For a long time I think I have seen a difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Republicans tend to like the "self made man" whereas Democrats think of "groups." It used to be that Republicans nominated the "self made man" for President . Think of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. All of these came from humble beginnings. Although the Republican Party is considered the party of the wealthy, Democrats used to favor wealthy people to nominate for President. Think of Roosevelt and Kennedy. True there were Truman and Johnson who came from humble beginnings but both were accidental presidents with Truman acceding to the Presidency with the death of Roosevelt and Johnson with the assassination of Kennedy.
More recently, things have changed with the Republican Party nominating wealthy men such a George H.W. Bush and George Bush as well as Mitt Romney with Donald Trump probably the most wealthy of all, whereas the Democrats have gone with men of more modest beginnings like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. While Hillary Clinton may be wealthy now, she did come from modest beginnings. (I'm not sure how to classify Michael Dukakis whose father was a physician but as of Greek heritage, they were certainly looked down on by the Boston Brahmins) The sampling size is small so maybe it is just a coincidence.
But look at the two candidates for president now. You have the individual Donald Trump who says, "believe me, I am the only person that can save you "and Hillary Clinton who wrote a book called
It Takes A Community To Raise A Child and has the current motto of Stronger Together as she runs for president. People say she is stealing the Stronger Together from Reagan although she has long preached this concept in her book.
Who will win? Will it be the women, African Americans, Hispanics, and the LGBT or the angry American white males? We'll know in November, probably.
Showing posts with label Hispanics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hispanics. Show all posts
Friday, July 29, 2016
Friday, November 7, 2014
VOTING WITH THEIR POCKET BOOKS
Why was there a Republican wave this last Tuesday (November 4, 2014) when ALL the economic news is good. Why didn't the Republicans face a penalty for doing nothing, for shutting down the government, for not enacting background checks for guns when more than 80% of those polled wanted it, for not raising the minimum wage when more than 50% of those polled were for it, for the House's failure to vote on the Senate immigration reform bill that passed the Senate with 68 votes, eight more than needed. In view of slow employment increase, why was there no infrastructure bill? Why was there no penalty for the Republicans doing nothing?
The problem is that the employment numbers , in spite of the large increases, are only back to where they were when President Obama took office, and the steep decline in the numbers of jobs started before he took office but continued for some months after he took office. And wage increases are not only not keeping up with inflation, but household income has actually dropped. In states with better economies, like North Carolina, the Democratic Senators only lost narrowly, but in states where the economic recovery was poor, like Arkansas, Democrats did poorly.
And then, white male Democrats do not seem to turn out for mid-term elections for reasons not known by me. Blacks and Hispanics did come out and Democratic women did come out for Democratic politicians if not in the percentages as they do in presidential elections. Would Democratic candidates have done even more poorly if they had come out for the advances in medical care and lowering of medical inflation? Would they have done more poorly if they had strongly noted the increase in the economy and job recovery even if there is a long way to go yet?
Well, there seems to be some optimism that now that Republicans control both houses of congress, we will see more bills passed, something on immigration, for example. But the Senate bipartisan immigration bill was never voted on in the House and thoughts are that it would have passed with sufficient Republican votes if a vote was allowed. It is expected that the Keystone XL pipeline will now pass (as I believe it should), and I would expect our Center Right President to sign it. Not mentioned is drilling in ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge) as I think should occur under some stringent conditions. We don't really know if there is even any economic amounts of oil there. How much of the religious agenda of the religious Republican Party will be pursued? The Republican party has become such a religious party that I even wonder if it is even a legal party. And will Republicans get rid of cloture in the Senate to get their bill through?
Well, let's be optimistic and think that now that the Republican are in control of congress, they will agree to some things they formerly opposed. I tell myself that they will, but I can't help but wonder if they even know how to. I'm a little more optimistic about the Senate than the House Time will tell.
The problem is that the employment numbers , in spite of the large increases, are only back to where they were when President Obama took office, and the steep decline in the numbers of jobs started before he took office but continued for some months after he took office. And wage increases are not only not keeping up with inflation, but household income has actually dropped. In states with better economies, like North Carolina, the Democratic Senators only lost narrowly, but in states where the economic recovery was poor, like Arkansas, Democrats did poorly.
