayed with jobs we hated, jobs that hurt our aging bodies, jobs that often did not pay a living wage, so that we could cling to that health insurance that each year cost more and covered less. Employers called the shots because they knew they had something we needed -- and it wasn't that barely living wage.
The health insurance industry, with a strong house advantage, never lost the insurance gamble. They took in the young and healthy and priced out of the game anyone who actually might cause them to have to pay out. The cost of people growing sicker and dying because of lack of adequate health care never showed up on the health insurance industry bottom line.
It is true that the health insurance industry made sure to take care of its own when reform became inevitable. They made promises in exchange for the ability to make even more money. They did this by allowing our government to subsidize those fat premiums. And their lobbyists made sure the public saw the government as the enemy and not the industry itself.
So for pretty much the entirety of President Obama's terms in office, we have been listening to the uninformed parroting the vitriol against health care reform. I've heard people complain about Obamacare in the same breath that they admitted they were now paying less for coverage. They rage against "Obamacare" as though it is responsible for the global warming they deny and pretty much everything else (Melissa McCarthy as Tammy: "Four dollars a gallon. Thanks, Obamacare.").
It is also true that the ACA has only slowed the rise of health care costs. Well, if Democrats had spines and Republicans had consciences, we just might be able to tackle the greed of the insurance industry. I'll bet they could have enough profit without raping the all-too-willing government. It might even be that regulation of the industry would result in a better product.
But we were left with the worst of capitalism, that bit that decries government involvement, unless of course, it is writing the checks. If you look closely at your "affordable" health insurance, you will see that the government is picking up the tab for most of what continues to be a ginormous premium. And yet you still have to pay all those cleverly named additional amounts when you actually need health care.
Yet people like me do have affordable health insurance. For now. Because even though all those idiotic votes to repeal in the US House, and despite states with governors with Tea Party dreams like ours, the federal government passed a law that has stood up. Democracy, right?
But now that libertarian Koch darling, the Cato Institute (support with "the Gift of Stock") is leading the challenge to the ACA in the Supreme Court. And the hook this time is four words in the law, which may eliminate federal exchanges in states like South Carolina, where we insist that the best way to help people without health insurance is to deny them health insurance.
I only just today learned that argument will be heard on Wednesday. Most of us, happily insured, are totally uninformed on this fight for our very health and well-being. I worry that while we look away, we will lose our health care security once again. And ironically, a lot of those who are going to lose are the Obamacare haters. Imagine that.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
When 20-Week Abortions Are Banned
There are some rumors that H 3114, the bill that would ban abortion at twenty weeks, could come to a vote in the South Carolina House this week. Debate began on it last week and was adjourned to this Wednesday, February 11. I know I have only been tracking bills in South Carolina for a couple of years, but it seems to me that some bills just don't want to be tracked, and there are ways to keep the public from learning when and where and what happens next. This is one of those bills.
The twenty week ban is a sneaky proposition. Its premise, the "pain-capable" nonsense is false science; legislators, prompted by a National Right to Life model bill, bring up the same outlier research, and ignore the consensus of the medical and scientific community, that is, that pain receptors are not developed until 24 weeks at the earliest. This is the kind of fake science that slings about emotional and suspect terms like "unborn baby" and "preborn" (which never fails to remind me of the "pre-owned" leased-car-for-sale euphemism).
This is the kind of science that is used when cigarette manufacturers try to prove cigarettes don't cause cancer, and fracking doesn't pollute the environment. A doctor, a scientist, a "medical expert" is paraded about. (Remember the joke about "What do they call the medical student that graduates at the bottom of the class?" "Doctor.") And the testimony is repeated, and becomes "fact."
And then there are the not just false, but crazy, claims that we have heard from actually elected officials, of masturbating fetuses: "If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe they feel pain?" Yes, laugh so we don't cry at the horror of these bizarre fantasies wending their way into legislation which could destroy lives.
If this bill passes in South Carolina, what effect would it have? In fact, for most of us, it would have no effect at all. Because the reality is that an abortion at or after twenty weeks is extremely rare. It occurs when there are severe complications in a wanted pregnancy.
Let me repeat that: At twenty weeks or later, an abortion is extremely rare, and occurs when there are severe complications in a wanted pregnancy.
But the inflammatory rhetoric has resulted in most of us assuming that late-term abortions happen all the time, that they are frivolous, and that actual viable human life is snuffed out at the whim of the woman and her abortion doctor.
It was exactly this type of deception that brought us the "partial birth abortion" con job, and the subsequent federal law of 2003 which the Supreme Court upheld in 2007. The term "partial birth" is not a medical term but a successfully inflammatory political one. Given its success, it is not surprising that the next step on the war to ban abortion would be to save the "pain capable" twenty week fetus.
And what would happen if that bill were to pass? For most of us, nothing. Because the procedure is rare, it would not affect most of us. But for the small percentage of women who suffer through the awareness that something serious is wrong with their pregnancy, this law would be a travesty and a tragedy. It means doctors feeling the cold breath of the law watching and demanding documentation, and the possibility that they will be falsely accused of committing murder. For the woman, it will mean adding to the crisis the fact that the government is surveilling her medical decisions. It may mean that she is unable to make the decision to abort as soon as possible, adding days and weeks of agony to this already horrific situation. It could mean that she is not allowed to have the abortion at all.
In Georgia the law grudgingly allows for "medically futile" pregnancies, but not for exemptions for a woman's emotional or mental condition. State Representative Terry England felt that there should be no exceptions:
“Life gives us many experiences,” England said in response to concerns that a woman would have to carry a fetus to term that was not expected to live. “I’ve had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive -- delivering pigs, dead and alive. … It breaks our hearts to see those animals not make it.”
And in the US House of Representatives, Texas idiot Louis Gohmert agrees, actually telling a witness during hearings that she should have carried her pregnancy to term even though it had been determined that the fetus had no brain function.
This nightmare scenario that dim-witted legislators and the anti-abortion movement like to call life-affirming, means the possibility of carrying a fetus to term that will not be able to sustain life, or will be so severely disabled that it would require a life-until-death of pain and surgical interventions. It would mean a family torn to shreds in emotional despair and financially devastated.
None of us begin a pregnancy assuming the worst could happen. If it does, the last thing we need is Wendy Nanney or Lee Bright telling us what we should do about it.
So we need to shout, all of us, against this bill. We need to call and email our legislators, over and over, and tell them why this bill is false science, and that it is not the business of our legislators to determine medical issues. We need to fight for those who may need someday to have the freedom to choose a late-term abortion. It is indeed a rare occurrence, but it is something that could happen to any of us.
