Tonight's debate at the Brooklyn Navy Yard falls five days before the next primary on April 19; as the eleventh hour approaches Dems have yet to really witness a true debate between Sanders and Clinton. Rather, both candidates offer up a host of canned and rehearsed compliments, making sure that the comparison is made between the low-brow style of the Republicans and the high ideal, high-minded approach of the Democrats. After this there is usually a brief segue-way, with not so veiled references to Trump, into a moment or two of general opposition to bigotry, misogyny, etcetera. The standard stock issues are then mentioned; with Clinton calling into question Sanders' Senatorial record on gun control while he constructs the Goldman-Sachs conundrum, insisting Hillary is a thrall to Wall Street. And the answers are always the same; no one expects to hear a mea culpa from Bernie about his previous support of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act nor does one anticipate a complete and total denouncement of worldly possessions by Hillary. The beat goes on and we, the voters, become progressively less interested in the primary delegate calculus.
According to a recent Associated Press-Gfk poll, a majority of Americans believe that none of the remaining candidates, Republican or Democrat, represent their opinions and/or concerns on major issues. Furthermore, among all registered voters more than 63 percent state that they would be disappointed if Clinton and Trump become the candidates for the general election.
Voter interest is definitely waning. How could anyone be surprised? In Arizona, voters are made to wait 5 hours just to gain access to polling stations and Colorado voters are locked out of the primary system entirely--without benefit of caucus or an opportunity to cast a ballot. Let's be clear, tuning into a town hall or debate simply to be entertained by a billionaire's penchant for policy pugilism is not equivalent to being engaged in the political process. Similarly, the Dems have done a great deal to disengage their voters--the very idea of a superdelegate is anathema to and stands in stark contrast to a representative democracy. Consequently, Clinton and Sanders must work to reverse the out-going tide of electorate engagement and offer-up a traditional debate in the style and tradition of Lincoln-Douglas.
What would this new approach sound like? For starters, the voters deserve complete answers on the issues of fracking, the minimum wage and student debt reform. Both Bernie and Hillary need to recognize any previous waffling and/or miscalculations--own them and move on. From this debate forward deflection onto one's opponent to obscure one's true opinion or position is not acceptable. Please answer the question that is asked before invoking something your opponent said or did a decade ago. Furthermore, many among us would like to witness Senator Sanders quiz Secretary Clinton on her views regarding nation-building and attempt to harvest her reaction to what President Obama cited as his single biggest mistake while in office. Why is this important? According to an interview recently conducted with the President by Fox News, the inability of his administration to anticipate the fallout from US intervention in Libya and the fall of Gadhafi was the worst mistake of his entire presidency. That is a profound statement as regards the position and responsibility of the Secretary of State-- during the episode cited US Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton; it brings into question Hillary's views on nation building and regime change. Is she a hawk? Is she a dove? Does she have the ability to forecast the near as well as the far consequences of a move on the international stage? We deserve to know. And more importantly, we deserve to hear it from her. We deserve to hear the candidates' views on public health issues, i.e. prescription drug costs(particularly cancer drugs), soil and water safety, chemical contamination of our ground water. Do they have a policy paper on women's health issues? And if not--why not? Many of us would like to hear Senator Sanders ask Secretary Clinton about gender-based pay inequity among her own staff. Democrats need to hear from their candidates the simple truth of their agenda as well as their vision for the country. Clinton needs to clearly disavow the influence of Big Pharma and Big Business in politics once and for all. Don't take their money, it's just that simple. Fracking? Yes or no. It can be that clear. It needs to be that clear. Because the message from voters is progressively less opaque: engage in the national conversation of our everyday or risk losing not only our interest but also our vote.
Please reference: ap-gfkpoll.com, abcnews.com, foxnews.com, cnn.com
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Hillary, Hillary, Wherefore Art Thou, Hillary?
Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is campaigning to become President of the United States; and if she is successful in her efforts she will be the country's first woman president. The sheer historicity of this potential and possibility of such accomplishment is exciting, to say the least. Thus far, however, Sec. Clinton's role in the 2016 election cycle has been blemished by an ever-widening gap among Democrat women voters. The press and various pundits recognize this phenomenon as occurring in two camps--women older than 45 years of age and women younger than 45 years. Women over 45 years are inclined to support and vote for Clinton; while younger women express a strong preference for Senator Bernie Sanders. Many have speculated as to the impetus behind this divide; Gloria Steinem offered that younger women weren't drawn to support the Sander's campaign for any reason based in intellect or politics or altruism, rather the attraction was simply one of pheromones and the boys to which they belong. Ms. Steinem, who has since apologized for her overwhelmingly sexist statement, must think that younger women are incapable of objective thought and reason; and as such, grade a candidate based on the physical attractiveness of his/her campaign workers. While former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told us about a special place in hell for those women who choose not to support women; comments that not only rely upon a less than subtle equating of free-thought with heresy but are also reminiscent of attitudes generated during the Inqusition of the 13th century, in that they are devoid of either objectivity or reason.
Was the purpose of the 19th Amendment and the Women's Suffrage Movement to have all women vote as a block with little or no thought given to issues, candidates, etcetera? Unlikely. In fact, that perspective does strike one as more than a bit sexist, anathema to the entire suffrage movement.
Does it seem so far-fetched to Ms. Steinem and Secretary Albright that younger women represent a sophisticated demographic, independent and unbound by the shackles of a mentality more closely akin to that of a 1960's UAW union member? And by that I mean simply, that both Steinem and Albright seem to advocate for voting preferences and political palettes that are dictated to and determined by a group to which one has pledged economic fealty or in this instance gender fealty.
I would submit that so many younger women have turned away from the Hillary campaign as a result of priorities: their priorities this election cycle do not coincide with those of the current female presidential candidate. Where is the discussion about women's health issues? Genetically modified organisms (GMO's)? Fossil fuels? Universal voting suffrage? In all fairness, she did not assume the gauntlet regarding the increasingly oppressive financial burden of student loan debt until Senator Sanders insisted it was an issue of enough gravity to merit reshaping the national conversation. Still another, some might say, even more poignant aspect of this divide amongst women is the struggle between two philosophies--entitlement versus altruism.
On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton insists that, as President, two of her earliest actions will include mandating equal pay for equal work and a moratorium on coal, oil and natural gas drilling on public land. I want to believe her but find it difficult; as Clinton has already redacted from her platform earlier statements regarding coal, oil and natural gas. She now supports drilling on public lands. Will her intentions soon cool on the issue of equal pay?
Clinton's sense of altruism as a candidate versus her sense of entitlement regarding ascension to the position POTUS becomes even more opaque when one looks at her big-ticket supporters, the PAC supporting her candidacy and her tie-in to global agrichemical ventures, like Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Syngenta. For example, Clinton enjoys the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, on the order of $25M in campaign donations, thus far. Bill Gates owns millions of shares of Monsanto and Cargill stock, roughly $23M worth. The intersection of interests is unavoidable. The potential for a superimposition of Monsanto priorities onto those of the Clinton campaign becomes increasingly more likely when one realizes the influence of former Monsanto executives on any future administration, because they have certainly influenced those previous. Please consider the following: Michael Taylor, the FDA's current Deputy Commissioner of Foods, is a former Monsanto executive; Clarence Thomas, current Supreme Court Justice, was formerly a Monsanto corporate attorney; and Jeremy Crawford, a law and lobbying specialist, previously in the employ of Monsanto, is now employed as a campaign advisor for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential bid.
