Geography of a recession
August 24th, 2010Nikki Haley’s 10 Dirty Words
August 18th, 2010By Phil Noble
President, SC New Democrats
Charleston, SC
SC Rep. Nikki Haley just released her jobs plan. These 10 words do not appear in it:
1. Agriculture – our largest industry.
2. Tourism – our second largest industry.
3. Technology – the largest driver of economic growth in the past 20 years.
4. Computer (or Internet) – nifty little thing that is used for most every phase of economic activity.
5. Capital – as in venture capital that’s needed for start-ups, the creator of small business jobs.
6. Global – everything and everyone else in the world.
7. Exports – the stuff we sell in the global marketplace to make money.
8. International – as in international business, the way we make the money from the world.
9. Green – as in green jobs, 21st century jobs that save money and can’t be shipped overseas.
10. Rural – as in rural development, what 1 million of us (23.4 percent of South Carolinians) desperately need.
It’s a great 19th century jobs plan.
Keeping the promise between generations
August 17th, 2010By Becci Robbins
SC Alliance for Retired Americnas
Seventy-five years ago this week, FDR signed the Social Security Act into law. As senior and retiree groups threw parties across the country to mark the occasion, opponents of Social Security continued their multimillion dollar campaign to fool the public into believing that benefits for seniors must be cut to reduce the deficit.
It is a cruel message that puts the burden of fixing the country’s financial problems on the backs of seniors and people with disabilities. It is also dishonest.
They don’t blame our economic problems on Wall Street bailouts, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And they won’t tell you that Social Security’s solvency can be resolved with small adjustments, such as raising the payroll tax cap on Social Security taxes for the wealthy or by freezing the estate tax and applying that money to the program.
Those who depend on Social Security — or love someone who does — would do well to pay attention to what’s going on. The next couple of months are critical.
In December, President Obama’s Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will offer to Congress its recommendations on how to reduce the deficit. Given the make-up of the body, it’s likely that Social Security and Medicare will be targets.
The Commission’s co-chair, for one, famously described older Americans as “greedy geezers” and supported efforts to privatize Social Security. If he’d had his way, those investment accounts by now would have lost 20 percent of their value.
While the Commission has several other known foes of entitlement programs, it also includes US Rep. John Spratt, who promises to continue to work to keep Social Security strong for future generations. South Carolina voters have a unique opportunity to engage their family, their neighbors and the congressman on this matter to make sure he stays true to his commitment.
Social Security, funded with taxes paid by workers and their employers, is a promise between generations that belongs to the people who have worked hard their whole lives to provide for their families.
The program is critical to many of South Carolina’s retirees and their spouses. Don Thacker, 80, says Social Security and Medicare allow him to live at home and get medical care as an outpatient. “Many people live on very limited incomes in South Carolina and have to make choices between food and medicine,” he said. “These programs make a difference.”
Columbia resident Ruby James says, “I worked for many years and then became disabled. I’m able to live now off of my Social Security.” Her daughter’s husband died at a young age, leaving her with three children, one with a disability. Social Security benefits helped two of those children finish college.
Without Social Security, 19.8 million more Americans would be poor, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Without Social Security, 45.2 percent of elderly Americans would live below the poverty line.
But Social Security doesn’t just benefit seniors; children and people with disabilities also depend on the program. The program lifts more than 1 million children out of poverty. And it is is the most important source of income for the 112,000 children living in South Carolina’s grandfamilies, households headed by a grandparent or other relative.
Sue Berkowitz says that her husband and a former roommate would not have been able to attend college if not for Social Security benefits. “So even though we were prior to retirement age, I know two people who are dear to me who it helped.”
While the debate rages about how to manage our national deficit, the loudest voices are spreading fear and misinformation. The rest of us need to make our own voices heard at the polls in November.
Becci Robbins is an organizer with the SC Alliance for Retired Americans. For details about the organization, email scalliance@mindspring.com.
SC AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt and SC Progressive Network Director Brett Bursey honor US Congressman John Spratt with a plaque at a SC Allilance for Retired Americans party celebrating Social Security’s birthday in Rock Hill on Aug. 13. See more photos here.
On Social Security’s 75th birthday, let’s party with US Congressman John Spratt
August 12th, 2010To celebrate Social Security’s 75th birthday and honor US Congressman John Spratt for his long service to the Palmetto State, the SC Alliance for Retired Americans invites the public to a party on Friday, Aug. 13, in Rock Hill.