Spread the word by email, Facebook or Twitter. Write or call your legislators. Write or call any legislators you know. We people of reason really do outnumber those on the other side of this war on women's medical freedom and privacy. Now is the time to let them know it.
The twenty week ban is a sneaky proposition. Its premise, the "pain-capable" nonsense is false science; legislators, prompted by a National Right to Life model bill, bring up the same outlier research, and ignore the consensus of the medical and scientific community, that is, that pain receptors are not developed until 24 weeks at the earliest. This is the kind of fake science that slings about emotional and suspect terms like "unborn baby" and "preborn" (which never fails to remind me of the "pre-owned" leased-car-for-sale euphemism).
This is the kind of science that is used when cigarette manufacturers try to prove cigarettes don't cause cancer, and fracking doesn't pollute the environment. A doctor, a scientist, a "medical expert" is paraded about. (Remember the joke about "What do they call the medical student that graduates at the bottom of the class?" "Doctor.") And the testimony is repeated, and becomes "fact."
And then there are the not just false, but crazy, claims that we have heard from actually elected officials, of masturbating fetuses: "If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe they feel pain?" Yes, laugh so we don't cry at the horror of these bizarre fantasies wending their way into legislation which could destroy lives.
If this bill passes in South Carolina, what effect would it have? In fact, for most of us, it would have no effect at all. Because the reality is that an abortion at or after twenty weeks is extremely rare. It occurs when there are severe complications in a wanted pregnancy.
Let me repeat that: At twenty weeks or later, an abortion is extremely rare, and occurs when there are severe complications in a wanted pregnancy.
But the inflammatory rhetoric has resulted in most of us assuming that late-term abortions happen all the time, that they are frivolous, and that actual viable human life is snuffed out at the whim of the woman and her abortion doctor.
It was exactly this type of deception that brought us the "partial birth abortion" con job, and the subsequent federal law of 2003 which the Supreme Court upheld in 2007. The term "partial birth" is not a medical term but a successfully inflammatory political one. Given its success, it is not surprising that the next step on the war to ban abortion would be to save the "pain capable" twenty week fetus.
And what would happen if that bill were to pass? For most of us, nothing. Because the procedure is rare, it would not affect most of us. But for the small percentage of women who suffer through the awareness that something serious is wrong with their pregnancy, this law would be a travesty and a tragedy. It means doctors feeling the cold breath of the law watching and demanding documentation, and the possibility that they will be falsely accused of committing murder. For the woman, it will mean adding to the crisis the fact that the government is surveilling her medical decisions. It may mean that she is unable to make the decision to abort as soon as possible, adding days and weeks of agony to this already horrific situation. It could mean that she is not allowed to have the abortion at all.
In Georgia the law grudgingly allows for "medically futile" pregnancies, but not for exemptions for a woman's emotional or mental condition. State Representative Terry England felt that there should be no exceptions:
“Life gives us many experiences,” England said in response to concerns that a woman would have to carry a fetus to term that was not expected to live. “I’ve had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive -- delivering pigs, dead and alive. … It breaks our hearts to see those animals not make it.”
And in the US House of Representatives, Texas idiot Louis Gohmert agrees, actually telling a witness during hearings that she should have carried her pregnancy to term even though it had been determined that the fetus had no brain function.
This nightmare scenario that dim-witted legislators and the anti-abortion movement like to call life-affirming, means the possibility of carrying a fetus to term that will not be able to sustain life, or will be so severely disabled that it would require a life-until-death of pain and surgical interventions. It would mean a family torn to shreds in emotional despair and financially devastated.
None of us begin a pregnancy assuming the worst could happen. If it does, the last thing we need is Wendy Nanney or Lee Bright telling us what we should do about it.
So we need to shout, all of us, against this bill. We need to call and email our legislators, over and over, and tell them why this bill is false science, and that it is not the business of our legislators to determine medical issues. We need to fight for those who may need someday to have the freedom to choose a late-term abortion. It is indeed a rare occurrence, but it is something that could happen to any of us.
Spread the word by email, Facebook or Twitter. Write or call your legislators. Write or call any legislators you know. We people of reason really do outnumber those on the other side of this war on women's medical freedom and privacy. Now is the time to let them know it.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Say No to the Stinkers
The battle over the passage of a budget clearly demonstrates why we need Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, not in the White House. In the past, when those last-minute, late-night budget bills came for a vote just before Christmas (or any other) break, you could count on House and Senate members holding their noses and voting yes. Especially Democrats.
But Warren found those two stinky amendments snuck into the bill, and blasted both houses of Congress for even considering passing the legislation.
One of those most offensive amendments would repeal a critical part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation that would hold banks responsible for risky derivative trading rather than the federal government. The other nasty little piece of work would raise the limit on amounts of campaign contributions that can be made to either Republican or Democratic national committees.
Since Bill Clinton, the Democrats in Congress and the White House have been more than willing to compromise in order to get things done, and the hustlers in the Republican party have been all too happy to hold the government hostage in order to pass legislation that continues to weaken the middle class while increasing the control of the plutocrats.
But Warren has said NO. And in the House, Nancy Pelosi must be delighted to finally have a senator stand with her in this fight. Since Ted Kennedy's death, there have been progressive voices, but none has held the attention of the media and the American people as has Elizabeth Warren. She is an orator reminiscent of Barack Obama, and she has the intellect and determination to carry the argument. She may be the one to cause weak-kneed Democrats in Congress to stand taller.
In the sorry state of the Democratic Party since the 2014 mid-term election, we could do no better than to have Elizabeth Warren locate our missing voices. Blue dogs may even figure out that being Republican lite is not the way to rouse the American voter. It may be that even here in South Carolina Elizabeth Warren's strength and willingness to fight for true democratic values on the national stage will help our battle weary progressives move into the political spotlight.
So let us all take advantage of this opportunity. Now is the time for our state and national progressive leaders to be loud and stand tall. Instead of whining about all those anti-Obama, anti-LGBT, anti-women and family bills that a few rabid legislators are introducing at the state house and in Congress, let's urge those good people that are there to take the offensive. We need them to introduce bills and amendments that assert and protect our rights, every one of us. We need to stand together with all the groups who have been attacked and form a solid coalition that will not sell out one group in a sad attempt to protect another.
We have been losing ground for years out of fear. 2015 could be the year that we stop being afraid and fight back, if only we look to leaders like Elizabeth Warren to light the way.
But Warren found those two stinky amendments snuck into the bill, and blasted both houses of Congress for even considering passing the legislation.