According to data compiled by Greenpeace, Secretary Clinton's campaign and the superPAC supporting her, Priorities USA, have received in excess of $4.5M from the fossil fuel industry. Relative cheap-skates compared to the agrichemical interests, but substantive none the less. In fact, more than eleven registered oil and gas lobbyists have given a combined total to her campaign of more than $1M. A fair percentage of the fossil fuel contributions to Hillary's campaign have come from two donors: Donald Sussman and David Shaw. Sussman is the founder and chairperson of Paloma Partners; $2.5M of this hedge fund is invested in energy companies, i.e. Phillips 66, AGL Resources and Occidental Petroleum. Incidentally, Paloma Partners received $200M in US taxpayer money as part of the AIG bail-out. David Shaw, chief scientist at DE Shaw Research, has given $750,000 to Priorities USA and another $50,000 to Clinton's Ready PAC, (formerly Ready for Hillary PAC). Shaw, in fact, served on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in both Bill Clinton's administration as well as that of Barack Obama's; and he has major holdings in the Marathon Petroleum Corporation.
Hillary Clinton appeared at a fundraiser in January of this year, which was in large part under-written by the fracking lobby; the event was co-hosted by Michael C. Forman, founder and CEO of Franklin Square Capital Partners. Franklin Square is a $17B investment firm which holds significant interests in scores of Pennsylvania fracking companies. Secretary Clinton obviously supports fracking; as evidenced by her actions while at the State Department--she lobbied against fracking bans throughout Eastern Europe. In addition, when asked during a recent debate about her support of fracking she responded: I don't support it when any locality or state is against it, number one...I don't support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don't support it, number three, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. Sounds like a fracking endorsement to me! And still it continues--Clinton states that she supports a Department of Justice investigation into ExxonMobil as she continues to accept campaign contributions from the Exxon lobby!?
At the start of the 2016 campaign season, more than 20 environmental organizations, human rights organizations, etcetera, asked the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to sign a pledge to #FixDemocracy. This #FixDemocracy pledge asked candidates to support the following legislation: 1) The Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would help to restore as well as increase protections against voting discrimination; 2) The Voter Empowerment Act, to modernize voter registration and ensure equal access to polling stations, voting opportunities for all Americans; 3) The Democracy for All Amendment, to overturn SCOTUS decisions like those of Citizens United and limit the influence of money/corporate contributions in politics; 4) The Government by the People Act/Fair Elections Now Act, would place an emphasis on the small campaign contributions of ordinary citizens while working to de-emphasize the influence of big-business/big pharma in political campaigns. Of all the candidates asked, only Senator Bernie Sanders signed the pledge. Hillary Clinton acknowledged the request but did not sign. No Republican candidate responded nor did any sign the pledge.
Why does any of this matter? It is near impossible to deny the influence that corporations have upon our political process. It might be one person, one vote; but it is also one company, ($)4.5M votes or one company, ($)17B votes. The depths to which such corporate power can penetrate into our legislature is almost impossible to fathom. The companies and corporations involved in this presidential campaign are not altruistic; if anything they are dangerous and destructive to the very foundation of a democratic society. Money for influence in the context of government is the antidote to Jeffersonian democracy.
In support of this contention please consider the following information about several of the companies mentioned earlier, Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Syngenta.
Founded in 1901, Monsanto is a publicly traded American multinational agrichemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. At present it is best known for its production of GMO's including genetically engineered seeds, and RoundUp. RoundUp is a glyphosate-based herbicide used to eradicate "weeds"; lymphoma and leukemia are known side effects of exposure to this product. Monsanto has also brought us such gems as DDT, PCB's, Agent Orange and Bovine Growth Hormone. Dow Chemical is also an American multinational corporation, that develops agrichemicals, plastics, etcetera. According to the EPA, Dow is responsible for 96 Superfund toxic waste sites, including a former UCC uranium and vanadium processing facility near Uravan, Colorado. Dow has a number of subsidiaries and joint ventures, i.e. Arabian Chemical Company, Dow Chemical Kuwait, Sadara Chemical Company, the Kuwait Styrene Co KSC, the Kuwait Olefins Com KSC, Map Ta Phut Olefins Co Lmtd. Syngenta is a global Swiss agribusiness which produces agrichemicals and seeds. It was formed in 2000 after a merger between Novartis agribusiness and Zeneca agribusiness. In February 2016 ChemChina offered to purchase Syngenta for $43B. Syngenta currently is the primary producer of the herbicide atrazine. Atrazine is banned in the EU but still used across the US. It is a known endocrine disrupter in all animals, including humans; and is responsible for decimating the amphibian population of North America. The EU recently suspended the use of Syngenta's herbicide, Cruiser (thiamethoxam TXM) on all bee-pollinated crops. Of course, Syngenta in collaboration with Bayer is formally challenging this ban in court.
These are the sorts of companies that buy our politicians and hijack the political process. These are the companies that have systematically and without evidence of remorse neutered our democracy. We vote for candidates that are little more than mouth-pieces for chemical interests both foreign and domestic. Maybe, Ms. Steinem and Secretary Albright, young women have pulled away from Hillary Clinton because she has allowed herself to become someone who is owned by corporate interests; she is no longer an advocate nor is she an activist for women's rights and a human rights agenda, she is an atavism, representing a time and place from which young women have been liberated. Someone who has sold their very soul, their identity to the promise of fiduciary gain and financial kickback is little more than a slave to the paymaster and as such that person is wholly incapable of understanding the workings of a free mind. And maybe that's the difference right there, Ladies.
Please reference: signforgood.com, naturalsociety.com, althealthworks.com, news.vice.com, greenpeace.org, democracyawakening.org.
Was the purpose of the 19th Amendment and the Women's Suffrage Movement to have all women vote as a block with little or no thought given to issues, candidates, etcetera? Unlikely. In fact, that perspective does strike one as more than a bit sexist, anathema to the entire suffrage movement.
Does it seem so far-fetched to Ms. Steinem and Secretary Albright that younger women represent a sophisticated demographic, independent and unbound by the shackles of a mentality more closely akin to that of a 1960's UAW union member? And by that I mean simply, that both Steinem and Albright seem to advocate for voting preferences and political palettes that are dictated to and determined by a group to which one has pledged economic fealty or in this instance gender fealty.
I would submit that so many younger women have turned away from the Hillary campaign as a result of priorities: their priorities this election cycle do not coincide with those of the current female presidential candidate. Where is the discussion about women's health issues? Genetically modified organisms (GMO's)? Fossil fuels? Universal voting suffrage? In all fairness, she did not assume the gauntlet regarding the increasingly oppressive financial burden of student loan debt until Senator Sanders insisted it was an issue of enough gravity to merit reshaping the national conversation. Still another, some might say, even more poignant aspect of this divide amongst women is the struggle between two philosophies--entitlement versus altruism.
On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton insists that, as President, two of her earliest actions will include mandating equal pay for equal work and a moratorium on coal, oil and natural gas drilling on public land. I want to believe her but find it difficult; as Clinton has already redacted from her platform earlier statements regarding coal, oil and natural gas. She now supports drilling on public lands. Will her intentions soon cool on the issue of equal pay?
