Tag: Bernie Sanders

Categories
Living in Society

Paycheck to Paycheck

Moon before sunrise Feb. 22, 2025.

Do people live paycheck to paycheck? I know I do. My life in commerce revolves around fixed pensions inadequate to cover every financial need. Our budget allows a couple hundred dollars per month for expenses that are not programmed the way loan payments, property taxes, health insurance premiums, home owners/auto insurance, and utilities are. If I save $50 per month at the grocery store, that’s $50 I can spend on whatever expense may crop up. I use a credit card to smooth over cash flow each month.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders spoke about living paycheck to paycheck during a “Fighting Oligarchy” event Saturday in Iowa City. If you have an hour, the video is worth viewing as Sanders has become one of the best explainers among legislators of what is going on in Washington D.C. Find it here.

“Today, the oligarchs and the billionaire class are getting richer and richer and have more and more power,” Sanders said. “Meanwhile, 60 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and most of our people are struggling to pay for health care, childcare, and housing. This country belongs to all of us, not just the few. We must fight back.”

Sanders’ main ask during his speech was to reach out to Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who won her re-election by about 800 votes, and ask her to vote no on the upcoming final reconciliation bill. I suspect most Iowans don’t understand what that is.

Simply put, if leadership in the Congress does not have enough votes to pass bills in regular order, they can use reconciliation to overcome a potential Senate filibuster. Instead of needing 60 votes, a reconciliation bill only needs a simple majority in the Senate. Miller-Meeks referred to “reconciliation talks” in her Feb. 4 Telephone Town Hall. “You don’t do a lot of policy in the reconciliation. It has to be either revenue or tax based.” Many legislators are in these Republican-dominated talks. Miller-Meeks called Sanders “a radical,” according to the Daily Iowan.

The Daily Iowan reported on Sanders’ stop in Iowa City:

Sanders raised concern over the Reconciliation Bill, proposed legislation spearheaded by Trump which would extend tax cuts. Sanders said the bill will give over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the billionaire class. 

The tax cut extension would lower rates for almost all Americans, but would benefit the wealthiest taxpayers the most. (Bernie Sanders warns of ‘Trumpism’ at Iowa City event, by Roxy Ekberg, Daily Iowan, Feb. 22, 2025).

The rub is that the U.S. House of Representatives has not been able to offset the estimated $4.5 Trillion expense of tax cuts included in reconciliation with savings in government operations. House Speaker Mike Johnson set a low bar of $2 Trillion in savings and to date has only come up with $1.5 Trillion. From which programs do these savings come? Cuts to Medicaid account for about $880 billion, and all are from programs people need to survive. As I wrote Rep. Miller-Meeks on Saturday, providing tax cuts to the well-off in Iowa and in the country at the expense of programs less well-off people depend upon is the wrong direction.

Because I worked hard and long in a career in transportation and logistics, my pension is substantial enough to mostly make ends meet. The over-use of tax credits will run up the deficit and national debt, and if Republicans insist on a giant tax cut for the well to do, the money to pay for it will come from somewhere. It will come from people like me who live paycheck to paycheck and don’t have much room for extras in our budget.

We, as a country, can do better than this.

Categories
Living in Society

Drake University Democratic Debate

Drake University Photo Credit Cedar Rapids Gazette
Drake University Photo Credit Cedar Rapids Gazette

The winner in last night’s debate at Drake University’s Sheslow Auditorium was the American people as Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders discussed, and actually debated issues that matter. This is in sharp contrast with the multi-level Republican debates.

Only 700 people had tickets to attend, so I closed the door of my study, put on my headphones and shut down all browsers except the CBS live stream. I took notes using Microsoft Outlook.

It is ironic that Twitter, a debate co-sponsor, was pretty useless once the questioning began. With an avalanche of more than a thousand Tweets per minute, it was more than a person could comprehend, let alone participate effectively in. I opted to listen to the actual debate.

From here, the race is between Clinton and Sanders. Martin O’Malley had his last chance to gain traction in the race, and he whiffed.

One of O’Malley’s campaign taglines is “new leadership.” He failed to demonstrate it last night. When directly asked about his lack of experience in international affairs, O’Malley dodged the question. He won’t break loose from low polling numbers by dodging key questions. Without more support, he lacks a path to win any of the four early states.

As noted previously, it is hard to find fault with O’Malley’s core positions. The trouble is with his narrative. His style of using personal anecdotes, pointing to what he did in Maryland, is part of the reason he isn’t getting traction despite solid Democratic policy positions. O’Malley says the country needs new leadership, but doesn’t provide meaningful evidence to back up his assertion he has that capacity.

Then there were two.

There is a lot to like about both Clinton and Sanders. As with the results of a single poll, there is not as much meaning in a single debate performance as some supporters assert. At the same time, Clinton is the better debater and it showed.