One of those most offensive amendments would repeal a critical part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation that would hold banks responsible for risky derivative trading rather than the federal government. The other nasty little piece of work would raise the limit on amounts of campaign contributions that can be made to either Republican or Democratic national committees.
Since Bill Clinton, the Democrats in Congress and the White House have been more than willing to compromise in order to get things done, and the hustlers in the Republican party have been all too happy to hold the government hostage in order to pass legislation that continues to weaken the middle class while increasing the control of the plutocrats.
But Warren has said NO. And in the House, Nancy Pelosi must be delighted to finally have a senator stand with her in this fight. Since Ted Kennedy's death, there have been progressive voices, but none has held the attention of the media and the American people as has Elizabeth Warren. She is an orator reminiscent of Barack Obama, and she has the intellect and determination to carry the argument. She may be the one to cause weak-kneed Democrats in Congress to stand taller.
In the sorry state of the Democratic Party since the 2014 mid-term election, we could do no better than to have Elizabeth Warren locate our missing voices. Blue dogs may even figure out that being Republican lite is not the way to rouse the American voter. It may be that even here in South Carolina Elizabeth Warren's strength and willingness to fight for true democratic values on the national stage will help our battle weary progressives move into the political spotlight.
So let us all take advantage of this opportunity. Now is the time for our state and national progressive leaders to be loud and stand tall. Instead of whining about all those anti-Obama, anti-LGBT, anti-women and family bills that a few rabid legislators are introducing at the state house and in Congress, let's urge those good people that are there to take the offensive. We need them to introduce bills and amendments that assert and protect our rights, every one of us. We need to stand together with all the groups who have been attacked and form a solid coalition that will not sell out one group in a sad attempt to protect another.
We have been losing ground for years out of fear. 2015 could be the year that we stop being afraid and fight back, if only we look to leaders like Elizabeth Warren to light the way.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
When All Else Fails
The morning after the election, the first person I saw to speak to was my orthopedist's assistant. As she set up the paraphernalia for the shots I was getting to renew my knees for awhile, I asked her if she had voted Tuesday.
She looked abashed, apologized and said, no, she hadn't. She was busy, she worked all day.... "If you had voted, would you have voted Democrat or Republican?" She hedged, saying she really didn't know who was running. This was probably true, but given my Hillary tote-bag, my guess is she was trying to avoid telling me she would have voted Republican, because that's the way her family has always voted. Just guessing.
Alexandra Pelosi is a documentary film maker. She interviews people in malls and parking lots, asking them what they know and what they think about what is going on in politics. What she does is brilliant in its simplicity. In September, on Real Time with Bill Maher, she talked about what people didn't know about the upcoming election. People did not know who their congressman was or who was running in various races. What they did know was that if they voted they were going to vote "R." Please go to the above link and watch (around minute 2'30") the interviews. It is far more informative than anything our Democratic leaders have come up with to explain why they lost last week.
Since November 4th, we have had panels and meetings, interviews and discussions of all sorts, with different kinds of experts trying to explain why the Democrats lost. What has been missing -- WHAT HAS BEEN MISSING -- is asking the voters. I don't think knocking on doors before the election does much to raise the chances of a person voting for a candidate; it seems that they usually agreeably promise to get out and vote for whoever is asking. But now that the election is over, wouldn't it be a good time to knock on doors, stop people at the mall, have conversations at local meetings? And this time, wouldn't it be a good idea, instead of telling people why they should vote for a Democrat, maybe it would be a good idea to not just ask them whether they voted and who they voted for, but to ask them what is important to them.
One of the things the Republicans are really good at, is pretending they are your friend. If you didn't know better, they would really seem to be listening. I can't get Jim Clyburn or Vincent Sheheen to answer an email, or even snail mail, but Nikki Haley not only signs her letters (typed on very nice stationery) but adds a little personal "Thanks for writing!" We laugh at Haley and commiserate with state employees forced to answer the phone by telling the caller that "It's a great day in South Carolina!" but isn't it shrewd to even force her employees to present her personal happy face to anyone who calls. She may not have given a hoot what a visitor had to say, but most of us know that she opened her door and met with anyone who wanted to speak with her (maybe she doesn't any more, but she sure got a lot of publicity when she did).
Our Democratic Party invites us to send money, and occasionally come to meetings and fundraisers, but send an email and ask them to give you a call. If the Democratic Party doesn't have anybody there that wants to know what I think (and I am very free with my opinion), what about all those Democrats that don't get out to the polls because they just don't think anybody cares?
We Democrats know what is best for you, the voter, and it really pisses us off that you don't think it's as important as we think it is. Maybe that's what we are doing wrong. Maybe we need to spend some time, before the next election cycle, asking and listening. And resisting the temptation to jump in and lecture and explain.
Here's one last thought. Most of us are tired. We work hard, we pay our bills, we do our best to be there for our families, and then we try to enjoy some of our free time. Why would we take time to plow through all the politics -- and politics can be boring, meaningless, or just mean -- when we could be doing something that feels good? When Barack Obama ran in 2008, he gave us something different, something special. He really did give us hope and the promise of change. He reached people that we are no longer reaching. Our candidates seem to be scrabbling to promise high school graduates technical jobs rather than the opportunity to reach for the moon. Our opponents are the ones promising the tech jobs. Maybe we should be working harder to promise the moon.
She looked abashed, apologized and said, no, she hadn't. She was busy, she worked all day.... "If you had voted, would you have voted Democrat or Republican?" She hedged, saying she really didn't know who was running. This was probably true, but given my Hillary tote-bag, my guess is she was trying to avoid telling me she would have voted Republican, because that's the way her family has always voted. Just guessing.
Alexandra Pelosi is a documentary film maker. She interviews people in malls and parking lots, asking them what they know and what they think about what is going on in politics. What she does is brilliant in its simplicity. In September, on Real Time with Bill Maher, she talked about what people didn't know about the upcoming election. People did not know who their congressman was or who was running in various races. What they did know was that if they voted they were going to vote "R." Please go to the above link and watch (around minute 2'30") the interviews. It is far more informative than anything our Democratic leaders have come up with to explain why they lost last week.
Since November 4th, we have had panels and meetings, interviews and discussions of all sorts, with different kinds of experts trying to explain why the Democrats lost. What has been missing -- WHAT HAS BEEN MISSING -- is asking the voters. I don't think knocking on doors before the election does much to raise the chances of a person voting for a candidate; it seems that they usually agreeably promise to get out and vote for whoever is asking. But now that the election is over, wouldn't it be a good time to knock on doors, stop people at the mall, have conversations at local meetings? And this time, wouldn't it be a good idea, instead of telling people why they should vote for a Democrat, maybe it would be a good idea to not just ask them whether they voted and who they voted for, but to ask them what is important to them.