Spratt serves on the President’s Fiscal Reform Commission, which will offer its recommendations to Congress in December that likely will affect programs critical to seniors. Given the make-up of the Commission, the Alliance fears it may vote to cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age to reduce the deficit.
Spratt and other guests will talk about the history and current threats to Social Security, and will remind us that the program did not create the deficit and should not be cut to solve it. Social Security has enough money to cover full benefits for nearly 30 years, and has not added a penny to the nation’s budget crisis. In fact, the program is one of America’s greatest success stories, but misinformation has twisted the public debate.
With a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus, Social Security is not bankrupt. The federal government has borrowed most of that to pay for bailouts, two wars, and tax cuts for the wealthy. The government must pay back the loan, as that money belongs to American workers.
Part of Friday’s program will be the release of a new study detailing how much Social Security benefits residents of South Carolina.
The party kicks off at 5:30pm with music by the TransGenerational Jazz Band and free refreshments. Congressman Spratt will speak shortly after 6pm. He will receive a giant card signed by constituents asking him to protect and preserve Social Security and a plaque from the Alliance thanking him for his service.
Someone will get whacking rights to a large “Fat Cat” piñata.
The SC Alliance for Retired Americans thanks our event cosponsors: SC AFL-CIO, SC New Democrats, SC Progressive Network, Rock Hill NAACP, Catawba Central Labor Council, Greater Columbia Central Labor Council.
For details about the event or the SC Alliance for Retired Americans, email scalliance@mindspring.com or call 803-808-3384. Or join us on Facebook.
Ethics Act: Misplaced Trust
August 8th, 2010By Candy Waites and John Crangle
Common Cause of South Carolina (a member of the SC Progressive Network)
Twenty years after we learned the details of Operation Lost Trust, a federal sting operation that caught legislators, lobbyists and state employees in a net of bribery and drugs, we have a new scandal: Operation Misplaced Trust.
The intense media attention and public outrage that grew out of Lost Trust led to the passage of the State Ethics Act, which banned lobbyists’ gifts to public officials, limited campaign contributions by amount, sources and uses, and attempted to prevent the use of public office for personal gain. Both of us worked hard to pass the act and, as advocates for governmental reform, regarded it as an important accomplishment.
We knew even then that the reforms fell far short of what was needed, but we did not foresee the many nefarious schemes that big-money interests and political opportunists would concoct — or how lax enforcement and lenient interpretations of the act would render it less effective.
Though it was a first step in the critical need for reform, the act was fundamentally flawed. The contribution limits were too high — $1,000 per donor for non-statewide and $3,500 for statewide offices. Corporations were allowed to donate (a practice banned for federal candidates since 1907). Political action committees were allowed to contribute, and the number of PACs was unlimited. Enforcement of the act concerning legislators was left in the hands of the Legislature rather than the State Ethics Commission. Disclosure requirements contained loopholes. Even with restrictions, campaign funds were allowed to be used for non-campaign purposes. Finally, no plan for public financing of elections was considered.
In short, the Ethics Act has created a false confidence in officials and enforcement — a Misplaced Trust.
After 20 years, big corporations and PACs remain the dominant source of campaign money. In fact, some candidates get almost all of their money from big business — telecommunications, banks, insurance, trade associations, real estate, auditors, drug companies, hospitals, doctors and lawyers. PACs have proliferated; even the speaker of the House has a PAC, pumping hundreds of thousands from big donors to receptive legislators. Some candidates for governor receive millions from special interests, much of it from outside the state where dozens of companies all owned by the same person deliver large sums of money to candidates.
Disclosure provisions of the act are dodged. Money is often sent to candidates a few hours before or even after the election to prevent voters from knowing the sources, amounts and uses. Legislative caucuses take in millions but don’t disclose who gave the money or how it was used. Independent expenditures by out-of-state interests buy campaign ads backing candidates without disclosing where the money is coming from.
And of course, enforcement has been lenient and ineffective. The House and Senate Ethics committees have never publicly disciplined a member for violation of the act since it took effect in 1992. The State Ethics Commission determined that Gov. Mark Sanford could use more than $500,000 of his campaign funds to pay his legal costs in fighting ethics charges and impeachment, even allowing him to spend nearly $150,000 to settle some three dozen charges with the commission. All this under a clause in the act that says it is OK to use campaign funds for “ordinary and necessary” expenses relating to office.