And then, white male Democrats do not seem to turn out for mid-term elections for reasons not known by me. Blacks and Hispanics did come out and Democratic women did come out for Democratic politicians if not in the percentages as they do in presidential elections. Would Democratic candidates have done even more poorly if they had come out for the advances in medical care and lowering of medical inflation? Would they have done more poorly if they had strongly noted the increase in the economy and job recovery even if there is a long way to go yet?
Well, there seems to be some optimism that now that Republicans control both houses of congress, we will see more bills passed, something on immigration, for example. But the Senate bipartisan immigration bill was never voted on in the House and thoughts are that it would have passed with sufficient Republican votes if a vote was allowed. It is expected that the Keystone XL pipeline will now pass (as I believe it should), and I would expect our Center Right President to sign it. Not mentioned is drilling in ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge) as I think should occur under some stringent conditions. We don't really know if there is even any economic amounts of oil there. How much of the religious agenda of the religious Republican Party will be pursued? The Republican party has become such a religious party that I even wonder if it is even a legal party. And will Republicans get rid of cloture in the Senate to get their bill through?
Well, let's be optimistic and think that now that the Republican are in control of congress, they will agree to some things they formerly opposed. I tell myself that they will, but I can't help but wonder if they even know how to. I'm a little more optimistic about the Senate than the House Time will tell.
Monday, November 12, 2012
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RECENT ELECTIONS
First of all, I am thankful that we had two such fine families running for president.
Then I regret that the American electorate demands such negative campaigning. Unfortunately if one side does it, the other must also. The electorate says they don't like it, but they do pay attention to it. In this regard, the Democrats seemed to be more effective in their negative campaigning than the Republicans.
After all the money spent by outside groups such as Super PACS in the campaign, we ended up having the same Democratic president, an increase in Democratic Senators by two (but not enough to break filibusters) and an increase of Democratic Representatives by seven (but not enough to take over the House). The electorate seems to say to our politicians "Make it work!"
Mitch McConnell's first priority of defeating the President didn't work. Will we face another four years of total obstruction?
Somehow Republicans are going to have to learn how to love Hispanics and quit kicking them in the teeth. It is going to be very hard for them, but Hispanics tend to be conservative and can be a natural component of a conservative movement.
There are no precedents in our politics anymore. It used to be that politics was said to stop at the borders, but no longer. The immediate politicalization of the Benghazi attack on September 11 shows that. I really thought that Benghazi couldn't be made to last until the election proved to be unfounded as the media was more than willing to keep this issue going. Ronald Reagan suffered both the Lebanese Embassy bombing* in 1983 in which 63 people died was never politicized by the Democrats nor was the Beirut (Lebanon) base bombing in which 299 American and French forces were killed.* These two disasters have not stopped Ronald Reagan from becoming deified by many Republicans, no doubt by some of those who want to keep the Benghazi issue alive even after the election.
Romney's demonizaton of the 47% who pay no Federal income tax as being lazy dependents may be unfortunate but is a widely held view of many Republicans. I know this both from Republicans I know and from boards on Motley Fool. But it also does insult many of the white working class people who vote Republican. Please remember that 47% of the Households earn less than $47,000/yr which undoubtedly includes many of white workers. One cause of this lack of Federal income tax payments is the child tax credit where there is a $1000 per child deduction from their taxes, and this deduction was raised under the Bush-43 administration from $500/child to $1,000/child.**
The Romney claim that he knows how to generate jobs is both right and wrong. Private equity, at least in the short term, eliminates jobs and does not create them. That is the first thing they do, fire people. Labor is the elastic component of our system. However in the beginning of Bain Capital, they emphasized Start Ups which do create new jobs. Romney switched to private equity because it was a quicker way to make money and that is what Bain Capital is all about. There is nothing wrong with that. Whether in the long term private equity creates jobs, I don't know , but suspect that it doesn't.
