Hillary Clinton's Economic Policies

Dear Friends,

I am surprised at how often a President is given credit for good economic times during his presidency or blame for bad economic times during his presidency.  In fact, the President has little impact on the economy during his time in office.  President Obama was certainly not responsible for the large number of job losses during the first part of his first term, nor was he responsible for the increase in employment, as anemic and slow as it was.  The recovery and job growth could have been much faster if we had aggressively increased government spending, but President Obama was still talking about preventing larger deficits and the Republicans would certainly have blocked any more aggressive stimulus measures.

George W. Bush bears much of the blame for Great Recession, but Bill Clinton is certainly responsible as well.  Bill Clinton is given great credit for the economic boom that occurred during his presidency, but in fact it was policies that he supported that led directly to the Great Recession. It was under his presidency that banks were deregulated with the repeal of  Glass-Steagall and that the outsourcing of many manufacturing jobs was encouraged as a result of NAFTA.

Hillary Clinton has suggested that she would use Bill as an advisor particularly on economic issues, pointing to the prosperous economic times during his administration.  She also has chosen Alan Blinder as one of her top economics advisors.  Last October the Daily Kos ran a piece entitled "Meet Alan Blinder, Hillary Clinton's Economic Advisor (and Wall St. One-Percenter)" (here).  After reading the piece, it is easy to understand why Hillary Clinton is against re-instating Glass-Steagall and is against breaking up the biggest banks.

Alan Blinder is described in the first two sentences of the piece as follows:

Hillary Clinton's economic advisor, Alan Blinder, co-founded and is Vice Chair of a super-elite Wall St financial firm, Promontory Interfinancial Network. He is a former Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank and chair of Princeton University economics department. 

The piece goes on to discuss what Promontory Interfinancial Network does.  It quotes Reuters

Promontory is proof positive, then, of just how lucrative the revolving-door business can be. The company is full of lavishly-paid former regulators, hiring themselves out at $1,500 an hour to banks desperate for advice on how to navigate Washington’s regulatory thicket. 'the firm acts as an advocate for banks, helping draft letters that challenge crucial rules and discussing reforms with regulators'. Regulators are more likely to trust their former colleagues than they are the banks they’re trying to regulate, and by hiring Promontory, banks can co-opt those former regulators and use them to to effectively work the refs.

Among other things, Promontory provides a mechanism that permits wealthy individuals to get government insurance on deposits in excess of the FDIC limit.  In October, 2008, some in Congress wanted to insure all deposits without limit which would have destroyed this very lucrative part of Promontory's business.  Insuring all deposits would have helped to stabilize the banking industry by protecting individual deposits.  The article describes Alan Blinder's actions

Can one financial firm affect US macro-economic policy, to our detriment? You betcha, if it includes someone like Alan Blinder. In October 2008, the depths of the financial crisis, some in Congress wanted to insure all deposits (as did Germany and Ireland) to stabilize the system -- which would have undermined Promontory Interfinancial Network's business. Alan Blinder and Glenn Hubbard opined in the WSJ against this -- without mentioning their financial self-interest for opposing it. That's right, in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they co-authored a WSJ op-ed advocating a public policy that would benefit them at the expense of the American (and entire world's) financial system, and they failed to disclose their conflict of interest. You can read their op-ed, on the WSJ website.

The piece continues

It would be hard to find someone more embedded in Wall Street's revolving doors with regulators/government and legalized corruption than Alan Blinder.  ...
How deeply in bed with 1% Wall St can the Clintons be? And how blind, ignorant or uncaring can some 'Democrats' be, to tolerate this?

There will be no real change in our economic system that is rigged in favor of the One-Percenters under a Hillary Clinton administration.  It took a strong challenge from Bernie Sanders to get her to tentatively reject TPP and to support an increase in the minimum wage although not to a livable level.  While she has skillfully adopted the language of fighting against income and wealth inequality, she refuses to endorse any changes that will actually address the problem.  She is an establishment candidate who will do the bidding of the One-Percenters who have funded her campaign as well as the Clinton Foundation and her lifestyle with huge speaking fees.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

P.S.  After I initially published this post, I read Paul Krugman's blog post in The New York Times (here) entitled "Presidents and the Economy".  The blog post started out with this paragraph.

After I put up my post comparing private-sector jobs under Obama and Bush, a number of people asked me whether I believe that presidents have a large effect on economic performance. My answer is no — but conservatives believe that they do, which is why this kind of comparison is useful.

So you see a Nobel Prize winning economist agrees with me.

Villefranche-sur-mer v.1

Chers Amis,

Nous sommes arrivés à Villefranche-sur-mer, et nous allons y rester pour le mois de janvier.

Our flight from Minneapolis to Amsterdam was very nice since we were very unexpectedly upgraded to first class, as Delta had oversold the flight.

We were met at the Nice airport by our taxi driver and taken to Villefranche where we were met by Valentina who helped us with our luggage (a real blessing since we overpacked as usual and are getting old) and let us into our apartment. We have the same apartment as last year. It is just as wonderful as we remembered it to be.  You can see multiple pictures of it here.  It is referred to as "Chez Nous".

We were too tired to provision so we went to lunch at Cosmos where we have eaten our first lunch each time we have come here.  After lunch we napped and were still too tired to provision, so we went to Le Serre for a quick pizza for dinner.  With each meal, we were getting more chatty in French.

Today, since we still had not provisioned, we were forced to have breakfast at Les Palmiers, a place we frequently have breakfast when we do not have the right food in our apartment.  We are forced to have pain au chocolat et espresso along with our omelette.