In the good ol’ days of Operation Lost Trust, lobbyists and big-money interests could ply legislators and executives with unlimited free liquor, drugs, food, golf trips and cash. Campaign money could be used for any purpose and, in fact, was often pocketed. Bribes were handed out in cash, sometimes $100 to a small-time legislative flunky, sometimes as much as $75,000 to a big-time fixer.
The days of do-it-yourself, every-person-for-himself bribery and extortion are gone forever, free-lancing corruption a thing of the past. Since Lost Trust, our politicians have institutionalized the ways in which big money buys legislation. In place of the pay-off to legislators and individuals, we now have lump-sum payments to leadership PACs and caucuses, which in turn pay the money down from legislative bosses to those who do the voting on command.
And worst of all, today big money often determines who runs for office, who gets elected and what officials do when they take office. We know that change is constant, and if we are to have ethical and financial accountability, it is time for the Legislature to overhaul the Ethics Act of 1991.
Waites was a member of the House-Senate conference committee that drafted the final version of the Ethics Act in 1991. Crangle, executive director of Common Cause/South Carolina since 1986, was the only lobbyist who lobbied for the act.
Remembering Dr. Betty Glad
August 6th, 2010By Becci Robbins
SC Progressive Network Communications Director
It was with real sadness that I learned this morning that Dr. Betty Glad has died. She was, to flip the aphorism, a woman’s woman. Although I didn’t know her well, I knew well the work she did and admired her moxie. Her obituary tracks a distinguished career that included breaking many gender barriers in academia.
The last time I saw Betty was at a House subcommittee hearing last session at which legislators heard testimony regarding a bill that would require women to view an ultrasound before receiving an abortion. The packed room was thick with tension. When the committee chairman began calling people to the microphone, it became clear that he was giving preference to anti-choice activists, allowing them to go first.
While pro-choice activists shifted in our chairs and exchanged exasperated glances, Betty stood — with her oxygen tank at her side — to say what the rest of us were thinking. She protested the process, demanding that both sides be given equal time. The chairman relented, and called her to the microphone. For the rest of the hearing, the speakers alternated between the two sides.
It was a small victory, but an example of how one woman can make a difference. And she did.
Thank you, Dr. Glad.
Dr. Betty Glad
COLUMBIA – Dr. Betty Glad, 82, died August 2, 2010. She enjoyed a truly distinguished career as a scholar of American politics and foreign policy. She was the Olin D. Johnston Professor of Political Science and Distinguished Professor Emerita at the University of South Carolina. She was an exemplary scholar, an expert on the American Presidency, United States foreign policy, and political psychology. She was the author of Jimmy Carter: In Search of the Great White House; Charles Evans Hughes and the Illusions of Innocence; Key Pittman: The Tragedy of a Senate Insider, and most recently, An Outsider in the White House: Jimmy Carter, His Advisors, and the Making of American Foreign Policy (Cornell University Press, 2009). She was editor or co-editor of The Psychological Dimensions of War; The Russian Transformation, and other books. In addition, she published dozens of articles, book chapters and commentary. Her first book Charles Evans Hughes was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. Dr. Glad received a distinguished alumna award from the University of Utah in 2009.
She earned her B.S. degree magna cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Utah. She received her doctorate from the University of Chicago in 1962. She taught at Mt. Holyoke College, and Brooklyn College, then taught for many years at the University of Illinois “”" Urbana – Champaign. She was also a visiting professor at New York University, 1986-1988. She was one of the first women to earn a Ph.D. in Political Science and then teach at a Ph.D. granting institution. She served as the first woman chair of the University of Illinois Department of Political Science. Dr. Glad joined the University of South Carolina in 1989. She was a dedicated teacher and exemplary mentor to untold numbers of graduate students whose careers were enhanced with her care and guidance. As a pioneer and role model for women throughout the Political Science profession, she also was one of the first women to challenge prevailing conventions and gender discrimination in the discipline, and one of the first to attain national and international stature. As a result, she won many awards for both scholarship and leadership throughout her long career, including the Frank D. Goodnow Award from the American Political Science Association for a lifetime of contributions and service to the discipline, and the Harold Lasswell Award from the International Society for Political Psychology for a lifetime of outstanding contributions to political psychology. She served as President of the International Society for Political Psychology, President of the Presidency Research Section of the American Political Science Association, and Vice-President of the American Political Science Association.