Clinton's sense of altruism as a candidate versus her sense of entitlement regarding ascension to the position POTUS becomes even more opaque when one looks at her big-ticket supporters, the PAC supporting her candidacy and her tie-in to global agrichemical ventures, like Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Syngenta. For example, Clinton enjoys the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, on the order of $25M in campaign donations, thus far. Bill Gates owns millions of shares of Monsanto and Cargill stock, roughly $23M worth. The intersection of interests is unavoidable. The potential for a superimposition of Monsanto priorities onto those of the Clinton campaign becomes increasingly more likely when one realizes the influence of former Monsanto executives on any future administration, because they have certainly influenced those previous. Please consider the following: Michael Taylor, the FDA's current Deputy Commissioner of Foods, is a former Monsanto executive; Clarence Thomas, current Supreme Court Justice, was formerly a Monsanto corporate attorney; and Jeremy Crawford, a law and lobbying specialist, previously in the employ of Monsanto, is now employed as a campaign advisor for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential bid.
According to data compiled by Greenpeace, Secretary Clinton's campaign and the superPAC supporting her, Priorities USA, have received in excess of $4.5M from the fossil fuel industry. Relative cheap-skates compared to the agrichemical interests, but substantive none the less. In fact, more than eleven registered oil and gas lobbyists have given a combined total to her campaign of more than $1M. A fair percentage of the fossil fuel contributions to Hillary's campaign have come from two donors: Donald Sussman and David Shaw. Sussman is the founder and chairperson of Paloma Partners; $2.5M of this hedge fund is invested in energy companies, i.e. Phillips 66, AGL Resources and Occidental Petroleum. Incidentally, Paloma Partners received $200M in US taxpayer money as part of the AIG bail-out. David Shaw, chief scientist at DE Shaw Research, has given $750,000 to Priorities USA and another $50,000 to Clinton's Ready PAC, (formerly Ready for Hillary PAC). Shaw, in fact, served on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in both Bill Clinton's administration as well as that of Barack Obama's; and he has major holdings in the Marathon Petroleum Corporation.
Hillary Clinton appeared at a fundraiser in January of this year, which was in large part under-written by the fracking lobby; the event was co-hosted by Michael C. Forman, founder and CEO of Franklin Square Capital Partners. Franklin Square is a $17B investment firm which holds significant interests in scores of Pennsylvania fracking companies. Secretary Clinton obviously supports fracking; as evidenced by her actions while at the State Department--she lobbied against fracking bans throughout Eastern Europe. In addition, when asked during a recent debate about her support of fracking she responded: I don't support it when any locality or state is against it, number one...I don't support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don't support it, number three, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. Sounds like a fracking endorsement to me! And still it continues--Clinton states that she supports a Department of Justice investigation into ExxonMobil as she continues to accept campaign contributions from the Exxon lobby!?
At the start of the 2016 campaign season, more than 20 environmental organizations, human rights organizations, etcetera, asked the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to sign a pledge to #FixDemocracy. This #FixDemocracy pledge asked candidates to support the following legislation: 1) The Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would help to restore as well as increase protections against voting discrimination; 2) The Voter Empowerment Act, to modernize voter registration and ensure equal access to polling stations, voting opportunities for all Americans; 3) The Democracy for All Amendment, to overturn SCOTUS decisions like those of Citizens United and limit the influence of money/corporate contributions in politics; 4) The Government by the People Act/Fair Elections Now Act, would place an emphasis on the small campaign contributions of ordinary citizens while working to de-emphasize the influence of big-business/big pharma in political campaigns. Of all the candidates asked, only Senator Bernie Sanders signed the pledge. Hillary Clinton acknowledged the request but did not sign. No Republican candidate responded nor did any sign the pledge.
Why does any of this matter? It is near impossible to deny the influence that corporations have upon our political process. It might be one person, one vote; but it is also one company, ($)4.5M votes or one company, ($)17B votes. The depths to which such corporate power can penetrate into our legislature is almost impossible to fathom. The companies and corporations involved in this presidential campaign are not altruistic; if anything they are dangerous and destructive to the very foundation of a democratic society. Money for influence in the context of government is the antidote to Jeffersonian democracy.
In support of this contention please consider the following information about several of the companies mentioned earlier, Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Syngenta.
Founded in 1901, Monsanto is a publicly traded American multinational agrichemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. At present it is best known for its production of GMO's including genetically engineered seeds, and RoundUp. RoundUp is a glyphosate-based herbicide used to eradicate "weeds"; lymphoma and leukemia are known side effects of exposure to this product. Monsanto has also brought us such gems as DDT, PCB's, Agent Orange and Bovine Growth Hormone. Dow Chemical is also an American multinational corporation, that develops agrichemicals, plastics, etcetera. According to the EPA, Dow is responsible for 96 Superfund toxic waste sites, including a former UCC uranium and vanadium processing facility near Uravan, Colorado. Dow has a number of subsidiaries and joint ventures, i.e. Arabian Chemical Company, Dow Chemical Kuwait, Sadara Chemical Company, the Kuwait Styrene Co KSC, the Kuwait Olefins Com KSC, Map Ta Phut Olefins Co Lmtd. Syngenta is a global Swiss agribusiness which produces agrichemicals and seeds. It was formed in 2000 after a merger between Novartis agribusiness and Zeneca agribusiness. In February 2016 ChemChina offered to purchase Syngenta for $43B. Syngenta currently is the primary producer of the herbicide atrazine. Atrazine is banned in the EU but still used across the US. It is a known endocrine disrupter in all animals, including humans; and is responsible for decimating the amphibian population of North America. The EU recently suspended the use of Syngenta's herbicide, Cruiser (thiamethoxam TXM) on all bee-pollinated crops. Of course, Syngenta in collaboration with Bayer is formally challenging this ban in court.
These are the sorts of companies that buy our politicians and hijack the political process. These are the companies that have systematically and without evidence of remorse neutered our democracy. We vote for candidates that are little more than mouth-pieces for chemical interests both foreign and domestic. Maybe, Ms. Steinem and Secretary Albright, young women have pulled away from Hillary Clinton because she has allowed herself to become someone who is owned by corporate interests; she is no longer an advocate nor is she an activist for women's rights and a human rights agenda, she is an atavism, representing a time and place from which young women have been liberated. Someone who has sold their very soul, their identity to the promise of fiduciary gain and financial kickback is little more than a slave to the paymaster and as such that person is wholly incapable of understanding the workings of a free mind. And maybe that's the difference right there, Ladies.
Please reference: signforgood.com, naturalsociety.com, althealthworks.com, news.vice.com, greenpeace.org, democracyawakening.org.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Who is still Voting for Kasich? And Why? OR Kasich, the Contradictions and the Campaign Continue
John Kasich, current Republican Governor of Ohio, is still campaigning for the Presidency. He has somehow convinced himself and those in his immediate circle of staffers that there remains a plausible as well as possible way to the White House. Reliance on the remote possibility of a brokered convention is not a political strategy of any merit or substance. In fact, the argument can be made that such poorly spun strategy disenfranchises or at least marginalizes those who fall victim to this unique form of folie a deux, so often seen between conservatives and their candidate. The campaign continues more for the hubris of said candidate than to effect change or influence the national conversation. Kasich's campaign calculus is rooted in fiction much more than it is in fact. This scenario then begs the question--Who is still voting for him? And why is anyone, irrespective of party affiliation, supporting his campaign?
Kasich is against paid maternity leave; opposes the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); opposes equal pay for equal work; and is governor of a state which has yet to pass into law any legislation against female genital mutilation (FGM). And arguably the most nonsensical, contradictory part of this candidate's composite is that he is father to twin daughters.