But weren't start ups what Obama was doing in promoting alternative energy? In spite of the Solyndra failure, the amount of losses in the Federal government Start Ups program is small. Even Solyndra, however, served a good purpose because the Solyndra system didn't use the special glass used to solar energy. Their approach caused the price of the special glass to plummet to make Solyndra uneconomic. I have not seen any article examining whether the price of glass plummeting has saved more money in solar energy panels than the losses on Solyndra, but over time it might. Personally I wish the government would have taken Solyndra to production before closing it down. If you are going to be involved in start ups, there are going to be failures and the emphasis needs to be on the net.
There is a point in saying that the Federal government shouldn't be choosing winners and losers of course; however, the government does this sort of thing all the time. Think how important the government emphasis by NASA and the DoD on miniaturization of electronics has been not only to producing inexpensive desk top computers but now the tablets and smart phones. Consider the World Wide Web (WWW) and Geographic Positions Systems (GPS) for just two. These were developed for military purposes. The important thing was really permitting these two innovations to be released into the public sector where private industry could promote them for Civilian uses.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bombing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
** http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit
Then I regret that the American electorate demands such negative campaigning. Unfortunately if one side does it, the other must also. The electorate says they don't like it, but they do pay attention to it. In this regard, the Democrats seemed to be more effective in their negative campaigning than the Republicans.
After all the money spent by outside groups such as Super PACS in the campaign, we ended up having the same Democratic president, an increase in Democratic Senators by two (but not enough to break filibusters) and an increase of Democratic Representatives by seven (but not enough to take over the House). The electorate seems to say to our politicians "Make it work!"
Mitch McConnell's first priority of defeating the President didn't work. Will we face another four years of total obstruction?
Somehow Republicans are going to have to learn how to love Hispanics and quit kicking them in the teeth. It is going to be very hard for them, but Hispanics tend to be conservative and can be a natural component of a conservative movement.
There are no precedents in our politics anymore. It used to be that politics was said to stop at the borders, but no longer. The immediate politicalization of the Benghazi attack on September 11 shows that. I really thought that Benghazi couldn't be made to last until the election proved to be unfounded as the media was more than willing to keep this issue going. Ronald Reagan suffered both the Lebanese Embassy bombing* in 1983 in which 63 people died was never politicized by the Democrats nor was the Beirut (Lebanon) base bombing in which 299 American and French forces were killed.* These two disasters have not stopped Ronald Reagan from becoming deified by many Republicans, no doubt by some of those who want to keep the Benghazi issue alive even after the election.
Romney's demonizaton of the 47% who pay no Federal income tax as being lazy dependents may be unfortunate but is a widely held view of many Republicans. I know this both from Republicans I know and from boards on Motley Fool. But it also does insult many of the white working class people who vote Republican. Please remember that 47% of the Households earn less than $47,000/yr which undoubtedly includes many of white workers. One cause of this lack of Federal income tax payments is the child tax credit where there is a $1000 per child deduction from their taxes, and this deduction was raised under the Bush-43 administration from $500/child to $1,000/child.**
The Romney claim that he knows how to generate jobs is both right and wrong. Private equity, at least in the short term, eliminates jobs and does not create them. That is the first thing they do, fire people. Labor is the elastic component of our system. However in the beginning of Bain Capital, they emphasized Start Ups which do create new jobs. Romney switched to private equity because it was a quicker way to make money and that is what Bain Capital is all about. There is nothing wrong with that. Whether in the long term private equity creates jobs, I don't know , but suspect that it doesn't.
But weren't start ups what Obama was doing in promoting alternative energy? In spite of the Solyndra failure, the amount of losses in the Federal government Start Ups program is small. Even Solyndra, however, served a good purpose because the Solyndra system didn't use the special glass used to solar energy. Their approach caused the price of the special glass to plummet to make Solyndra uneconomic. I have not seen any article examining whether the price of glass plummeting has saved more money in solar energy panels than the losses on Solyndra, but over time it might. Personally I wish the government would have taken Solyndra to production before closing it down. If you are going to be involved in start ups, there are going to be failures and the emphasis needs to be on the net.
