Tag Archives: Democrat

What Happened When 3 Politicians Tried a Minimum Wage Budget

What Happened When 3 Politicians Tried a Minimum Wage Budget

By Scott Wilson

Jul 28, 2014 2:35pm

 

GTY money jef 140725 16x9 608 What Happened When 3 Politicians Tried a Minimum Wage Budget

(Getty Images)

“Have you ever seen a congressman snacking on a measly tin of sardines? Or maybe a governor ordering a McChicken off the dollar menu?

In Washington this week that scene was reality for three Democratic politicians who are taking the Live the Wage challenge.

Reps. Tim Ryan and Jan Schakowsky joined former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland in taking the challenge–and are each living on a budget of $77 for the week–the same amount that a minimum wage worker typically has to spend on food, transportation and day-to-day expenses–after factoring out major costs such as rent and utilities.

A $77-a-week budget certainly doesn’t allow for luxuries.

“I basically had a couple bags of peanuts in the cloakroom–and there was a little fruit in the office that I ate yesterday,” Rep. Ryan told ABC News. “I spent about seven bucks last night on a couple cans of sardines and a bag of crackers from the convenience store up the street.”

The congressman began the “Live the Wage” challenge last week with hopes of bringing attention to the hardships facing minimum wage workers around the nation.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky also began the challenge Thursday–telling ABC News, “It totally changes your perspective. Even the shopping experience–I make a shopping list when I go to the store usually. I think about what I need–what I want–and I put it in the cart. I truthfully rarely think about how much it costs.”

“I’ll walk down the aisle and I’ll see something–you know, that would be great and I throw it in the cart. There’s just none of that when you’re on that kind of budget. There’s no spontaneity whatsoever,” Schakowsky added.

Strickland even took a trip to McDonald’s to try out the fast food chain’s dollar menu. Strickland posted a photograph of his $2.20 meal on Twitter noting that the workers at McDonald’s–(a company known for paying the legal minimum)–”deserve a raise.”

In a Politico op-ed, Strickland explained that he was unable to complete the week-long challenge with a budget of just $77. One particularly difficult aspect the governor discussed was eating a healthy diet while living on a $7.25 hourly wage.

“Because fresh fruits and vegetables are hard to find at a price within a minimum wage budget, I turned to bread, peanut butter, bananas and bologna more than anything else. That was what I could find when I took this budget to the grocery story last Sunday. And that’s why I ate lunch from the McDonald’s dollar menu.”

Schakowsky and Ryan have also taken to social media in recent days to share their message about the challenges facing minimum wage workers.

“There are a lot of people out there who do this for extended periods of time–years–so the idea is to get the message out and raise awareness about some of the difficulties that can happen to you,” Ryan told ABC News.

“We realize it’s not going to be exactly like the challenges that a minimum wage family faces, but the country is talking about the minimum wage right now. And I think that’s exactly what we want to do.”

Schakowsky echoed Rep. Ryan’s sentiments.

“I’m not going to pretend that now I understand what it’s like to live on the minimum wage. I think it’s a taste of it. But for anyone who thinks it’s a gimmick, my suggestion would be–try it,” Schakowsky said.

“You will get a small sense of what it’s like to be constantly thinking about how much you’re spending.”

Ryan and Schakowsky were co-sponsors of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. Their goal is to increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10.

The push to increase the national minimum has steadily intensified in the past year–as the minimum wage has remained unchanged since 2009.

Last week marked the five-year anniversary since Congress last passed an increase to the national minimum, while the wage for tipped workers has remained at $2.13 an hour since 1991.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the minimum wage doesn’t get you very far. “On average, a single-parent household (One parent, at least one child under 18) will spend $5,457 per year on food, or about $105 per week.”

That’s $28 above what a minimum wage worker has to live on for a week.

When asked about plans for reintroducing minimum wage legislation, Schakowsky was optimistic, but expressed concerns over whether Speaker of the House John Boehner would bring the bill to a vote.

“We’re hoping that we’re going to see another vote on it in the Senate and that there will be more pressure,” Schakowsky said.

“I fully believe that if Speaker Boehner were to call an increase on the minimum wage–that it would pass. It’s a matter of making sure that we just get more Republicans over this recess to ask the speaker to just call the bill.”

Ryan, however, was not as optimistic about the bill’s prospects before the midterm elections.

“I doubt it. The speaker’s holding the line on this. And I hope it’s a rallying call for the 65,000 minimum wage workers in my district–and the million and a half across the country,” Ryan said.