Recent studies show that less than one-third of working women in the United States are employed by companies that offer paid maternity leave. In addition, 40 percent of the Nation's labor force remains ineligible for the paid leave mandated by the Family and Medical Leave Act. Consequently, women who are either the sole or primary wage earners for their family have a vastly reduced or completely evaporated income should they become pregnant and take leave to deliver. When Kasich was in Congress, he voted against the FMLA not once but twice. Apparently, Governor and Candidate Kasich is either too arrogant or too inept or a combination thereof to ever imagine either of his daughters being single mothers or working mothers or mothers. Because if he did, the following series of sentences would never have been spoken in response to a reporter's question regarding paid maternity leave: The one thing we need to do for working women is to give them the flexibility to be able to work at home online...The reason why that's important is when women take maternity leave or time to be with children, then what happens is they fall behind on the experience level, which means that the pay becomes a differential. Besides the fact that his response is barely coherent and makes absolutely no sense either economically or sociologically, somebody keeps voting for this man and electing him to office. And even more frightening is the fact that in the US, Kasich is considered an educated man. An educated man votes against legislation that could only benefit his daughters, their future children, their future families? An educated man believes that his daughters deserve to earn less than a man for the same work? An educated man does not see female genital mutilation as a human rights violation?
Again, Governor Kasich does not support equal pay for equal work, nor does he support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This is demonstrated by the gender-based disparity in pay among those employed by his campaign. For example, the average salary for a woman employed by the Kasich presidential campaign is $55,300, with a median salary of $44,900; while the average pay for a man employed by his campaign is $60,700 with a median salary of $60,000. Of the ten highest paid Kasich campaign employees, nine are men.
Only 23 states in the US have specific laws against female genital mutilation, despite the remote and recent passage of Federal legislation proscribing the practice. Ohio, the state to which Kasich is governor, does not have legislation prohibiting FGM practices nor does it have legislation prohibiting parents, grandparents, legal guardians, from taking girls out of the country for the purposes of female genital mutilation. The World Health Organization recognizes four types of FGM: Clitoridectomy, total or partial removal of the clitoris or prepuce; Infibulation, the most radical form of FGM in which there is removal of all external genitalia and the vulva is stitched closed; Excision, partial or complete removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without concurrent removal of the labia majora; Other, all other procedures, practices done to female genitalia for a nonmedical purpose.
FGM is performed for several reasons: to control a woman's sexuality, i.e. maintain virginity before marriage and fidelity during; to increase a girl's eligibility/attractiveness for a marriage match and ultimately make her more accepted within her ethnic/religious community; and as a traditional rite of passage. According to a January 2016 survey conducted by the US Department of Health and Human Services, more than half a million women in the US have either been subject to FGM or are at risk for an FGM procedure. Internationally, female genital mutilation is recognized as a form of torture and extreme violence against women and girls, and is a human rights violation. It is performed without benefit of anesthesia, anesthetic or analgesia; it can and often does cause sepsis, infection, incontinence, miscarriage, hemorrhage, as well as birth and pregnancy complications. It is also a cause of neonatal and maternal death.
Maybe, Governor/Candidate Kasich doesn't believe that Republican girls have these parts and could never be caught in a scenario where they or their daughters could fall victim to FGM. As a physician, I feel compelled to inform Mr. Kasich that Republican girls, in fact all biological and some not so biological girls, are endowed with this anatomy and can be subject to FGM if not granted legislative protection. In Ohio, according to the Population Reference Bureau, 24,320 women and girls are at risk for FGM; 12,079 are under the age of 18 years, while 12,241 are older than the age of 18 years.
In fact, women are vulnerable to all sorts of equal rights violations and indignities when legislation is not put into place to offer protection and deterrence. By choosing to exclude women from such considerations as equal pay, paid maternity leave and protection from female genital mutilation Kasich squarely disqualifies himself from consideration for President of the United States, as he does not feel an obligation to advocate for more than 52 percent of the population, women--a special interest group to which three members of his immediate family belong.
Please reference: law.cornell.edu, equalitynow.org, theslot.jezebel.com, dispatch.com. npr.org, prb.org
Kasich is against paid maternity leave; opposes the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); opposes equal pay for equal work; and is governor of a state which has yet to pass into law any legislation against female genital mutilation (FGM). And arguably the most nonsensical, contradictory part of this candidate's composite is that he is father to twin daughters.
Recent studies show that less than one-third of working women in the United States are employed by companies that offer paid maternity leave. In addition, 40 percent of the Nation's labor force remains ineligible for the paid leave mandated by the Family and Medical Leave Act. Consequently, women who are either the sole or primary wage earners for their family have a vastly reduced or completely evaporated income should they become pregnant and take leave to deliver. When Kasich was in Congress, he voted against the FMLA not once but twice. Apparently, Governor and Candidate Kasich is either too arrogant or too inept or a combination thereof to ever imagine either of his daughters being single mothers or working mothers or mothers. Because if he did, the following series of sentences would never have been spoken in response to a reporter's question regarding paid maternity leave: The one thing we need to do for working women is to give them the flexibility to be able to work at home online...The reason why that's important is when women take maternity leave or time to be with children, then what happens is they fall behind on the experience level, which means that the pay becomes a differential. Besides the fact that his response is barely coherent and makes absolutely no sense either economically or sociologically, somebody keeps voting for this man and electing him to office. And even more frightening is the fact that in the US, Kasich is considered an educated man. An educated man votes against legislation that could only benefit his daughters, their future children, their future families? An educated man believes that his daughters deserve to earn less than a man for the same work? An educated man does not see female genital mutilation as a human rights violation?
Again, Governor Kasich does not support equal pay for equal work, nor does he support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This is demonstrated by the gender-based disparity in pay among those employed by his campaign. For example, the average salary for a woman employed by the Kasich presidential campaign is $55,300, with a median salary of $44,900; while the average pay for a man employed by his campaign is $60,700 with a median salary of $60,000. Of the ten highest paid Kasich campaign employees, nine are men.
Only 23 states in the US have specific laws against female genital mutilation, despite the remote and recent passage of Federal legislation proscribing the practice. Ohio, the state to which Kasich is governor, does not have legislation prohibiting FGM practices nor does it have legislation prohibiting parents, grandparents, legal guardians, from taking girls out of the country for the purposes of female genital mutilation. The World Health Organization recognizes four types of FGM: Clitoridectomy, total or partial removal of the clitoris or prepuce; Infibulation, the most radical form of FGM in which there is removal of all external genitalia and the vulva is stitched closed; Excision, partial or complete removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without concurrent removal of the labia majora; Other, all other procedures, practices done to female genitalia for a nonmedical purpose.
FGM is performed for several reasons: to control a woman's sexuality, i.e. maintain virginity before marriage and fidelity during; to increase a girl's eligibility/attractiveness for a marriage match and ultimately make her more accepted within her ethnic/religious community; and as a traditional rite of passage. According to a January 2016 survey conducted by the US Department of Health and Human Services, more than half a million women in the US have either been subject to FGM or are at risk for an FGM procedure. Internationally, female genital mutilation is recognized as a form of torture and extreme violence against women and girls, and is a human rights violation. It is performed without benefit of anesthesia, anesthetic or analgesia; it can and often does cause sepsis, infection, incontinence, miscarriage, hemorrhage, as well as birth and pregnancy complications. It is also a cause of neonatal and maternal death.
Maybe, Governor/Candidate Kasich doesn't believe that Republican girls have these parts and could never be caught in a scenario where they or their daughters could fall victim to FGM. As a physician, I feel compelled to inform Mr. Kasich that Republican girls, in fact all biological and some not so biological girls, are endowed with this anatomy and can be subject to FGM if not granted legislative protection. In Ohio, according to the Population Reference Bureau, 24,320 women and girls are at risk for FGM; 12,079 are under the age of 18 years, while 12,241 are older than the age of 18 years.