She was preceded in death by her parents, Harluf Glad Anderson and Edna Jeannette Geersten Glad and her niece, Cheryl Jensen, of Salt Lake City, Utah. She is survived by her brother and sister-in-law, Jay and Edris Glad and by her great-nephew and niece, Christine and Jason Stout.
Dr. Glad enjoyed music, ballroom dancing, reading, and good conversation. Among the many virtues contributing to Betty’s success were courage, strength and tenaciousness. She was a democrat and a Democrat (both little and big D) and loved justice.
Dr. Glad will be buried next to her parents in Salt Lake City, Utah. A memorial service will be held in The Rutledge College Chapel on the historic Horseshoe of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, on Sunday, August 8, 2010, at 2 p.m. Dunbar Funeral Home, Devine Street Chapel, is assisting. In lieu of flowers, tax deductable memorials may be sent to: The Betty Glad Legal Defense Fund of the Women’s Caucus for Political Science, c/o Dr. Laura R. Woliver, 425 Dean Hall Lane, Columbia, SC 29209.
Federal voting machine case clears first hurdle
August 4th, 2010
On July 28, Federal Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the SC Election Commission had until Aug. 20 to defend itself against a complaint that the voting machines in South Carolina do not meet federal requirements for record keeping. (For background on the case, see earlier post.)
SC Progressive Network Director Brett Bursey filed the complaint June 17, and the judge gave the parties a month to try and resolve the matter. On July 19, Bursey filed a report that concluded there could be no agreement between the parties regarding an independent audit of the entire voting system.
“I believe that the Election Commission doesn’t want a full system audit for fear that it would conclude — like a recent audit in Iowa did — that these machines should be scrapped.” Bursey said. “We warned the SCEC in 2004 not to buy these machines, and their continued defense of a voting system that cannot reliably tell us who won an election is regrettable.”
Only six states now use a statewide, paper-less system like we have in South Carolina. (Maryland outlawed the paper-less machines last year, but have not funded a replacement.) According to the Verified Voting Foundation, ballots in 38 states are cast on “voter verifiable paper records.”
Email network@scpronet.com to receive regular updates on the lawsuit.
Please consider making a secure donation now to help cover court costs. Indicate in the gift information “verified voting.” Or make a check to SC Progressive Network and mail to PO Box 8325, Columbia SC 29202. We appreciate your support.
Top 5 Social Security Myths
July 29th, 2010#1: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a ‘T’). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that’s without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers’ retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
#2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago. What’s more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
FDR signs Social Security Act
#3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn’t need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here’s a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
#4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn’t full of IOUs, it’s full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
#5: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It’s not just wrong—it’s impossible! By law, Social Security’s funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit.
Find out how you can help protect Social Security by contacting the SC Alliance for Retired Americans at scalliance@mindspring.com.
Killing for fun; military madness
July 13th, 2010by Tom Turnipseed
Columbia, SC
Successful professionals enjoy their work. The Obama administration has picked a successful and happy warrior in Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis to head the US Central Command. The command includes all US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, the entire Middle East and Central Asia. Mattis has gloated that it is “fun to shoot some people” and “have a plan to kill everybody you meet”.
Killing is the key to success in military actions. Killing enough insurgents by invading and occupying US forces enables the winners to subdue and subjugate the survivors. The real winners in the Middle East are the US based corporations who seek to exploit the resources of energy and mineral rich countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Also the corporate war profiteers of the defense industry are making out like bandits. They furnish the killing tools, the hired mercenaries and other wasteful and expensive materials, equipment and supplies for our never-ending wars-on-terror.
Mattis has a strong resume in the military killing business. He was a lieutenant colonel in the US invasion of Iraq in 1991, directed the Marines in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, headed the US assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004 and helped design the siege that destroyed the city and killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. Mattis also commanded the initial troops that went into Afghanistan in 2001.
Describing his feelings about the people in Afghanistan, General Mattis said, “… It’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”
Author Thomas Ricks wrote that Mattis told his troops to, “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
During Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, Mattis reportedly told his troops, “It’s the mission of every Marine in the battalion to send one dead Iraqi home to Mama.”
Perhaps World War II Army General George S. Patton, Jr. is a role model for Mattis in his glorification of military madness and the joy of killing. Patton said “Magnificent! Compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God help me, I do love it so!” and “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country, He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” Patton also said, “America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, this is why America has never, and will never, lose a war.” Of course that was before our ill-fated military ventures in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Mattis “one of our military’s outstanding combat leaders and strategic thinkers, bringing an essential mix of experience, judgment and perspective to this important post.” Asked about Mattis’ bloodthirsty rhetoric, Gates brushed off an official rebuke against Mattis saying it was five years ago.