“Let’s increase the minimum wage and get people to work and make sure work pays. That’s ultimately the conversation we want to have.””

Leave a comment

Filed under Spotlights

“I viewed my bad investment as yet another moral failure.”

“I viewed my bad investment as yet another moral failure.”

That’s the problem with the GOP and conservatives and anyone who views “bad circumstances” as “moral failures.” This article perfectly outlines the poor logical reasoning behind many right-leaning and/or conservative outlooks. It just doesn’t make sense.

More often than not, by pushing for the viewpoints that the GOP advocates for, you are hurting yourself as well as others. He says it himself: “Yet I blamed all of my considerable problems on the government, the only institution that was actively working to alleviate my suffering. I railed against government spending (i.e., raising my own salary). At the same time, the earned income tax credit was the only way I could balance my budget at the end of the year… I felt my own poverty was a moral failure. To support my feelings of inadequacy, every move I made only pushed me deeper into poverty.”

By pushing against the minimum wage raise, for example, you are hurting your own prospects as well as the prospects of others. If wages were raised, money would be pumped into the economy making life better for EVERYONE. Just look at the states that have raised the minimum wage this year, they’re seeing higher employment growth than the states that didn’t.

I was poor, but a GOP die-hard: How I finally left the politics of shame

BY 

“I was a 20-year-old college dropout with no more than $100 in the bank the day my son was born in 1994.  I’d been in the Coast Guard just over six months. Joining the service was my solution to a lot of problems, not the least of which was being married to a pregnant, 19-year-old fellow dropout.  We were poor, and my overwhelming response to poverty was a profound shame that drove me into the arms of the people least willing to help — conservatives.

Just before our first baby arrived, my wife and I walked into the social services office near the base where I was stationed in rural North Carolina. “You qualify for WIC and food stamps,” the middle-aged woman said.  I don’t know whether she disapproved of us or if all social services workers in the South oozed an understated unpleasantness.  We took the Women, Infants, Children vouchers for free peanut butter, cheese and baby formula and got into the food stamp line.

Looking around, I saw no other young servicemen.  Coming from the white working class, I’d always been taught that food stamps were for the “others” — failures, drug addicts or immigrants, maybe — not for real Americans like me.  I could not bear the stigma, so we walked out before our number was called.

Even though we didn’t take the food stamps, we lived in the warm embrace of the federal government with subsidized housing and utilities, courtesy of Uncle Sam.  Yet I blamed all of my considerable problems on the government, the only institution that was actively working to alleviate my suffering. I railed against government spending (i.e., raising my own salary).  At the same time, the earned income tax credit was the only way I could balance my budget at the end of the year.

I felt my own poverty was a moral failure.  To support my feelings of inadequacy, every move I made only pushed me deeper into poverty.  I bought a car and got screwed on the financing.  The credit I could get, I overused and was overpriced to start with.  My wife couldn’t get or keep a job, and we could not afford reliable day care in any case.  I was naive, broke and uneducated but still felt entitled to a middle-class existence.

If you had taken WIC and the EITC away from me, my son would still have eaten, but my life would have been much more miserable.  Without government help, I would have had to borrow money from my family more often.  I borrowed money from my parents less than a handful of times, but I remember every single instance with a burning shame.  To ask for money was to admit defeat, to be a de facto loser.

To make up for my own failures, I voted to give rich people tax cuts, because somewhere deep inside, I knew they were better than me.  They earned it.  My support for conservative politics was atonement for the original sin of being white trash.

In my second tour of duty, I grew in rank and my circumstances improved.  I voted for George W. Bush.  I sent his campaign money, even though I had little to spare. During the Bush v. Gore recount, I grabbed a sign and walked the streets of San Francisco to protest, carrying my toddler on my shoulders.  I got emotional, thinking of “freedom.”

Sometime after he took office, I watched Bush speak at an event.  He talked of tax cuts.  “It’s the people’s money,” he said.  By then I was making even better money, but I didn’t care about tax cuts for myself.  I was still paying little if any income tax, but I believed in “fairness.” The “death tax” (aka the estate tax) was unfair and rich people paid more taxes so they should get more of a tax break.  I ignored my own personal struggles when I made political decisions.

By the financial meltdown of 2008, I was out of the military and living in Reno, Nevada —  a state hard hit by the downturn.  I voted libertarian that election year, even though the utter failure of the free market was obvious.  The financial crisis proved that rich people are no better than me, and in fact, are often inferior to average people.  They crash companies, loot pensions and destroy banks, and when they hit a snag, they scream to be rescued by government largess.  By contrast, I continued to pay my oversize mortgage for years, even as my home lost more than half its value.  I viewed my bad investment as yet another moral failure.  When it comes to voting and investing, rich people make calculated decisions, while regular people make “emotional” and “moral” ones.  Despite growing self-awareness, I pushed away reality for another election cycle.