In fact, women are vulnerable to all sorts of equal rights violations and indignities when legislation is not put into place to offer protection and deterrence. By choosing to exclude women from such considerations as equal pay, paid maternity leave and protection from female genital mutilation Kasich squarely disqualifies himself from consideration for President of the United States, as he does not feel an obligation to advocate for more than 52 percent of the population, women--a special interest group to which three members of his immediate family belong.
Please reference: law.cornell.edu, equalitynow.org, theslot.jezebel.com, dispatch.com. npr.org, prb.org
Sunday, March 27, 2016
What Donald Trump Needs to do to Win-Over Women and their Vote
Donald Trump's appeal as a candidate does not, apparently, transcend gender. According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, more than 70 percent of the Nation's women and approximately 39 percent of Republican women have a negative opinion of Mr. Trump. The reason for this gender disconnect is simple: nowhere in Trump's platform or policy papers is there a single serious reference to women's issues and/or women's health issues.
There is more than a week before the next big primary contest within the GOP--this is adequate time for candidate Trump to refine his message so as to better appeal to women voters, irrespective of party affiliation. Women's health issues should enjoy a 'politics-protected' position within the conversation of any election cycle--meaning that such issues should be approached as objective public health concerns rather than subjective abortion-based polemics distorted to cast dispersions on an opponent's morality. In addition, women's health is inextricably linked to children's health, i.e. a woman who lives in poverty has children who also live in poverty; a woman who is food insecure has children who suffer nutritional deficits; a woman who has no income and no health insurance has children with truncated opportunities; a woman who is marginalized by society because of gender or race, has children who are equally invisible and supremely vulnerable.
Should Mr. Trump and his campaign advisors decide to formally and seriously court women during this election cycle, the following issues must be added to the public health agenda of a Trump campaign and ultimately, a Trump administration: paid maternity leave; full passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; and renewed funding for free clinics with continued support for Planned Parenthood. Before going any further, it is important to note that pursuant to the Hyde Amendment of 1977, Federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions or abortion-related services--consequently, the topic of abortion as it concerns Planned Parenthood is not a part of any relevant and dedicated discussion about women's health on the 2016 campaign trail. The discussion of women's health as public health must finally evolve beyond the tired debate of pro-choice versus no-choice; women deserve a more carefully and compassionately crafted agenda that no longer hides behind this long-favored GOP feint.
Please consider the following: More than 1.4 million women, between the ages of 15 and 50 years of age, who gave birth in the past year, were unmarried; and 9.9 million single mothers are living with children. Why is this important? Juxtapose the aforementioned figures against the Nation's present employment and benefits packages available to working women.
More than 66 percent of unmarried mothers work outside of the family home and only about half of these women are employed full-time, while nearly one-fourth are unemployed. Among unmarried mothers currently looking for work, only 22 percent receive any form of unemployment benefit. If these women do find work, they must contend with an incredible disparity in pay; white women, for example, earn 79 cents for every dollar a man earns in a comparable job, while African American women earn 64 cents on the dollar with Hispanic women and Latinas earning a mere 54 cents on the dollar. (As another interesting aside, single mothers who have occupations such as physician or surgeon earn roughly 62 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterpart.)
This becomes an issue much greater than equal pay for equal work when one realizes that among families headed by single mothers, nearly 40 percent live in poverty; 52 percent live in extreme poverty. Extreme poverty translates into an annual income of $9900/year for a family of three or a weekly budget of $200. Implicit in the term family is children; we, as a country, place apparently no priority on removing income disparity for women, consequently, the health and well-being of our children does not get addressed nor has it been addressed during this election cycle. If single mothers are unable to earn enough money to care for their children as a national trend nay a national standard, how will the United States be able to maintain its international identity? If we do not nurture and nourish the very future of this country, what result do we hope to reap? Such a lack of investment will adversely affect our national security, our scientific and research community, our educational community and ultimately our ability to compete on the world stage. How can the US claim it is competitive when 55 percent of children with single mothers do not receive food stamps, not because their mother earns too much but because they do not have access to the necessary social services that can educate, inform and direct them towards available resources; and nearly 35 percent of single mother households qualify as food insecure. Food insecurity, simply stated, is a household-level economic and/or social condition in which there is limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
The women and children who live in poverty within the US have myriad health needs and little to no resources with which to negotiate access or payment; nearly one-fourth of single mother families have no health insurance coverage. Despite the Affordable Care Act's intent, too many women and children continue to fall into the abyss of no coverage simply because they live in a state which declined to expand its Medicaid programs; this declination then truncates a woman's ability to purchase health care for herself and her family in the ACA marketplace. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that according to a recent Women's Health Policy Report, the United States has earned a "D+" in reproductive rights and access to quality health care for women. This low mark is due, in large part, to the steady closing of women's community care clinics across the country; since 2011, nearly 31 clinics permanently close their doors every year. In states like Missouri, this has left only a single clinic open to serve the entire state. For pregnant women this creates what can only be called a dangerous situation; low-income women deserve access to prenatal care--it is a fundamental right--which is being steadily denied by those in government who deem it prudent to stop funding and close clinics that previously saw to the care and education of this at-risk population. Although so many politicians and pundits claim to care so much about the health and well-being of the unborn, they deny access to quality healthcare to mothers and pregnant women. Say this aloud--if it weren't so pathetic it would be almost laughable.
Similarly, too many women in the US are forced to take unpaid maternity leave or "pregnancy disability leave" at the conclusion of their pregnancy. If so many women are single and soon-to-be single mothers, shouldn't we have employment legislation that mandates paid maternity leave? How can a woman prepare and care for a neonate when her income has essentially been stopped for 6 to 12 weeks? Again, it is the same politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who call for regulations and revisions regarding access to quality, means-tested or free women's health care while fervently advocating for the unborn; with absolutely no consideration for the woman and child once they leave the hospital. How does one provide for a infant when on unpaid maternity leave, if there is no wealthy family/boyfriend/girlfriend/support system in place?
Investing in our Nation's children is not only the right thing to do, it is our best defense policy, our best national security policy, our best education policy--in short, it is a winning policy. And only by investing in women's and children's health will America be able to restart its heretofore interrupted legacy of winning.
Please reference: infoplease.com, abcnews.com, singlemotherguide.com, ers.usda.gov, womenhealthpolicyreport.org, todayshospitalist.com
There is more than a week before the next big primary contest within the GOP--this is adequate time for candidate Trump to refine his message so as to better appeal to women voters, irrespective of party affiliation. Women's health issues should enjoy a 'politics-protected' position within the conversation of any election cycle--meaning that such issues should be approached as objective public health concerns rather than subjective abortion-based polemics distorted to cast dispersions on an opponent's morality. In addition, women's health is inextricably linked to children's health, i.e. a woman who lives in poverty has children who also live in poverty; a woman who is food insecure has children who suffer nutritional deficits; a woman who has no income and no health insurance has children with truncated opportunities; a woman who is marginalized by society because of gender or race, has children who are equally invisible and supremely vulnerable.
Should Mr. Trump and his campaign advisors decide to formally and seriously court women during this election cycle, the following issues must be added to the public health agenda of a Trump campaign and ultimately, a Trump administration: paid maternity leave; full passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; and renewed funding for free clinics with continued support for Planned Parenthood. Before going any further, it is important to note that pursuant to the Hyde Amendment of 1977, Federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions or abortion-related services--consequently, the topic of abortion as it concerns Planned Parenthood is not a part of any relevant and dedicated discussion about women's health on the 2016 campaign trail. The discussion of women's health as public health must finally evolve beyond the tired debate of pro-choice versus no-choice; women deserve a more carefully and compassionately crafted agenda that no longer hides behind this long-favored GOP feint.