There is a point in saying that the Federal government shouldn't be choosing winners and losers of course; however, the government does this sort of thing all the time. Think how important the government emphasis by NASA and the DoD on miniaturization of electronics has been not only to producing inexpensive desk top computers but now the tablets and smart phones. Consider the World Wide Web (WWW) and Geographic Positions Systems (GPS) for just two. These were developed for military purposes. The important thing was really permitting these two innovations to be released into the public sector where private industry could promote them for Civilian uses.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bombing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
** http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit
Saturday, June 9, 2012
AWAYS SOMEONE AT THE BOTTOM
(The following was posted in part on Motley Fool)
An Internet colleague has recently been to Finland which brought back reminiscences. Long ago when I was a geology student in 1953 I lived in a Finnish boarding house called Jukala's for a part of summer in Virginia, MN, in what is called the Iron Range which at one time was the biggest iron mining district in the world. By the time I got there, however, it was pretty well shut down. There was a Finnish immigrant there who had been in this country for two years that wanted to improve his English and befriended me. I heard a couple of old Finns talking and asked him what they were saying. He replied "Don't you understand? They are speaking English." I said "They are?" He said that they were putting Finnish endings on the words. I think he said that Finnish has 21 case endings for nouns.
I had the overpowering urge to ask him how he liked America, but I resisted it until we were in a bar one night having a brew. OK, maybe it was the second one when I turned to him and said, "How do you like America?" He replied,"If you are rich, any country is good, but, if you are a worker, America is the best place."
The Finns were the poor laborers of northern Minnesota, sort of the Hispanics of today. Always somebody on the bottom. Some of my Swedish friends warned me not to walk around at night because I was in a bad neighborhood. I did so, however, and never saw any trouble. Actually not many people were walking around at night. I figured that when the Swedes and Norwegians came in looking for trouble they found it. Sunday mornings, I would wake to the sound of people signing hymns at the Lutheran Church next door. When I went out for lunch, they were out on the lawn taking a break, but when I returned they were back in singing again. I had the feeling they spent the whole day there as the singing lasted until into the evening.
I took out a Finnish girl once, and my Swedish friends told me I shouldn't do that. I didn't have a car, otherwise I would have gone out with her more. It reminded me of back home when my parents got nervous if I dated a Roman Catholic or Jewish girl back in High School. "They are nice people, but I wouldn't want my son to marry one."
The following summer I was to work further north in Ely, MN, about 40 mil; north of Duluth, The Gateway To The Wilderness Area, prospecting for magnetic iron ore for the now defunct Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. This was still Finnish country and there was a billboard on the outskirts of town that said "Vote For Saari" (Finns love the double "a" in names) for something or other. I've forgotten what. On Friday nights, the local bars had polka bands. On some songs they changed the name to a Finnish name, e.g. when You and I were Young Maaki and Who's Saari Now.
In 1969, I actually visited Finland for a few days as the guest of the Finnish government and spent a day in their copper-nickel mine - Otukumpu. My impression was that Finland is a pretty flat country with lots of trees, much like northern Minnesota and with a climate to match so I can understand why they found northern Minnesota attractive (along with northern Wisconsin and Michigan). I was on an extended trip of 17 days through northern Europe (Belgium, England, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland). I had the impression that my organization was going to pay for this, wrong as it turned out. I had to pick up the whole bill, but I'm glad I took the trip because I doubt if I ever would have taken it had I known I was going to pay for the whole thing. Seeing the fjords of Norway was worth it by themselves.
I think it was back before WW-II and the Soviets invaded Finland. The Finns planted Christmas trees out on a frozen lake and lured the Soviet army onto it and blew it up. Mighty clever. Of course, the Finns eventually settled the war on Soviet terms but remained independent. Finland is also known as the only country to repay their WW-II reparations.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
IS THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY LEGAL?