In Afghanistan, US and NATO forces casualties continue to escalate. The number of Americans killed so far this month is at least 23 with 14 killed last week. In June, 102 occupation troops were killed including 60 Americans. 1,149 American soldiers have been killed in the war in Afghanistan, and countless numbers of Afghan civilians have died. We don’t do body counts of “the enemy” because, as former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said, “death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.”
Our economic crisis is directly tied to the cost of the war. It costs $1 million per year to maintain a single soldier in Afghanistan. The 2010 Pentagon budget is $693 billion, which surpasses all other discretionary spending programs combined–while our deficit soars. We desperately need money to create green jobs, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and improve education.
President Obama replaced General McChrystal with General Petraeus as commanding general of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. McChrystal had made derogatory remarks about Obama and his administration’s conduct of the war. Petraeus was head of the Central Command and will be replaced by Mattis. Obama said, “War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or president.”
The war in Afghanistan is a big loser. Rearranging deck chairs to include one more “fun to kill” military madman will not keep it from sinking like the Titanic. Only ending the war will save Obama.
A recent ABC / Washington Post poll found that people felt the war was not worth fighting by a 53 to 44 margin. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll had 62% of the American people saying the country was going in the wrong direction and Obama’s approval rating at 45% with 48% disapproval.
President Obama was the most successful politician in the US who seemed to enjoy being elected to the highest office in the land. Fulfilling his promise of peace, hope and change is a winner. However his failure to conclude killing for fun military madness will make him a loser in 2012 and doom his party in November
Tom Turnipseed is an attorney, writer and peace activist in Columbia, SC. His blog is here.
Restoring balance between Wall Street and Main Street
July 12th, 2010By Frank Knapp Jr.
President and CEO of SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce
The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce and small business organizations and owners across this country want Wall Street reform. But you wouldn’t know that from the attention the media gives to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the mouthpiece for the big financial institutions that oppose reform.
The U.S. Chamber purports to represent small businesses. However, the reality is quite different. The July/August edition of the Washington Monthly features an eye-opening story on Tom Donohue, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber, who has a plaque on his desk that reads, “SHOW ME THE MONEY.” In 2008, a third of the Chamber’s revenues came from just 19 big companies.
When big oil, insurance and other companies are out of favor because of their greed, they turn to the U.S. Chamber to convince Congress and the public that the needed reforms are bad for business in general and small business in particular. This is exactly what is going on regarding Wall Street reform.
It’s clear that the U.S. Chamber does not represent the interests of small businesses that have suffered because of the irresponsible actions of the nation’s biggest banks. The greed of these financial institutions collapsed our economy and shut down loans and credit lines to our small businesses. We hear macro and micro stories every day about small businesses not getting access to the money they need. And every economist acknowledges that small businesses must hire the employees we need to lead us out of this recession just as they have in the last three economic recoveries.
But ironically, the only business sector that’s apparently hiring is Wall Street, as the New York Times explains in a recent piece. Greed is still alive and well on Wall Street. And we all know that without Wall Street reform, greed will bring our economy down again and tear apart our small businesses — if we can ever get them back on their feet.
Yet, the U.S. Chamber still wants Congress and the public to be afraid — very afraid. Wall Street reform will dry up loans to small business, the U.S. Chamber warns. That’s wrong. Their big bank donors are doing pretty well right now and they aren’t doing that by making small business loans and investing in our communities. They’re making money gambling on Wall Street.
The U.S. Chamber pretends to be a friend to Main Street worried that Sam the Butcher, Joe the Orthodontist and your local car dealer will be regulated out of business. That’s not in the Wall Street reform proposal.
What the butcher, orthodontist and car dealer want are customers — the customers who lost their jobs because of Wall Street greed.
Small business supports this reform because it will restore balance between Wall Street and Main Street through fair and commonsense policies and create a stable, transparent financial environment in which community banks and credit unions can once again feel secure in making loans.
We at the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce have been strong supporters of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to better protect consumers, which includes small businesses. We’re not afraid of good regulation that keeps our customers and us safe from financial predators.
We’re in favor of making banks be banks and not gambling houses. We have been strong supporters of the “Volcker Rule” to put the brakes on proprietary trading by banks — the practice that largely is responsible for bringing us to the brink of another Great Depression.