In 2010, I couldn’t support my own Tea Party candidate for Senate because Sharron Angle was an obvious lunatic.  I instead sent money to the Rand Paul campaign.  Immediately the Tea Party-led Congress pushed drastic cuts in government spending that prolonged the economic pain.  The jobs crisis in my own city was exacerbated by the needless gutting of government employment.  The people who crashed the economy — bankers and business people — screamed about government spending and exploited Tea Party outrage to get their own taxes lowered.  Just months after the Tea Party victory, I realized my mistake, but I could only watch as the people I supported inflicted massive, unnecessary pain on the economy through government shutdowns, spending cuts and gleeful cruelty.

I finally “got it.”  In 2012, I shunned my self-destructive voting habits and supported Obama. I only wished there were a major party more liberal than the Democrats for whom I could vote.  Even as I saw the folly of my own lifelong voting record, many of my friends and family moved further into the Tea Party embrace, even as conservative policies made their lives worse.

I have a close friend on permanent disability.  He votes reliably for the most extreme conservative in every election.  Although he’s a Nevadan, he lives just across the border in California, because that progressive state provides better social safety nets for its disabled. He always votes for the person most likely to slash the program he depends on daily for his own survival.  It’s like clinging to the end of a thin rope and voting for the rope-cutting razor party.

The people who most support the Republicans and the Tea Party carry a secret burden.  Many know that they are one medical emergency or broken down car away from ruin, and they blame the government.  They vote against their own interests, often hurting themselves in concrete ways, in a vain attempt to deal with their own, misguided shame about being poor.  They believe “freedom” is the answer, even though they live a form of wage indenture in a rigged system.

I didn’t become a liberal until I was nearly 40. By the time I came around, I was an educated professional, married to another professional.  We’re “making it,” whatever that means these days.  I gladly pay taxes now, but this attitude is also rooted in self-interest.  I have relatives who are poor, and without government services, I might have to support them.  We can all go back to living in clans, like cavemen, or we can build institutions and programs that help people who need it.  It seems like a great bargain to me.

I’m angry at my younger self, not for being poor, but for supporting politicians who would have kept me poor if they were able.  Despite my personal attempts to destroy the safety net, those benefits helped me.  I earned a bachelor’s degree for free courtesy of a federal program, and after my military service I used the GI Bill to get two graduate degrees, all while making ends meet with the earned income tax credit.  The GI Bill not only helped me, it also created much of the American middle class after World War II.  Conservatives often crow about “supporting the military,” but imagine how much better America would be if the government used just 10 percent of the military budget to pay for universal higher education, rather than saddling 20-year-olds with mortgage-like debt.

Government often fails because the moneyed interests don’t want it to succeed.  They hate government and most especially activist government (aka government that does something useful).  Their hatred for government is really disdain for Americans, except as consumers or underpaid labor.

Sadly, it took me years — decades — to see the illogic of supporting people who disdain me.  But I’m a super-slow learner.  I wish I could take the poorest, struggling conservatives and shake them.  I would scream that their circumstances or failures or joblessness are not all their fault.  They should wise up and vote themselves a break.  Rich people vote their self-interest in every single election.  Why don’t poor people?”

Leave a comment

Filed under Spotlights

1) You are allo…

1) You are allowed to take up space. You are a human.

2) You are allowed to have a voice.

3) You are allowed to leave whenever you feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

4) You deserve more than someone who doesn’t know how to respect you.

5) You are allowed to put your own needs first.

6) You are allowed to love yourself.

— 6:11 p.m. (Six reminders for bad times)

Source: http://expresswithsilence.tumblr.com/post/87848616484/1-you-are-allowed-to-take-up-space-you-are-a

 

Applicable to so many social justice issues.

Leave a comment

June 22, 2014 · 5:44 pm

NRA Asks Gun Nuts to Stop the “Downright Weird” Practice of Carrying Big Guns Into Restaurants

From the NRA:

“Recently, demonstrators have been showing up in various public places, including coffee shops and fast food restaurants, openly toting a variety of tactical long guns. Unlicensed open carry of handguns is legal in about half the U.S. states, and it is relatively common and uncontroversial in some places.

Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms.

Let’s not mince words, not only is it rare, it’s downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one’s cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.”