The Republican Party has long been the party of the wealthy people to protect and preferably enrich their fortunes. They full well realize that there are not enough of them to win elections so that they have opened their "tent" to some others. Strangely they have attracted a lot of wage workers, even though it is the Democratic Party that has their best interests at heart and the Republican party only pays them attention at election time.* It seems to me that this started when the Democratic Party opened its "tent" to the disenfranchised, namely Blacks, Hispanics and women, but more recently homosexuals. Republicans have also opened the "tent" to a coalition of religious extremists, notably those that describe themselves as "Evangelicals" who are social conservatives and conservative Roman Catholics .
The inclusion of religious extremists had the advantage of taking advantage of a group of very energetic people with religious fervor, to help protect the wealthy (of course some wealthy could be both), but it was also dangerous as we have seen. In the 2012 election cycle, the growth of the religious conservatives within the Republican Party has been phenomenal to the point where the Republican Party now seems to be a party of conservative Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals. It might more properly be called the Christian Right Party, i.e. a religious party. The question is, is a religious party legal in the United States that prides itself on secular political parties and the separation of church and state?
The answer may not be all that clear. Separation of church and state is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, although Founding Fathers assume it to be in the First Amendment, most notably Thomas Jefferson. And it has been used in Supreme Court decisions: "Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.'"**
If these interpretations are correct the modern Republican Party may be illegal because, as a religious party, it does not separate church and state. If it is claimed they are a religious party, it undoubtedly would go eventually to the Supreme Court that incidentally, is comprised by six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant. Not all the Roman Catholics are conservative Roman Catholics, however.
Nonetheless, we have had the politicians in Mississippi propose an initiative that life begins at fertilization of a women's egg, fortunately turned down in the referendum.*** The purpose of the initiative was to attack all abortions. The Mississippi initiative was followed by a bill in Virginia where women having an abortion would be required to have an "ultrasound" transvaginal probe of the fetus which after much outrage, especially by women, the governor threatened a veto.**** Texas, however, does have a law that a sonogram (exterior) must be taken, and the woman must listen to the doctor's description of it and. She must then wait 24 hrs before undergoing the abortion procedure.*****
*The Republican Party to appease wage workers has come out against higher education, especially higher education in Ivy League Universities using terms like "elites" and "not real Americans." See The Dumbing Down Of America:
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/10/dumbing-down-of-america-if-you-listen.html.
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
***http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/mississippi-personhood-amendment_n_1082546.html
****http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479427-virginia-lawmakers-back-off-requiring-invasive-ultrasound-before-abortion
*****http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57382162/is-a-required-ultrasound-a-barrier-to-abortion/
Friday, October 14, 2011
HISPANIC STATE POPULATONS (%) - 2010
The three states with the highest percentage of Hispanics are: New Mexico 46.3%, California 37.6 & Texas with 37.6%.
The states with the lowest percentage of Hispanics are: West Virginia 1.2%, Maine 1.3% & Vermont 1.5%
The two states passing highly restrictive immigration laws for Hispanics are: Alabama with only 3.9% (the most restrictive) & Arizona 29.6%.
The entire list is:
Alaska 5.5... Mo. 3.5...Wash. 11.2
Ariz. 29.6... Mont. 2.9... W.VA. 1.2
Ark. 6.4... Neb. 26.5... Wis. 5.9
Calif. 37.6... Nev. 26.5...Wyo. 8.9
Colo. 20.7... N.H. 2.8
Conn. 13.4... N.J. 17.7
Del. 8.2... N.M. 46.3
D.C. 9.1... N.Y. 17.6
Fla. 22.5...N.C. 8.4
Ga. 8.8... N.D. 2.0
Hawaii 8.9... Ohio 3.1
Idaho 11.2... Okla. 8.9
Ill. 15.8... Ore. 11.7
Ind. 6.0... Pa. 5.7
Iowa 5.0... R.I. 12.4
Kan. 10.5... S.C. 5.1
Ky. 3.1... S.D. 2.7
La. 4.2... Tenn. 4.6
Maine 1.3... Texas 37.6
Md. 8.2... Utah 13.0
Mass. 9.6... Vt. 1.5
Mich. 4.4
Minn. 4.7
Taken from aarp.org/bulletin June 2011. Data source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