Congress should just say no to the U.S. Chamber. The financial health of our country and our small businesses depends on it.
Activists urge senators to vote on jobs bill
July 6th, 2010On June 30, union and community leaders gathered in front of US Sen. Jim Demint’s office in Charleston. They were among thousands of others across the nation sending a message to their Republican Senators: “Vote on the Jobs Bill Now!”
“On Thursday, June 23, the Senate again failed to get cloture on the Jobs Bill even after Democrats agreed to reduce the overall cost of the bill.” said Leonard Riley, ILA member and president of Carolina Alliance for Fair Employment (CAFE).
Riley was joined by leaders of the Charleston and Columbia Central Labor Councils(CLC), SC Alliance for Retired Americans (ARA), SC Progressive Network, ILA Local 1422, AFSCME Local 1199 and the SC AFL-CIO.
Jenny Patterson, president of the Columbia CLC, said, “We are tired of Senator Demint pulling the rug out from under unemployed workers in our state and our public health and safety just to score political points. His refusal to vote for funding to keep teachers, police officers and other workers on the job and to protect elderly residents from being tossed out of nursing homes is outrageous.”
Vic Rawl, former Democratic candidate for US Senate, was among those attending the action. Rawl was endorsed by the SC AFL-CIO.
It’s time to refocus abortion debate
July 2nd, 2010Cory Manning
S.C. Coalition for Healthy Families
On June 16, the Legislature passed the so-called 24-hour waiting period bill. Previous versions of the bill required women to make two trips to an abortion provider: one to get the materials and one to have the procedure. The bill that was finally passed allows women to review the materials on-line, eliminating the two-trip requirement. This was a victory for S.C. women and others concerned about reproductive rights.
Unfortunately, this was yet another example of the misguided discussion regarding abortion.
The participants in the abortion debate often seek legislative endorsement of moral positions that leave little room for compromise. Instead of seeking to score points or curry favor with constituent groups, they should focus on addressing the problem: unintended or unwanted pregnancies.
Both sides of this debate, if they are being realistic and want solutions, would support measures that reduce unintended or unwanted pregnancies. For example, educating teenagers with age-appropriate information about sexual activity, including contraception and abstinence, and supporting low-income women in economically rational ways that give them real choices regarding the decision to have a child will reduce the number of unintended and unwanted pregnancies (and hence the number of abortions) in South Carolina. If both sides focused on this common ground, we could see genuine improvement in the quality of life for women, children and all citizens of South Carolina.
Vile, vulgar and sexist
August 26th, 2010“We’ve reached a point now where it’s like a milk cow with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!”
This quote:
1. comes from an appointee of President Obama
2. was written by a former Republican senator
3. is actually referring to seniors “milking” Social Security
4. is from a sexist, vulgar and insulting letter to a women’s rights leader
5. suggests that advocating for women and seniors is not “honest work”
6. all of the above
Yep, all of the above!
Outrageously, this vulgar former senator holds an important position, and I hope you will join me in urging President Obama to act immediately to remove former Senator Alan K. Simpson as co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (aka the “deficit commission”) before his cynical attitudes influence policy that could be harmful to women, seniors, and social security.
Tell President Obama: “Send Simpson Back to Wyoming”
I’ll admit that I was worried when he was first appointed. I was concerned that he would put Social Security recipients at risk, instead of the real causes of the deficit. I also knew he could be condescending to women. Personally, I’ll never forget a confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court justice when Simpson, then a member of the Senate Judiciary committee, lectured a panel of women’s rights leaders, including myself, as though we were children.
You can hear some of that tone in Simpson’s email message to Ashley Carson, Executive Director of OWL, the Voice of Mid-Life and Older Women. The fact that Ashley has testified on behalf of OWL before the Commission in June did not deter him from disparaging her, the organization, their commitment and hard work. His so-called “smart cracks” reveal his own limited knowledge of women’s organizations. But most importantly, a man with this lack of respect for women and women’s organizations should not be in a powerful position to influence cuts to Social Security – the lifeline for millions of older women who are living below the poverty line even with their social security check – under the guise of deficit reduction.
Yesterday Simpson apologized for insulting Ashley personally – but not for his attack on advocates for women and his underlying conviction that seniors who need social security are milking the system.
Please join me in sending a message to President Obama – ask him to protect the social security safety net, and send the sexist senator back to Wyoming.
For Equality,
Ellie Smeal
NOW President
Posted in National News/Commentary | No Comments »