Clinton’s response to the question about her campaign contributions from Wall Street demonstrated her mastery of the debate form. She began with a curious statement about needing to “do more” to regulate Wall Street. She didn’t say the words, but essentially lit the fuse for Sanders and O’Malley to go off on their position of re-instating Glass Steagall. Clinton’s position is re-instating Glass Steagall is not enough, and she was able to frame the discussion on her terms.

Reforming Wall Street and reducing the influence of money in politics is Sanders’ signature issue. It appeared Clinton got Sanders’ goat because he brought Glass Steagall up in the next question even though it wasn’t the topic. As long as there is money in politics (which there will be forever) and presidents appoint financiers from Goldman Sachs and J. P. Morgan Chase to key positions in their administration (which Sanders said he would not do), the appearance of impropriety will exist. Clinton didn’t shake this completely, but defended herself well in the debate.

The other topic where Clinton was able to frame the debate to her advantage was about increasing the minimum wage. Sanders and O’Malley support the Democratic party platform plank to raise minimum wage to $15 per hour. Clinton supports $12 per hour.

In asking the question, Kathie Obradovich of the Des Moines Register gave framing favorable to Clinton, mentioning the concerns of Alan Krueger over raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Insiders would have known Clinton’s deviation from the party platform and that her position is partly a response to Krueger. As Clinton pointed out during the debate, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman agrees with her. While both Sanders and O’Malley piled on Clinton, she maintained the upper hand on this topic.

A couple of people remarked in social media about Sanders’ increasing hoarseness during the two hours. I was reminded of John Kerry having the same issue with losing his voice on the trail in 2004. Kerry made the decision to send running mate John Edwards to an event in Cedar Rapids so he could save his voice for an upcoming debate. It’s insider baseball, but as I listened to Sanders I thought he should have backed off some of his events the previous day to save his vocal chords. He was able to adequately speak, but the hoarseness was a distraction. Clinton was not without fault in this regard. She sounded like she needed a drink of water as her laughter cackled across the stage after her competitors said things she must have thought were outrageous.

Tony Leys of the Des Moines Register made this comment on Twitter:

Some don’t want to hear it, but the Democratic primary debates are about Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada period. While Sanders’ reference to bloated spending on the nuclear weapons complex may provide traction in New Hampshire, Clinton was the only candidate to use the reality of Terry Branstad’s Iowa effectively.

There are two more national debates before the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses.

Categories
Living in Society

Enraptured in Fandom

Iowa Caucus
Iowa Caucus

We’ve seen it so many times before progressives should be used to it.

The folks at Run Warren Run, financed partly by MoveOn.org, threw in the towel and are “suspending operations,” according to the MoveOn.org website. Hard to run a campaign when Senator Elizabeth Warren said repeatedly she’s not running for president in 2016. Fanboys and fangirls are nonplussed and will literally move on.

Non-Democrat Bernie Sanders announced his Democratic presidential ambition April 30, and pent up demand for a left-leaning presidential candidate burst the scene the way @POTUS and @Caitlyn_Jenner set records for ramping up Twitter followers.

Politicos are enraptured in fandom.

The allure of candidates who fit an intellectual ideal drew me in too. In 1980 it was Ted Kennedy; in 1984, George McGovern. After that, I was busy with a career and life, and moved to Indiana where the presidential elections seemed less important than they do in Iowa. No one else generated this type of excitement, especially when we’re in it for the long term.

Make no mistake, Sanders drew reasonable crowds at his Iowa and Minnesota events. They haven’t reached the bin-buster level yet, even if the room was too small at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center in Iowa City last Saturday, and he drew several thousand people in Minnesota on Sunday. He’s had a good campaign launch, but as Slate points out, the front runner has little reason to worry.

While Sanders confidently told Katie Kouric, “My goal is to win this election,” his election is as likely as those of Presidents Ted Kennedy and George McGovern unless he begins to ramp it up among caucus-goers who are swing voters.

There’s no talking to most fan boys and girls about this. I’ll note one of the very few political questions I’ve heard on the street and at the convenience store has been “Did you see Bernie Sanders?” There is something there.

The art of politics is partly about excitement in a campaign. The problem is people don’t seem to be able to distinguish between events in the corporate news cycle and excitement, let alone momentum (whatever that is).

Note that no 2016 Democratic candidates for president are in Iowa this week.

Yesterday’s article by Paul Waldman of The American Prospect asks the right question, “Does the Iowa Caucus Still Matter?” He correctly points out that our star was diminished by the Republicans in recent cycles. While Jimmy Carter made the most of the caucuses, his style of personal campaigning will be, if it already hasn’t been, relegated to the dustbins of history.

Fandom is not for me, any more than cosplay or being a Trekkie has been. It is a form of enthusiasm, as described by the little known theologian Monsignor Ronald Knox. Not good for the long haul, even if Bernie Sanders has devilish eyes.