Please consider the following: More than 1.4 million women, between the ages of 15 and 50 years of age, who gave birth in the past year, were unmarried; and 9.9 million single mothers are living with children. Why is this important? Juxtapose the aforementioned figures against the Nation's present employment and benefits packages available to working women.
More than 66 percent of unmarried mothers work outside of the family home and only about half of these women are employed full-time, while nearly one-fourth are unemployed. Among unmarried mothers currently looking for work, only 22 percent receive any form of unemployment benefit. If these women do find work, they must contend with an incredible disparity in pay; white women, for example, earn 79 cents for every dollar a man earns in a comparable job, while African American women earn 64 cents on the dollar with Hispanic women and Latinas earning a mere 54 cents on the dollar. (As another interesting aside, single mothers who have occupations such as physician or surgeon earn roughly 62 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterpart.)
This becomes an issue much greater than equal pay for equal work when one realizes that among families headed by single mothers, nearly 40 percent live in poverty; 52 percent live in extreme poverty. Extreme poverty translates into an annual income of $9900/year for a family of three or a weekly budget of $200. Implicit in the term family is children; we, as a country, place apparently no priority on removing income disparity for women, consequently, the health and well-being of our children does not get addressed nor has it been addressed during this election cycle. If single mothers are unable to earn enough money to care for their children as a national trend nay a national standard, how will the United States be able to maintain its international identity? If we do not nurture and nourish the very future of this country, what result do we hope to reap? Such a lack of investment will adversely affect our national security, our scientific and research community, our educational community and ultimately our ability to compete on the world stage. How can the US claim it is competitive when 55 percent of children with single mothers do not receive food stamps, not because their mother earns too much but because they do not have access to the necessary social services that can educate, inform and direct them towards available resources; and nearly 35 percent of single mother households qualify as food insecure. Food insecurity, simply stated, is a household-level economic and/or social condition in which there is limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
The women and children who live in poverty within the US have myriad health needs and little to no resources with which to negotiate access or payment; nearly one-fourth of single mother families have no health insurance coverage. Despite the Affordable Care Act's intent, too many women and children continue to fall into the abyss of no coverage simply because they live in a state which declined to expand its Medicaid programs; this declination then truncates a woman's ability to purchase health care for herself and her family in the ACA marketplace. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that according to a recent Women's Health Policy Report, the United States has earned a "D+" in reproductive rights and access to quality health care for women. This low mark is due, in large part, to the steady closing of women's community care clinics across the country; since 2011, nearly 31 clinics permanently close their doors every year. In states like Missouri, this has left only a single clinic open to serve the entire state. For pregnant women this creates what can only be called a dangerous situation; low-income women deserve access to prenatal care--it is a fundamental right--which is being steadily denied by those in government who deem it prudent to stop funding and close clinics that previously saw to the care and education of this at-risk population. Although so many politicians and pundits claim to care so much about the health and well-being of the unborn, they deny access to quality healthcare to mothers and pregnant women. Say this aloud--if it weren't so pathetic it would be almost laughable.
Similarly, too many women in the US are forced to take unpaid maternity leave or "pregnancy disability leave" at the conclusion of their pregnancy. If so many women are single and soon-to-be single mothers, shouldn't we have employment legislation that mandates paid maternity leave? How can a woman prepare and care for a neonate when her income has essentially been stopped for 6 to 12 weeks? Again, it is the same politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who call for regulations and revisions regarding access to quality, means-tested or free women's health care while fervently advocating for the unborn; with absolutely no consideration for the woman and child once they leave the hospital. How does one provide for a infant when on unpaid maternity leave, if there is no wealthy family/boyfriend/girlfriend/support system in place?
Investing in our Nation's children is not only the right thing to do, it is our best defense policy, our best national security policy, our best education policy--in short, it is a winning policy. And only by investing in women's and children's health will America be able to restart its heretofore interrupted legacy of winning.
Please reference: infoplease.com, abcnews.com, singlemotherguide.com, ers.usda.gov, womenhealthpolicyreport.org, todayshospitalist.com
Thursday, March 24, 2016
A Reasonable and Economically Feasible Response to Lead in our Drinking Water
At first it was a public health issue that dominated the morning headlines--lead was found in the municipal water supply of Flint, Michigan; then, when a similar crisis struck Northeast Ohio in areas like Youngstown, the initial import and panic began to fade. All of the affected regions, thus far, are burned-out urban centers, with majority African American populations, and unemployment rates that hover around 50 percent; they have nothing glamorous with which to attract the sustained attention of the national media. The Dems did address the issue-- Bernie called for resignations and accountability; while Hillary chastised power structures and acted sufficiently appalled to appease corporate campaign contributors as well as her more grassroots supporters. Republicans acted collectively underwhelmed as they had hand size and grip strength over which to joust. Furthermore, Governor Snyder of Michigan and Governor Kasich of Ohio are both Republicans which apparently prevents any of the GOP candidates from looking too closely at this current public health crisis.
The Feds have promised and recently apportioned considerable funds to Flint in an effort to fix the long-standing issues of infrastructure that, in large part, precipitated the contamination of city drinking water. The residents of Flint and Youngstown and all the other as of yet undiscovered affected Rust Belt communities continue to rely on donated bottled water and will do so for the foreseeable future.
Please consider the following facts provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency: Every year in the US there are 560,000 newly diagnosed cases of childhood learning disorders which can be directly linked to elevated lead in drinking water.
Every year in the US there are 680,000 new cases of adult hypertension which can be directly linked to elevated lead levels in drinking water. Amongst adult males in the US, there are also 650 strokes, 880 MI's (heart attacks) and 670 premature deaths which can be directly linked to elevated lead levels in drinking water.
The EPA also recognizes the relationship between exposure to lead and adolescent crime. According to the Agency's data and several studies cited therein, urban centers with elevated lead levels in their municipal water supply, also experience and have recorded comparatively higher rates of adolescent crime/violence and drug abuse.
It will take years to solve infrastructure shortcomings and make the necessary substitutions and reformulations within the Nation's urban water supply systems to eliminate lead leaching from pipes, etcetera. An immediate fix must be made available to those Americans who reside within our urban centers like Flint and Youngstown, to afford protection from lead contamination to their infants and children. Access to clean water is a basic human right. Too many of our friends and neighbors are, at present, being denied this fundamental human right. This situation must change and it can change. An immediate fix could be this simple:
Every household within affected zip codes and/or every household to which WIC (Women, Infants, Children) benefits are assigned can be given a voucher each month which would allow them to purchase at least one faucet filter, i.e. Brita, Zero, Pur, Seychelle, Mavea. These filters remove lead
and a number of other toxic substances including some pharmaceuticals from the water that runs through the faucet to which it is attached. By using a faucet filter, WIC mothers would be able to reconstitute infant formula, wash dishes, clean fruits and vegetables and provide cleaner, safer drinking water to their families. Gone is their reliance on bottled water--which, incidentally, is not covered by WIC benefits.