One of the things the Republicans are really good at, is pretending they are your friend. If you didn't know better, they would really seem to be listening. I can't get Jim Clyburn or Vincent Sheheen to answer an email, or even snail mail, but Nikki Haley not only signs her letters (typed on very nice stationery) but adds a little personal "Thanks for writing!" We laugh at Haley and commiserate with state employees forced to answer the phone by telling the caller that "It's a great day in South Carolina!" but isn't it shrewd to even force her employees to present her personal happy face to anyone who calls. She may not have given a hoot what a visitor had to say, but most of us know that she opened her door and met with anyone who wanted to speak with her (maybe she doesn't any more, but she sure got a lot of publicity when she did).
Our Democratic Party invites us to send money, and occasionally come to meetings and fundraisers, but send an email and ask them to give you a call. If the Democratic Party doesn't have anybody there that wants to know what I think (and I am very free with my opinion), what about all those Democrats that don't get out to the polls because they just don't think anybody cares?
We Democrats know what is best for you, the voter, and it really pisses us off that you don't think it's as important as we think it is. Maybe that's what we are doing wrong. Maybe we need to spend some time, before the next election cycle, asking and listening. And resisting the temptation to jump in and lecture and explain.
Here's one last thought. Most of us are tired. We work hard, we pay our bills, we do our best to be there for our families, and then we try to enjoy some of our free time. Why would we take time to plow through all the politics -- and politics can be boring, meaningless, or just mean -- when we could be doing something that feels good? When Barack Obama ran in 2008, he gave us something different, something special. He really did give us hope and the promise of change. He reached people that we are no longer reaching. Our candidates seem to be scrabbling to promise high school graduates technical jobs rather than the opportunity to reach for the moon. Our opponents are the ones promising the tech jobs. Maybe we should be working harder to promise the moon.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Some Last Thoughts (Before I Vote)
Unsurprisingly, in the last day before the midterm money leads by, well, a lot.
Take Lindsey Graham, for example. Graham has proven that he is slick and, I have to say, pretty creepy. He can sit back and sound like your kindly uncle who knows what is best and well, he's just going to do it, because it's good for you. Like increasing the social security retirement age. But don't forget that he has also taken some unpopular stands and went up against a slew of opponents in the primaries and, well, he slew them all. Why? Because he's willing to work with those on the other side. Huh. Of course, like that wise old uncle, he tells you that you're going to have to give something up as well.
Here's the thing you need to remember about Lindsey Graham: he is a manipulative s.o.b. He actually said, in his moderate voice, that the reason we needed to vote for him is that it will take a republican to work with the crazy republicans that keep blocking progress in Congress. And in case you thought you had heard him wrong, he said it again.
And then there is the megalomaniac Tim Scott, who sees himself as sent by God (in the guise of Nikki Haley). He is dumber than dirt, and maybe even dumber than his predecessor, Jim DeMint, but he has been polished to a shine even brighter than his nice suit. People I actually know think he is smart, and that he sounds good in public. Maybe I just haven't been around enough to see him preaching to his congregation. But I listened to the debate, and he may have been rehearsed, but he was wooden, as though even he didn't believe his stock phrases anymore. And I saw his ad, the one where he brags on pretending to work next to "everyday people," of whom he apparently no longer counts himself. And I've heard his lies, like about how he voted to reduce the interest on student loans.
And then there is Nikki Haley. Smarmy and flirty, who has wowed all the big bucks, basically because she will do absolutely anything they want her to do, and even more. South Carolina under her watch has sold itself to big corporations and refused to feed, insure and educate its poor. She has worked to deny those who might oppose her right wing plans the right to vote, and she has cost us millions of dollars to fight this battle in court. She is mean-spirited and vindictive, and she can flash a phony smile better than just about anybody I know.
Then we have idiots like Mike Fair, who wears his stupidity with pride and calls it faith. He single-handedly stopped our state legislature from moving health and sex education into the 21st century because the old ways are good enough for him. Of course, he and fellow idiot Kevin Bryant also provided us with better comedy than you can find on cable TV when they argued for putting the Bible in the Columbian mammoth bill.
But we've also got a few tough choices, but choices nonetheless, and some where we have to hold our noses to give it our best shot, and some where that doesn't even help. Parenthetically, when someone distasteful is running unopposed, or unhappily you just can't vote for either candidate, don't leave that space blank. Write-in "None of the Above" so your vote will count.
Do not despair, though, because we do have some good choices, and even some very good choices.
We don't have to let Mark Sanford breeze by without opposition, because Dimitri Cherny is running as a write-in independent candidate. He's a good man, and I would love to see Sanford's face if Cherny with no financial backing or name recognition made a decent showing.
Brad Hutto has fought against great odds to unseat Lindsey Graham. What I like about Hutto is that he is not trying to hide the fact that he is a Democrat, and that he supports the Affordable Care Act, and even President Obama. It took guts (and I hear some persuasion by the state party) for him to agree to step up.
Bakari Sellers is running for Lieutenant Governor, and he is smart and caring. He has traveled around the small towns in South Carolina introducing himself to people and talking about what he can do to improve life for South Carolinians. He has been endorsed by Charleston Mayor Riley, among many others. I have to say that I watched the debate, and Bakari's comments were a breath of fresh air compared to those of his opponent, you know, the guy who thinks we should all volunteer for service jobs so people like him don't have to pay taxes.
I haven't mentioned Gloria Tinubu here because she is not running in Charleston or for a state-wide office, but she is an amazing woman running for Congress in the 7th district. She is brilliant and outspoken, and although she lost in 2012, she is determined that she is going to try again so that she can fight for her district, the state and the country in Congress. If you know anybody from the 7th district, tell them to by all means get out and vote for Gloria.
Last but certainly not least, Joyce Dickerson has had to fight to be heard throughout this race. She has run on a shoestring, and in spite of the lukewarm support of the Democratic party (famous for failing to support good candidates in past years). She won the primary against two male candidates in spite of suggestions by male Democratic leaders that maybe she should step aside. She is not just the underdog in this race against Tim Scott, but she is the underdog that we should all be fighting for.
Joyce Dickerson will not be swayed by power or money. She knows who her constituents are in South Carolina: the struggling middle class, seniors, veterans, children. She knows the issues: low wages, lack of health insurance, failing schools, unemployment, crumbling roads, student loan debt. There isn't one of us who would not benefit by having Joyce fighting for us in the Senate.