Leave a comment

June 2, 2014 · 10:49 pm

The Day I Became a Men’s Rights Activist

I never thought the day would arrive when I considered myself a Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) as well as a Feminist. I always knew that the two were inextricably related: both movements fundamentally fight for gender equality. But I never thought I would actively identify myself with a movement that is largely known for its male (white) supremacist supporters. Little did I know that I was treating MRAs how they often treat Radical Feminists (the portion of feminism generally believed to be run and circulated by female supremacists). 

Calling MRAs “sexist white supremacists” is just as bad as calling Feminists “man-hating lesbians” (both phrases that are thrown around often in gender rights debates). This point didn’t really hit home though until I found myself in the middle of a Feminist v. MRA debate on the comment board of “Study Reveals Discrimination Starts Before Grad School” by Lisa Winter. While the article itself covers academic discrimination based on gender and race, the comment thread quickly snowballed into a gender rights debate.

I wanted to participate in the discussion as the avid Feminist that I consider myself to be, but as I read through all the comments I discovered that both sides of the debate were vitrolic, disrespectful, and spreading outright lies and misinformation. One “feminist” was calling all the male commentators “sexist pigs,” while some MRAs referred to men as “innately superior” while “feminists” were “man-hating homosexual women.” I started by replying with short comments that addressed the misinformation, sprinkling verified facts here and there in response to both the Feminist and the MRA commentators. Before long, however, I was spending more and more time researching and looking in depth at the arguments each side was presenting.

My initial comments received a fair amount of anger and defensiveness from each side, one commentator even going so far as to imply that I was “clinically paranoid.” Wow, thanks. After that comment, I found myself knee-deep in articles ranging from the FBI being accused of sexist and racist remarks in the workplace, to articles on experimenter and researcher bias (it truly does exist, guys, look it up).

A different commentator and I were simultaneously debating about everything from how taxpayer money pays for public education, to if birth control should be covered by healthcare, to what exactly the goals and definitions of feminism was and if Obama is truly a “leftist messiah.” (Sure, you can argue that he is, but Obama’s not the only president to reap the benefits/criticism for Gene Healy’s “Cult of the Presidency.”)

Before I knew it, I spent 4 hours of my Saturday educating myself with an impromptu crash course (courtesy of Google) on Feminism and MRA. My response ended up being 22+ paragraph essay, citations and all. You can take the girl out of academia but you can’t take the academia out of the girl, eh?

I came across some fascinating articles, two of which framed my research:

“The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey and the Perils of Advocacy Research” By Bert H. Hoff, J.D.

“The Helpseeking Experiences of Men Who Sustain Intimate Partner Violence: An Overlooked Population and Implications for Practice” By Emily M. Douglas and Denise A. Hines

Very interesting pieces to look at if you’re coming from the Feminist perspective like I was. Another great article I found after the fact was “23 Ways Feminism Has Made the World a Better Place for Men” by Elizabeth Plank.

If you go to Lisa Winter’s article on the IFLScience website, you can view my in-depth comment by “Sort by Best”-ing the comment section. It’s about 15 or so comments from the top. 

The point of this post, however, is to offer up what I discovered in my research to the public. More often than not, the gender debates, and any social rights debate really, are hogged by a highly vocal minority more concerned with winning the argument and degrading the opposition than growing their knowledge base with accurate facts and evidence and trying to understand the other side’s point of view.

Consequently, I’ll end this post with one of my favorite parts of my comment: 

“All in all, policy and practice seemed to be more influenced by ideologies and political values than actual research and evidence. Patently false factoids have guided policy more often than not.

If feminists are not supposed to advocate for superiority over men, then MRAs are not supposed to advocate for superiority over women. Fundamentally, we’re all fighting for the same cause: to have equal weight & influence politically, socially, sexually, educationally, and in all aspects of society. Unfortunately, this mandate often gets horribly skewed in the process. Unfortunately, as well, these two sides of the debate often exclude those who fall in the middle: hermaphrodites, transsexuals, and those who suffer from gender dysphoria (some cultures – even “Western” cultures – accept these “middle” people into their culture and give them equal respect as well).

If I want equality, I do know that government preference is not the answer. We agree on that point. By definition, “preference” means a “greater liking for one alternative over another or others.” So therefore if I want equality then I am essentially anti-preference.

I have to say my eyes were opened to a lot while I was researching and formulating my response to your comment. I have consequently changed some of my views in accordance with the new information that I have discovered. And I want to thank you for that.