The Child Nutrition Act of 1966, which defines the parameters of WIC and related programs, would allow for such inclusion of faucet filters under Section 17 [42 USC 1786] (a) Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, which reads, in part: ...It is therefore, the purpose of this program...to provide...supplemental foods and nutrition education. The program shall serve as an adjunct to good health care, during critical times of growth and development, to prevent the occurrence of health problems and improve the health status of these persons. Removing lead contaminants from a family's drinking water will only help to improve the growth and development of its infants and children. A simple, inexpensive faucet filter, (most are available for less than $15), can help protect at-risk families and their children. Congress could make this happen. We should demand that it does happen. Their constituents, our friends and neighbors, deserve access to clean water. It truly is this simple.
Please reference: fns.usda.gov, cbsnews.com, wkbn.com, Cleveland.com, Youngstown.oh.networkofcare.org
The Feds have promised and recently apportioned considerable funds to Flint in an effort to fix the long-standing issues of infrastructure that, in large part, precipitated the contamination of city drinking water. The residents of Flint and Youngstown and all the other as of yet undiscovered affected Rust Belt communities continue to rely on donated bottled water and will do so for the foreseeable future.
Please consider the following facts provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency: Every year in the US there are 560,000 newly diagnosed cases of childhood learning disorders which can be directly linked to elevated lead in drinking water.
Every year in the US there are 680,000 new cases of adult hypertension which can be directly linked to elevated lead levels in drinking water. Amongst adult males in the US, there are also 650 strokes, 880 MI's (heart attacks) and 670 premature deaths which can be directly linked to elevated lead levels in drinking water.
The EPA also recognizes the relationship between exposure to lead and adolescent crime. According to the Agency's data and several studies cited therein, urban centers with elevated lead levels in their municipal water supply, also experience and have recorded comparatively higher rates of adolescent crime/violence and drug abuse.
It will take years to solve infrastructure shortcomings and make the necessary substitutions and reformulations within the Nation's urban water supply systems to eliminate lead leaching from pipes, etcetera. An immediate fix must be made available to those Americans who reside within our urban centers like Flint and Youngstown, to afford protection from lead contamination to their infants and children. Access to clean water is a basic human right. Too many of our friends and neighbors are, at present, being denied this fundamental human right. This situation must change and it can change. An immediate fix could be this simple:
Every household within affected zip codes and/or every household to which WIC (Women, Infants, Children) benefits are assigned can be given a voucher each month which would allow them to purchase at least one faucet filter, i.e. Brita, Zero, Pur, Seychelle, Mavea. These filters remove lead
and a number of other toxic substances including some pharmaceuticals from the water that runs through the faucet to which it is attached. By using a faucet filter, WIC mothers would be able to reconstitute infant formula, wash dishes, clean fruits and vegetables and provide cleaner, safer drinking water to their families. Gone is their reliance on bottled water--which, incidentally, is not covered by WIC benefits.
The Child Nutrition Act of 1966, which defines the parameters of WIC and related programs, would allow for such inclusion of faucet filters under Section 17 [42 USC 1786] (a) Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, which reads, in part: ...It is therefore, the purpose of this program...to provide...supplemental foods and nutrition education. The program shall serve as an adjunct to good health care, during critical times of growth and development, to prevent the occurrence of health problems and improve the health status of these persons. Removing lead contaminants from a family's drinking water will only help to improve the growth and development of its infants and children. A simple, inexpensive faucet filter, (most are available for less than $15), can help protect at-risk families and their children. Congress could make this happen. We should demand that it does happen. Their constituents, our friends and neighbors, deserve access to clean water. It truly is this simple.
Please reference: fns.usda.gov, cbsnews.com, wkbn.com, Cleveland.com, Youngstown.oh.networkofcare.org
Monday, March 21, 2016
If You Didn't Vote for Bernie Sanders because You Think He's a Socialist--Think Again, You are Too
One of the most poignant lessons of the 2016 campaign season thus far, is the profound deficiency within the electorate regarding basic knowledge of civics and government. This dearth of information and/or knowledge is best illustrated each time the former candidate Marco Rubio and current candidate Ted Cruz identify Bernie Sanders as a socialist. If these Ivy League educated Americans truly believe that socialism is one of those -isms unique to Russia, the FSR's and China, then they must have absolutely zero understanding of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Democratic socialism, one of the layers within the bedrock upon which the foundation of this country was built, posits that both the economy and society should be structured so as to meet the needs of the public and not just benefit the wealthiest one percent. In the United States, civic texts commonly used this term, democratic socialism, to describe the services provided by state and federal governments--services supported by taxes collected from the public.
One would be hard pressed to find an American politician from either side of the aisle daring enough to speak against the long-protected sacred cows of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Conversely, turn on any talk radio station in the Midwest and callers as well as program hosts regularly provide exhaustive soliloquies in which communists and socialists are blamed for the death of the steel industry, the diminishment of the auto industry and the steady deliquescence of the American dream. Those same individuals who indict socialism are the same individuals who benefit from the socialist safety net put in place by the federal government as far back as FDR's administration, if not earlier.
Please consider the following: On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act. This legislation created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers a continued wage after retirement. The funds for this program, to this day, are extracted from the paycheck of every worker in this country. More specifically, Social Security benefits are funded by a dedicated payroll tax which is paid by workers, employers and taxes paid by those who are self-employed.
President Johnson signed the Medicare Bill (Title XVIII of the Social Security Act), July 30, 1965. This legislation created a National Health Insurance program funded by the Social Security Administration--in other words, the taxpayer. It serves, primarily, retired Americans and some disabled individuals. Medicare is an entitlement program rather than a needs based program like Medicaid; thus the poor, rich and the middle class may receive Medicare benefits provided they meet eligibility requirements. Similarly, Medicaid was established in 1965 as part of the Social Security Act. This program provides health care and medical services to low-income families. Since 1982 Medicaid has been available in all fifty states. Eligible pregnant women were granted coverage in 1985; and undocumented/illegal immigrants were given coverage for certain emergent health situations the following year. Under this program, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 2000 was also added, which allows any uninsured woman diagnosed with either breast or cervical cancer to receive coverage, even if she does not meet eligibility income standards.
The benefits of the aforementioned programs could be explored in greater depth, but the point has been illustrated--the tenets of socialism underwrite a large part of this country's programs. It is hypocritical to deny this obvious state of affairs while cashing a Social Security check or presenting a Medicare/Medicaid card at the physician's office or pharmacy. It is equally myopic to dismiss a candidate based on an -ism to which each of us, as Americans subscribe to and heartily underwrite--if you need further evidence of this, have a look at your latest pay stub.
Having programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid is an irrefutable benefit to so many in our country; however, it is not possible to support the theoretical basis of such programs while indicting the political theory upon which they rest. Democratic socialism is not the political equivalent of communism nor is it the political equivalent of soviet socialism. The differences are many and varied; and it is the unique responsibility of the voter to understand and know these differences. Talk radio generalities and Republican debate night misstatements, rooted more in self-interest than in the greater good, are not acceptable substitutes for an educated electorate.
Please reference: medicare.uslegal.com, socialsecurityadminstration.org, trumanlibrary.org, gomedicare.com
Democratic socialism, one of the layers within the bedrock upon which the foundation of this country was built, posits that both the economy and society should be structured so as to meet the needs of the public and not just benefit the wealthiest one percent. In the United States, civic texts commonly used this term, democratic socialism, to describe the services provided by state and federal governments--services supported by taxes collected from the public.
One would be hard pressed to find an American politician from either side of the aisle daring enough to speak against the long-protected sacred cows of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Conversely, turn on any talk radio station in the Midwest and callers as well as program hosts regularly provide exhaustive soliloquies in which communists and socialists are blamed for the death of the steel industry, the diminishment of the auto industry and the steady deliquescence of the American dream. Those same individuals who indict socialism are the same individuals who benefit from the socialist safety net put in place by the federal government as far back as FDR's administration, if not earlier.