It was a big step, going from Richland County Council to the U.S. Senate. But, unlike Tim Scott, she is doing it without the dollars and support of corporations, lobbyists, and of course, Governor Nikki Haley, who gifted the seat to him two years ago. And unlike Nikki Haley, she is a woman who will fight for women, and her candidacy has made me proud.
So, I'm happy to say, we do have lots of reasons to vote. It may be that many of these great candidates don't win because they are fighting enormous odds. But they have fought, and it has cost them a huge chunk of their lives, and people have contributed to their campaigns because they believed in the message, and that we need this change.
Given all that, the very least we can do on November 4 is vote. And bring some friends and family members. And if enough of us turn out, well, you never know....
Take Lindsey Graham, for example. Graham has proven that he is slick and, I have to say, pretty creepy. He can sit back and sound like your kindly uncle who knows what is best and well, he's just going to do it, because it's good for you. Like increasing the social security retirement age. But don't forget that he has also taken some unpopular stands and went up against a slew of opponents in the primaries and, well, he slew them all. Why? Because he's willing to work with those on the other side. Huh. Of course, like that wise old uncle, he tells you that you're going to have to give something up as well.
Here's the thing you need to remember about Lindsey Graham: he is a manipulative s.o.b. He actually said, in his moderate voice, that the reason we needed to vote for him is that it will take a republican to work with the crazy republicans that keep blocking progress in Congress. And in case you thought you had heard him wrong, he said it again.
And then there is the megalomaniac Tim Scott, who sees himself as sent by God (in the guise of Nikki Haley). He is dumber than dirt, and maybe even dumber than his predecessor, Jim DeMint, but he has been polished to a shine even brighter than his nice suit. People I actually know think he is smart, and that he sounds good in public. Maybe I just haven't been around enough to see him preaching to his congregation. But I listened to the debate, and he may have been rehearsed, but he was wooden, as though even he didn't believe his stock phrases anymore. And I saw his ad, the one where he brags on pretending to work next to "everyday people," of whom he apparently no longer counts himself. And I've heard his lies, like about how he voted to reduce the interest on student loans.
And then there is Nikki Haley. Smarmy and flirty, who has wowed all the big bucks, basically because she will do absolutely anything they want her to do, and even more. South Carolina under her watch has sold itself to big corporations and refused to feed, insure and educate its poor. She has worked to deny those who might oppose her right wing plans the right to vote, and she has cost us millions of dollars to fight this battle in court. She is mean-spirited and vindictive, and she can flash a phony smile better than just about anybody I know.
Then we have idiots like Mike Fair, who wears his stupidity with pride and calls it faith. He single-handedly stopped our state legislature from moving health and sex education into the 21st century because the old ways are good enough for him. Of course, he and fellow idiot Kevin Bryant also provided us with better comedy than you can find on cable TV when they argued for putting the Bible in the Columbian mammoth bill.
But we've also got a few tough choices, but choices nonetheless, and some where we have to hold our noses to give it our best shot, and some where that doesn't even help. Parenthetically, when someone distasteful is running unopposed, or unhappily you just can't vote for either candidate, don't leave that space blank. Write-in "None of the Above" so your vote will count.
Do not despair, though, because we do have some good choices, and even some very good choices.
We don't have to let Mark Sanford breeze by without opposition, because Dimitri Cherny is running as a write-in independent candidate. He's a good man, and I would love to see Sanford's face if Cherny with no financial backing or name recognition made a decent showing.
Brad Hutto has fought against great odds to unseat Lindsey Graham. What I like about Hutto is that he is not trying to hide the fact that he is a Democrat, and that he supports the Affordable Care Act, and even President Obama. It took guts (and I hear some persuasion by the state party) for him to agree to step up.
Bakari Sellers is running for Lieutenant Governor, and he is smart and caring. He has traveled around the small towns in South Carolina introducing himself to people and talking about what he can do to improve life for South Carolinians. He has been endorsed by Charleston Mayor Riley, among many others. I have to say that I watched the debate, and Bakari's comments were a breath of fresh air compared to those of his opponent, you know, the guy who thinks we should all volunteer for service jobs so people like him don't have to pay taxes.
I haven't mentioned Gloria Tinubu here because she is not running in Charleston or for a state-wide office, but she is an amazing woman running for Congress in the 7th district. She is brilliant and outspoken, and although she lost in 2012, she is determined that she is going to try again so that she can fight for her district, the state and the country in Congress. If you know anybody from the 7th district, tell them to by all means get out and vote for Gloria.
Last but certainly not least, Joyce Dickerson has had to fight to be heard throughout this race. She has run on a shoestring, and in spite of the lukewarm support of the Democratic party (famous for failing to support good candidates in past years). She won the primary against two male candidates in spite of suggestions by male Democratic leaders that maybe she should step aside. She is not just the underdog in this race against Tim Scott, but she is the underdog that we should all be fighting for.
Joyce Dickerson will not be swayed by power or money. She knows who her constituents are in South Carolina: the struggling middle class, seniors, veterans, children. She knows the issues: low wages, lack of health insurance, failing schools, unemployment, crumbling roads, student loan debt. There isn't one of us who would not benefit by having Joyce fighting for us in the Senate.
It was a big step, going from Richland County Council to the U.S. Senate. But, unlike Tim Scott, she is doing it without the dollars and support of corporations, lobbyists, and of course, Governor Nikki Haley, who gifted the seat to him two years ago. And unlike Nikki Haley, she is a woman who will fight for women, and her candidacy has made me proud.
So, I'm happy to say, we do have lots of reasons to vote. It may be that many of these great candidates don't win because they are fighting enormous odds. But they have fought, and it has cost them a huge chunk of their lives, and people have contributed to their campaigns because they believed in the message, and that we need this change.
Given all that, the very least we can do on November 4 is vote. And bring some friends and family members. And if enough of us turn out, well, you never know....
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Two Smart Candidates ... and Tim
This is what the debate for South Carolina US Senator was not: it was not slick (despite the matching suits worn by Tim Scott and moderator Charles Bierbauer). There were not a lot of fancy words or high-minded philosophies. After all, this was South Carolina. Instead, the responses by all three candidates were predictable, and if we did not know the candidates, left us with very little information other than how comfortable each was in front of the camera.
It turns out that the women, Independent candidate Jill Bossi and Democratic candidate Joyce Dickerson, shared similar views on most topics. Both are strongly pro-women, pro-choice, both in favor of strengthening benefits for seniors and veterans. They also (along with Tim) threw out the ever-popular "secure our borders" and "improve education" because who would not?