I want to thank you for challenging my views and thus prompting me to critically think about feminism and men’s rights activism. I just hope that this discussion can open the eyes of those who come across it. Yes, there are biases against men in our social and legal systems. But there are also biases against women in the same systems.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Scribbles

Abortion bill sponsor said what?

By Donna Brazile, CNN Contributor

updated 3:37 PM EDT, Sun June 16, 2013

 

“Editor’s note: Donna Brazile, a CNN contributor and a Democratic strategist, is vice chairwoman for voter registration and participation at the Democratic National Committee. She is a nationally syndicated columnist, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and author of “Cooking with Grease: Stirring the Pot in America.” She was manager for the Gore-Lieberman presidential campaign in 2000.

(CNN) — “The stupidity is simply staggering,” Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania, told Roll Call. He was referring to the political miscalculation of anti-abortion forces in the House Judiciary Committee who insisted this week on reviving the culture wars, years behind us, still again, with yet another proposed abortion bill.

This bill, championed by Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks, sought to ban abortions after 20 weeks nationwide, with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. “I’ll be very frank: I discouraged our leadership from bringing this to a vote on the floor,” Dent said.

My e-mail box was flooded with headlines that began “This again?” and “This … is the GOP’s idea of outreach to women? Really?” and “He said what?” The latter referred to a remark by Franks, chairman of the committee, that “incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” as a justification for the bill ignoring rape and incest victims.

 

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were apparently willing to allow the time when an abortion is legal to be reduced by one month. They sought to add exceptions for rape, incest and the woman’s health — all of which were rejected by Republicans on the panel.

But it appears the House Republican leaders, recognizing a train wreck, added the language to the bill anyway to avoid an embarrassing defeat. The bill will also include an exception for a medical emergency in which the woman might die. This new altered version goes before the Rules Committee on Monday. There are, by the way, 22 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. All men. Not a single woman.

It’s hard to avoid inflammatory remarks when discussing rape. And the line between inflammatory and insulting is thin. It’s also porous. So if Franks thought he had to address the issue of rape, he should have done so judiciously.

His remark says to women impregnated by rape: You don’t count. There aren’t enough of you to matter. That’s not just insensitive; it’s immoral.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, first pounced on the statement’s factual inaccuracy. “I just find it astonishing to hear a phrase repeated that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is low,” she said. “There’s no scientific basis for that.”

Then Lofgren, one of five women among the Democratic minority on the committee, added, “And the idea that the Republican men on this committee can tell the women of America that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous.”

It might be that Franks’ argument, such as it is, echoed a comment by Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Aiken, who claimed during his Senate campaign last fall that women’s bodies have a built-in mechanism to prevent impregnation from “a legitimate rape.” Aiken’s candidacy went into a tailspin from that misinformed remark, and never recovered.

Fact checkers have pointed to studies that indicate Franks’ claim is as suspect as Aiken’s. One study by St. Lawrence University found that pregnancies resulting from rape were higher than from other instances.

Franks later walked back his low-pregnancy-from-rape argument, saying he was not claiming it was harder to get pregnant from rape. Franks apparently based his claim on there being fewer pregnancies from rape than from consensual intercourse. Even so, that’s a “Duh, do the math” excuse.

GOP aides now say Rep. Marsha Blackburn will be managing Franks’ anti-abortion bill. Given her record — “no” votes on major equality or women-protection legislation and “yea” for issues like ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood — that’s hardly an improvement.

And it misses the point. It’s not the who, it’s the what — the argument itself does not stand.

During the Judiciary debate, Franks said, “When you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that’s impossible. … And that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose for such an amendment.”

So, Franks’ argument then became a technical one, that if a rape wasn’t reported, a decision after 20 weeks to abort was made too late. But why is it too late? Does psychological trauma have a timetable? Each case of rape that produces a pregnancy is as individual as the woman who was raped. And the ordeal — psychological, emotional, physical, spiritual — is not term-limited.

The issue of abortion raises real and poignant moral questions. Franks made many remarks that show his obvious, deeply felt, conviction that abortions after 20 weeks are wrong.

But majorities in Congress and of Americans, also with deep conviction, came to a different conclusion: They feel compelled to support exceptions for rape, incest and health.

Franks’ outrageous comment and the viewpoints of other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee illustrate that when one party becomes so narrowly composed that it represents a particular religious culture, we’re headed to what people in other countries face when a ruling party begins making laws from religious theology, without regard to a democratic, secular society — thus excluding other religious viewpoints and dismissing those who suffer as too few to matter.”

Leave a comment

June 18, 2013 · 5:29 pm