Please consider the following: On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act. This legislation created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers a continued wage after retirement. The funds for this program, to this day, are extracted from the paycheck of every worker in this country. More specifically, Social Security benefits are funded by a dedicated payroll tax which is paid by workers, employers and taxes paid by those who are self-employed.
President Johnson signed the Medicare Bill (Title XVIII of the Social Security Act), July 30, 1965. This legislation created a National Health Insurance program funded by the Social Security Administration--in other words, the taxpayer. It serves, primarily, retired Americans and some disabled individuals. Medicare is an entitlement program rather than a needs based program like Medicaid; thus the poor, rich and the middle class may receive Medicare benefits provided they meet eligibility requirements. Similarly, Medicaid was established in 1965 as part of the Social Security Act. This program provides health care and medical services to low-income families. Since 1982 Medicaid has been available in all fifty states. Eligible pregnant women were granted coverage in 1985; and undocumented/illegal immigrants were given coverage for certain emergent health situations the following year. Under this program, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 2000 was also added, which allows any uninsured woman diagnosed with either breast or cervical cancer to receive coverage, even if she does not meet eligibility income standards.
The benefits of the aforementioned programs could be explored in greater depth, but the point has been illustrated--the tenets of socialism underwrite a large part of this country's programs. It is hypocritical to deny this obvious state of affairs while cashing a Social Security check or presenting a Medicare/Medicaid card at the physician's office or pharmacy. It is equally myopic to dismiss a candidate based on an -ism to which each of us, as Americans subscribe to and heartily underwrite--if you need further evidence of this, have a look at your latest pay stub.
Having programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid is an irrefutable benefit to so many in our country; however, it is not possible to support the theoretical basis of such programs while indicting the political theory upon which they rest. Democratic socialism is not the political equivalent of communism nor is it the political equivalent of soviet socialism. The differences are many and varied; and it is the unique responsibility of the voter to understand and know these differences. Talk radio generalities and Republican debate night misstatements, rooted more in self-interest than in the greater good, are not acceptable substitutes for an educated electorate.
Please reference: medicare.uslegal.com, socialsecurityadminstration.org, trumanlibrary.org, gomedicare.com
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Is the Popular Vote a Popular Myth?
The DNC's structure of super delegates has become an issue this campaign season as it has just about every presidential election cycle since that of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. The continued and unflagging support of the Democrats' party elite, including that of DNC national chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for the super delegate system stands in complete opposition to the concept of one-person, one-vote and the basic tenets of government by the people for the people; it unfailingly demonstrates the need for a multi-party system. Our current two party system bears the jaundice of political elitism. And if one listens to the rhetoric coming from the Dems' power structure this election cycle it is becoming increasingly similar and politically symmetrical to the Republican agenda. Crossing the aisle in Congress on matters of social and economic policy, historically was akin to swimming the Atlantic; today, it is an endeavor much more closely aligned with stepping over a day-old rain puddle.
The Dems' super delegates wonderfully represent the corruption of ideas and agenda that has taken hold of the Party. The distinct anti-grassroots stance which the Party has of late become extremely comfortable in espousing is strong and damning testimony. It is important to realize that the concept of unpledged and/or super delegates is little more than a construct of our two-party system. No mention of super delegates in the Constitution.
The Dems' super delegates can also be referred to as PLEO's or political leaders and elected officials; as they include former as well as the current President (i.e. Bill Clinton is a pledged super delegate for Hillary, Pres Obama is a currently undetermined super delegate), past and present Vice Presidents, current members of Congress, Democratic Governors, etcetera. Of the 5,083 delegates attending the Dem National Convention, 747 are unpledged or super delegates and can vote for whomever they prefer at that particular moment. Super delegates are able to vote for whichever candidate they personally support; their vote is neither influenced nor constrained by the primary results of the state which they represent.
Simply stated, 15 percent of the Dems' delegates for this election cycle are independent operators, put in place for the sole purpose of protecting the interests of the Party elite. It would appear, then, that those individuals granted the title of super delegate can, in theory, vote twice during any one election. And they can also then, in theory, vote twice during the same election for the same individual. A super delegate who pledges his/her support for Hillary at the convention, can also vote for Hillary at home in their assigned voting precinct or via absentee ballot. This only further mocks the concept of a popular vote. We the People vote as an exercise in political organization--it is of little consequence to and has even weaker influence over any election's ultimate outcome. The People's choice is always in danger of having too few delegates and subsequently losing the election. It would appear to this registered voter that the Democrats' super delegates enjoy much more influence over who becomes the Party's nominee than those of us who essentially ARE the Party. A multi-party system would necessitate that this poorly designed system be revisited, revised and hopefully relocated to the confines of election history.
The Republicans also have unpledged delegates, however, this group is not nearly as significant, representing less than 7 percent of Republican delegates at the convention. In addition, an unpledged Republican delegate CANNOT cast a vote in contradiction to those they represent--they must vote how their state voted.
Irrespective of party, it becomes increasingly difficult to deny that the expiration date on the super delegate packet of promises sold to the Democrats decades ago, has arrived.
Please reference: washingtonpost.com, politico.com, votesmart.org, al.com, bustle.com, uspresidentialelectionnews.com
The Dems' super delegates wonderfully represent the corruption of ideas and agenda that has taken hold of the Party. The distinct anti-grassroots stance which the Party has of late become extremely comfortable in espousing is strong and damning testimony. It is important to realize that the concept of unpledged and/or super delegates is little more than a construct of our two-party system. No mention of super delegates in the Constitution.
The Dems' super delegates can also be referred to as PLEO's or political leaders and elected officials; as they include former as well as the current President (i.e. Bill Clinton is a pledged super delegate for Hillary, Pres Obama is a currently undetermined super delegate), past and present Vice Presidents, current members of Congress, Democratic Governors, etcetera. Of the 5,083 delegates attending the Dem National Convention, 747 are unpledged or super delegates and can vote for whomever they prefer at that particular moment. Super delegates are able to vote for whichever candidate they personally support; their vote is neither influenced nor constrained by the primary results of the state which they represent.
Simply stated, 15 percent of the Dems' delegates for this election cycle are independent operators, put in place for the sole purpose of protecting the interests of the Party elite. It would appear, then, that those individuals granted the title of super delegate can, in theory, vote twice during any one election. And they can also then, in theory, vote twice during the same election for the same individual. A super delegate who pledges his/her support for Hillary at the convention, can also vote for Hillary at home in their assigned voting precinct or via absentee ballot. This only further mocks the concept of a popular vote. We the People vote as an exercise in political organization--it is of little consequence to and has even weaker influence over any election's ultimate outcome. The People's choice is always in danger of having too few delegates and subsequently losing the election. It would appear to this registered voter that the Democrats' super delegates enjoy much more influence over who becomes the Party's nominee than those of us who essentially ARE the Party. A multi-party system would necessitate that this poorly designed system be revisited, revised and hopefully relocated to the confines of election history.
The Republicans also have unpledged delegates, however, this group is not nearly as significant, representing less than 7 percent of Republican delegates at the convention. In addition, an unpledged Republican delegate CANNOT cast a vote in contradiction to those they represent--they must vote how their state voted.
Irrespective of party, it becomes increasingly difficult to deny that the expiration date on the super delegate packet of promises sold to the Democrats decades ago, has arrived.
Please reference: washingtonpost.com, politico.com, votesmart.org, al.com, bustle.com, uspresidentialelectionnews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)