If you know Joyce at all, you are probably aware that she is not a formidable public speaker. She has the tendency to occasionally mix up words. But her understanding of politics and her democratic beliefs are strong ones. I can see her in the Senate fighting for the middle class, as well as for those who are struggling to earn a living wage, and for children with inadequate health care and nutrition, and students who are unable to compete because of our government's unwillingness to commit to education.
If the race had been between Jill Bossi (I) and Tim Scott (Tea Party Republican), Bossi would get my vote easily. But what concerns me about Bossi is her emphasis on her willingness to compromise, to find the middle ground, in an America where there have been too many compromises to an uncompromising right-wing. Our middle ground is far right of where it was in the 60's and 70's, and our environment, our health care, our education, our infrastructure, have all suffered the results. Bossi emphasizes her business creds, and I fear that once in Congress she would be all too eager to lean toward the big business dollars and lobbyists that would come her way. Jill Bossi says she wants to institute a "fair, flat tax," a term that sends chills up and down my spine.
Tim Scott, on the other hand, for all his grooming by the big guns that control him, when left to his own devices, will talk about pretending to work alongside "everyday people," clueless as to the condescension. Right from his introductory comments, he talks about wanting to be in the US Senate so he can spend time with his family, and help build a future for his nephew. Clumsy, maybe, but he pretty much lets us know with this Freudian slip that the rest of us "everyday people" don't feature much in his consciousness. Matter of fact, please go to C-Span and listen to his introductory comments, because I just can't do them justice. You really do want to hear him say in regards to Washington, that if it weren't for relatives, people wouldn't like him at all.
But let's please get back to the issues. Actually, not the issues, just the platitudes, because that is what Tim is all about. Somebody invented something called an "Opportunity Agenda" for Tim, and if you listen to him talk about it, you will walk away wondering just what he's going to do to create all this opportunity. Because he won't tell you. The answer to the economy is creating "certainty" and "stability" in the workplace. Now you know this doesn't mean certainty and stability for the workers. This is just Tim Scott bullshit for cutting corporate taxes and deregulation. Which has continued to drag us into the dark ages since Ronald Reagan's handlers first packaged it for the American people.
Of course, Scott called upon the evil Obamacare and was even told to bring up Dodd-Frank, as in "Dodd-Frank and Obamacare" as reasons why our country was failing. Like Mark Sanford debating the cardboard Nancy Pelosi, this is a matter of throwing out red meat to the snarling and brainless base. I am hoping that more than a few of us heard him and said, "say what???" Apart from just the stupid pat phrases, there were the bizarre "facts," like that our corporate tax rate is ten points higher than the rest of the world. Or that through Nikki Haley's leadership Spartanburg and Greenville are at nearly 100% employment. And responding to the comment about his missed votes, that he has a "99% voting record" -- whatever that means.
Scott goes on to say that he "voted to reduce interest rates on student loans," which plain old made my head spin around. So I looked it up. HR 4628, prettily called the "Interest Rate Reduction Act," also repeals parts of the Affordable Care Act...
establishing and appropriating funds to the Prevention and Public Health Fund (a Fund to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs). Rescinds any unobligated balances appropriated to such Fund.
This bill had something in it for nearly everybody to hate, from those on the right that opposed keeping student loan rates low, to those on the left who opposed this sneak attack on essential parts of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the only group that officially supported the bill was the Christian Coalition of America. Which made it good enough for Tim Scott. Funny, though, how Scott made it sound like it was the student loan part of the bill he was supporting and not the strangling Obamacare part....
Oh, my, I wish I was a better writer, I could write a comedy and a tragedy on Tim Scott. What's most important about the Senate debate for me, however, is that I got to hear just how lame he is next to the two smart women running against him. I also had the chance to hear Jill Bossi, who was well-spoken and has lots of good ideas. But not enough.
Joyce Dickerson may not have had time to rehearse for the debate because she appears to be spending every moment of her waking day running to different parts of the state to introduce herself to voters. She is running on a shoestring, and doesn't have the staff to prep her and polish her. But I prefer my candidate without the polish. She is knowledgeable and caring, and she is not in it for the money or the power. She is not likely to sell us out for business interests, and she understands the difference between healthy compromise and caving in.
So I will continue to support Joyce Dickerson, and I hope you will as well.
It turns out that the women, Independent candidate Jill Bossi and Democratic candidate Joyce Dickerson, shared similar views on most topics. Both are strongly pro-women, pro-choice, both in favor of strengthening benefits for seniors and veterans. They also (along with Tim) threw out the ever-popular "secure our borders" and "improve education" because who would not?
If you know Joyce at all, you are probably aware that she is not a formidable public speaker. She has the tendency to occasionally mix up words. But her understanding of politics and her democratic beliefs are strong ones. I can see her in the Senate fighting for the middle class, as well as for those who are struggling to earn a living wage, and for children with inadequate health care and nutrition, and students who are unable to compete because of our government's unwillingness to commit to education.
If the race had been between Jill Bossi (I) and Tim Scott (Tea Party Republican), Bossi would get my vote easily. But what concerns me about Bossi is her emphasis on her willingness to compromise, to find the middle ground, in an America where there have been too many compromises to an uncompromising right-wing. Our middle ground is far right of where it was in the 60's and 70's, and our environment, our health care, our education, our infrastructure, have all suffered the results. Bossi emphasizes her business creds, and I fear that once in Congress she would be all too eager to lean toward the big business dollars and lobbyists that would come her way. Jill Bossi says she wants to institute a "fair, flat tax," a term that sends chills up and down my spine.
Tim Scott, on the other hand, for all his grooming by the big guns that control him, when left to his own devices, will talk about pretending to work alongside "everyday people," clueless as to the condescension. Right from his introductory comments, he talks about wanting to be in the US Senate so he can spend time with his family, and help build a future for his nephew. Clumsy, maybe, but he pretty much lets us know with this Freudian slip that the rest of us "everyday people" don't feature much in his consciousness. Matter of fact, please go to C-Span and listen to his introductory comments, because I just can't do them justice. You really do want to hear him say in regards to Washington, that if it weren't for relatives, people wouldn't like him at all.
But let's please get back to the issues. Actually, not the issues, just the platitudes, because that is what Tim is all about. Somebody invented something called an "Opportunity Agenda" for Tim, and if you listen to him talk about it, you will walk away wondering just what he's going to do to create all this opportunity. Because he won't tell you. The answer to the economy is creating "certainty" and "stability" in the workplace. Now you know this doesn't mean certainty and stability for the workers. This is just Tim Scott bullshit for cutting corporate taxes and deregulation. Which has continued to drag us into the dark ages since Ronald Reagan's handlers first packaged it for the American people.
Of course, Scott called upon the evil Obamacare and was even told to bring up Dodd-Frank, as in "Dodd-Frank and Obamacare" as reasons why our country was failing. Like Mark Sanford debating the cardboard Nancy Pelosi, this is a matter of throwing out red meat to the snarling and brainless base. I am hoping that more than a few of us heard him and said, "say what???" Apart from just the stupid pat phrases, there were the bizarre "facts," like that our corporate tax rate is ten points higher than the rest of the world. Or that through Nikki Haley's leadership Spartanburg and Greenville are at nearly 100% employment. And responding to the comment about his missed votes, that he has a "99% voting record" -- whatever that means.
Scott goes on to say that he "voted to reduce interest rates on student loans," which plain old made my head spin around. So I looked it up. HR 4628, prettily called the "Interest Rate Reduction Act," also repeals parts of the Affordable Care Act...
establishing and appropriating funds to the Prevention and Public Health Fund (a Fund to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs). Rescinds any unobligated balances appropriated to such Fund.
This bill had something in it for nearly everybody to hate, from those on the right that opposed keeping student loan rates low, to those on the left who opposed this sneak attack on essential parts of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the only group that officially supported the bill was the Christian Coalition of America. Which made it good enough for Tim Scott. Funny, though, how Scott made it sound like it was the student loan part of the bill he was supporting and not the strangling Obamacare part....
Oh, my, I wish I was a better writer, I could write a comedy and a tragedy on Tim Scott. What's most important about the Senate debate for me, however, is that I got to hear just how lame he is next to the two smart women running against him. I also had the chance to hear Jill Bossi, who was well-spoken and has lots of good ideas. But not enough.
Joyce Dickerson may not have had time to rehearse for the debate because she appears to be spending every moment of her waking day running to different parts of the state to introduce herself to voters. She is running on a shoestring, and doesn't have the staff to prep her and polish her. But I prefer my candidate without the polish. She is knowledgeable and caring, and she is not in it for the money or the power. She is not likely to sell us out for business interests, and she understands the difference between healthy compromise and caving in.
So I will continue to support Joyce Dickerson, and I hope you will as well.
Joyce Dickerson
for US Senate
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Owning the Bad News
It was inevitable. Obama's economic push could only work in red states for so long before our own backwards economic policies dragged us back down. We've been listening to Nikki Haley brag on -- and take credit for -- South Carolina's declining unemployment rate for some time now. I wonder if today's news about its recent upswing will cause her any problem, message-wise.
Here's where our Democratic candidates should be jumping in, first of all, to let us voters know that this has happened. And then they need to offer the logical explanation, and the logical alternative.
Where candidates like Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky have stumbled has been in their fear of owning the best policies of the Obama administration. In fact, employment began growing due to stimulus dollars, and has continued to grow because of programs like those he has undertaken to encourage alternative energy initiatives as well as protecting the environment. Good for business, good for jobs.
Imagine where we might be if Obama had not had to waste time and tax dollars fighting a Congress which Republican members have had as their sole priority blocking administration initiatives.
Because of old-timey Republican philosophy, we have continued to have wealth stagnating in the reaches of the top one percent, while the consumers who are the actual "job creators" are unable to spend dollars they don't have. Robert Reich describes in his documentary Inequality for All the "virtuous cycle" of economic growth that occurred up to the 1980's, followed by the "vicious cycle" that has resulted in the economic stagnation and increasing inequality that continues to this day.
What is frustrating is that the evidence is clear. But we continue to spiral downhill due to lies and misdirection by right-wing politicians.
Take, for example, Nikki Haley. Her policies have not been able to stop some economic growth in South Carolina in the past six years, but the bad ideas she has been pursuing have caught up with us. The jobs she claims she has brought to the state have been not enough to counterbalance the drain on services that have resulted from her tax giveaways. Bad business like refusing to accept Medicaid expansion dollars not only hurt uninsured individuals but result in loss in business due to employee illness, public safety issues, and loss of thousands of jobs in the health sector.
And then, of course, we have Tea Party's poster child, Tim Scott. As long as he is prospering, he will promote any program groups like ALEC and the Koch Brothers are trying to sell. And sell they do. Scott's message sounds like Reagan's Morning in America, pretty words that belie the bad policies during the 80's "trickle down" years that began our decline from prosperity. And if you look at his pro big business and anti middle class voting record, it becomes obvious why those polices just don't work.
So as we see our unemployment rate creep back up, let's spread the word that it's because of the bad policies of politicians like Nikki Haley and Tim Scott. We have a state that stands to grow and prosper if only we are able to understand why we are in decline even as national employment continues to grow.
We have some great candidates and despite the occasional ambivalence of our state party and shoestring budgets, the word is getting out about them. Joyce Dickerson is one candidate to watch. She is not afraid to speak up about what has been wrong with our state, and what national policies need to change to get us working and thriving again. The thing is, that with Tim Scott's wealthy supporters, it is all too easy to miss this strong, wonderful opponent. I am hoping that we all will do our best to spread the word about the election coming up on November 4, and the difference between our Democratic candidates and their fiscally backward opponents.
Here's where our Democratic candidates should be jumping in, first of all, to let us voters know that this has happened. And then they need to offer the logical explanation, and the logical alternative.
Where candidates like Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky have stumbled has been in their fear of owning the best policies of the Obama administration. In fact, employment began growing due to stimulus dollars, and has continued to grow because of programs like those he has undertaken to encourage alternative energy initiatives as well as protecting the environment. Good for business, good for jobs.
Imagine where we might be if Obama had not had to waste time and tax dollars fighting a Congress which Republican members have had as their sole priority blocking administration initiatives.
Because of old-timey Republican philosophy, we have continued to have wealth stagnating in the reaches of the top one percent, while the consumers who are the actual "job creators" are unable to spend dollars they don't have. Robert Reich describes in his documentary Inequality for All the "virtuous cycle" of economic growth that occurred up to the 1980's, followed by the "vicious cycle" that has resulted in the economic stagnation and increasing inequality that continues to this day.
What is frustrating is that the evidence is clear. But we continue to spiral downhill due to lies and misdirection by right-wing politicians.
Take, for example, Nikki Haley. Her policies have not been able to stop some economic growth in South Carolina in the past six years, but the bad ideas she has been pursuing have caught up with us. The jobs she claims she has brought to the state have been not enough to counterbalance the drain on services that have resulted from her tax giveaways. Bad business like refusing to accept Medicaid expansion dollars not only hurt uninsured individuals but result in loss in business due to employee illness, public safety issues, and loss of thousands of jobs in the health sector.
And then, of course, we have Tea Party's poster child, Tim Scott. As long as he is prospering, he will promote any program groups like ALEC and the Koch Brothers are trying to sell. And sell they do. Scott's message sounds like Reagan's Morning in America, pretty words that belie the bad policies during the 80's "trickle down" years that began our decline from prosperity. And if you look at his pro big business and anti middle class voting record, it becomes obvious why those polices just don't work.
So as we see our unemployment rate creep back up, let's spread the word that it's because of the bad policies of politicians like Nikki Haley and Tim Scott. We have a state that stands to grow and prosper if only we are able to understand why we are in decline even as national employment continues to grow.
We have some great candidates and despite the occasional ambivalence of our state party and shoestring budgets, the word is getting out about them. Joyce Dickerson is one candidate to watch. She is not afraid to speak up about what has been wrong with our state, and what national policies need to change to get us working and thriving again. The thing is, that with Tim Scott's wealthy supporters, it is all too easy to miss this strong, wonderful opponent. I am hoping that we all will do our best to spread the word about the election coming up on November 4, and the difference between our Democratic candidates and their fiscally backward opponents.
Joyce Dickerson
for US Senate
Let's make sure our elected officials own the bad news they have created through their bad policies, and let's elect candidates that will truly make a difference.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Dickerson v. Scott on November 4
In September, in another blog, I wrote about Joyce Dickerson. For those of you who may not know, there is an election coming up, on November 4. And you may know that there is an election, but you may not know who is running against Tim Scott. The answer is, Joyce Dickerson. And the reason you may not have heard of her, is that all the money, I mean, all the big money, is on Tim Scott. He is being financed by all those cats from all those foundations that have the word "freedom" in them. You know, freedom as in don't mess with my freedom to keep making big bucks and not have to be responsible to anyone for how I do it.
Well, in the time it has taken for Nikki Haley, who has never met a big donor she didn't like, to appoint Tim Scott to take care of her supporters in the US Senate, he has become a Big Name in politics. Not because he is smart, because he is not. Not because he makes tough choices, because he doesn't. Not because he cares about the people of South Carolina. Tim Scott's claim to fame is that he is an African American. Yes, the media loves Tim Scott for being an African American senator the same way they love Nikki Haley because she is a woman governor.
But Tim Scott, like Nikki Haley, are rubber-stamp Tea Party conservatives. Scott has been, since his appointment by Haley, groomed by the right wing, and he is delighted to do their bidding, and to believe that he is doing it for the good of the people. But if you look at his voting record, there is no question whose camp he is in.
He may send out flowery emails on all the days that commemorate our veterans, but he does not hesitate to vote against anything that might improve their lives when they are done fighting for their country. He is quick to tell how he was raised by a hard working mother who sacrificed to help him get where he is today, but he will flush down the toilet any bill that might give other children that same chance, or make the going a little easier for the moms that raise them. He has learned to talk about how he is pro-small-business, but small businesses take a back seat to the big corporations that control him.
And then there is Joyce.
Even our own Jim Clyburn couldn't quite figure out why a woman would want to run against two men in the SC primary election. But she knew why she needed to run, and without a whole lot of help, she beat her opponents. She is outspoken and unafraid, and she will be heard.
Joyce Dickerson is uncompromising when it comes to working for the middle class and the disadvantaged. She understands that freedom includes the right for a woman to determine her own reproductive health care, and without the intrusion of the government. She knows that supporting the veterans isn't just about waving a flag and sending out emails on Veterans Day, but about making sure they have health care, and jobs or the opportunity to train for jobs that will provide them a living wage when they get home. She will fight for a living wage for workers and the right to affordable health care. Joyce will make sure that our children don't go hungry, and that they will be educated in good schools by well-trained and well-paid teachers. Improve our roads? Keep the oil barons out of our port?
What Joyce's candidacy means to me is just about every issue that matters. She's not afraid to speak her mind and follow that up with action. I can imagine her on the floor of the Senate, and being interviewed about critical issues and votes. She is a woman we could be proud to have represent us in South Carolina. What a breath of fresh air!
So, if a breath of fresh air is what you think we need, please be sure to vote. Equally important: don't be afraid to talk to friends, family, co-workers, neighbors about the upcoming election. Ask them what they are unhappy about, and then tell them how Joyce Dickerson will work to change those things.
Well, in the time it has taken for Nikki Haley, who has never met a big donor she didn't like, to appoint Tim Scott to take care of her supporters in the US Senate, he has become a Big Name in politics. Not because he is smart, because he is not. Not because he makes tough choices, because he doesn't. Not because he cares about the people of South Carolina. Tim Scott's claim to fame is that he is an African American. Yes, the media loves Tim Scott for being an African American senator the same way they love Nikki Haley because she is a woman governor.
But Tim Scott, like Nikki Haley, are rubber-stamp Tea Party conservatives. Scott has been, since his appointment by Haley, groomed by the right wing, and he is delighted to do their bidding, and to believe that he is doing it for the good of the people. But if you look at his voting record, there is no question whose camp he is in.
He may send out flowery emails on all the days that commemorate our veterans, but he does not hesitate to vote against anything that might improve their lives when they are done fighting for their country. He is quick to tell how he was raised by a hard working mother who sacrificed to help him get where he is today, but he will flush down the toilet any bill that might give other children that same chance, or make the going a little easier for the moms that raise them. He has learned to talk about how he is pro-small-business, but small businesses take a back seat to the big corporations that control him.
And then there is Joyce.
Even our own Jim Clyburn couldn't quite figure out why a woman would want to run against two men in the SC primary election. But she knew why she needed to run, and without a whole lot of help, she beat her opponents. She is outspoken and unafraid, and she will be heard.
What Joyce's candidacy means to me is just about every issue that matters. She's not afraid to speak her mind and follow that up with action. I can imagine her on the floor of the Senate, and being interviewed about critical issues and votes. She is a woman we could be proud to have represent us in South Carolina. What a breath of fresh air!
So, if a breath of fresh air is what you think we need, please be sure to vote. Equally important: don't be afraid to talk to friends, family, co-workers, neighbors about the upcoming election. Ask them what they are unhappy about, and then tell them how Joyce Dickerson will work to change those things.
 |
| Joyce Dickerson for US Senate |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)