After breakfast we finally did our provisioning.  The first stop is the Casino which is not a casino but a chain of grocery stores.  This store is good for staples like toilet paper, cereal, soap, mayonnaise, etc.  Next stop is Picard Surgelés for some frozen berries, sauces and soup as well as our favorite mustard.  Next Primeur, where we can get the best roquefort in the world as well as fresh vegetables and fruits, but we prefer another location for the vegetables.  Next stop would be the patisserie but the one closest to our apartment is closed on Wednesdays so we skipped the bread.  The next stop was the butcher where we got some fantastic pork chops that are more tender and tastier than any that we have ever had in the United States.  We also got some wine here.  The final stop was the guy who sells fruits and vegetables in a tiny square next to the butcher.  Here we got some potatoes, leeks, onions and green beans, all for 4 euros, and he is the expensive place in town.  He is a wonderful guy who makes sure that we get just what we need when we get it.  His usual question with an avocado is when will eat it, so that he can give us one that will be ready when we want to eat it.

After provisioning we had to make a trip to Nice, since this year our apartment comes with a nespresso machine.  The only place to get real Nespresso pods is at Place Masséna in Nice.  After a bus trip and a walk we decided we needed lunch so we stopped at a place serving Italian food in the old city of Nice.  After lunch we got the Nespresso pods and had to visit the Galeries Lafayette to do some shopping.  Finally we returned to Villefranche and our apartment where I sat on our balcony and read The New York Times and Minneapolis Star Tribune online.  I had a hard time concentrating because of the distracting view.

After a short rest, we made dinner for ourselves.

And for dessert the world's best roquefort.

And so ended our first full day.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Love and Compassion

Dear Friends,

On this Christmas Eve, the letter reprinted below reminded of the true meaning of Christmas and the universality of the saying "love thy neighbor as thyself" which is said in so many ways in so many different religions and by so many people.  The letter from multiple Muslim leaders in Minnesota was published in the Star Tribune today (here).  I hope you will take the time to read and reflect on it.  I hope that all of you will join me as I try harder to live my life with love, compassion, justice and inclusion.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

A holiday letter from Muslim leaders in Minnesota

Two faiths, one hope — for peace

By Multiple authors DECEMBER 23, 2015 — 7:34PM

To our Christian brothers and sisters:

Out of our shared love for the Messiah, Jesus, Son of Mary, Peace Be Upon Him, we greet you with peace and joy during your celebration of his life.

The Bible refers to him as the Messiah and describes the annunciation, his miraculous birth and his numerous miracles.

The Qur’an refers to him as the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary. It teaches about his miraculous birth and how his mother Mary was honored above all the worlds. Muslims are instructed to invoke peace upon him whenever his name is mentioned.

The Qur’an narrates the story of the angel who visited Mary, saying “O Mary, indeed God has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of all the worlds.” (Qur’an 3:42)

The angel said, “O Mary, indeed God gives you good news of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary. He will be honored in this world and the Hereafter and he will be among those closest to God. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and he will be of the righteous.” (Qur’an 3:44-45)

She said, “My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” The angel said, “Such is God; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” (3:47)

The Qur’an describes how the baby Jesus, immediately upon birth, looked up to his mother and comforted her: “Do not be sad; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream. And shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon you ripe, fresh dates. So eat and drink and be contented.” (Qur’an 19:24-26)

The Qur’an describes many instances in the life of Jesus: how he preached the worship of God and compassion to people, how he healed the leper, how he healed the blind, and even how he brought the dead back to life.

Our two religions, Christianity and Islam, which both profess love and reverence for Jesus as a central figure in each of our religions, constitute over half of the population of the world.

Mercy and compassion, charity and love are the divine attributes that the Christmas season evokes among Christians. A mother’s devotion, a child’s love, and the promise of God’s mercy and grace in the coming of Jesus to us are sentiments that Muslims can share and appreciate.

In the Bible, we are told that Jesus, in response to a question about the most important commandment, is said to have answered: “You should love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is similar. You should love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:35-40) Jesus added that those whose hearts are filled with such love of God and neighbor live not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:34)

Similarly, the Qur’an teaches us that to “worship God being sincere to Him in faith, to incline towards the truth, to establish prayer and to give alms to the poor is the essence of the religion.” (Qur’an 98:5) “ ... And you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And God is The Merciful Forgiving.” (Qur’an 24:22)

The Prophet Mohammad, Peace Be Upon Him, taught: “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother that which he loves for himself.” (Bukhari & Muslim)

In the words of St. Paul, let us put on the armor of light which is the teaching of God that we are to love one another that we might together better confront the dark that lies within some human hearts which are far from God. (Romans 13:12)

As Jesus taught so movingly, let our lights so shine together before all people that they may see our good works which glorify our God in Heaven. (Matthew 5:16)

Jesus taught us that we should not live by bread alone but by every word of God. (Matthew 4:4)

Thus, we applaud the good hearts and loving deeds seeking to please God in His mercy and compassion that are befitting for us not only during this Christmas season but also every day of every year. Let all people, Christians and Muslims, who love Jesus, peace be upon him, come together to practice what he preached. Let peace and goodwill spread among us all.

We invite all our Muslim brothers and sisters of goodwill to join us in this open letter at this Christmas season and throughout the year as peace and joy, love of God and neighbor, are to be with us always.

This article was submitted by Imam Asad Zaman, Muslim American Society of Minnesota; Dr. Odeh Muhawesh, Imam Hussain Islamic Center; Shaykha Tamara Gray, Rabata/Daybreak Bookstore; Dr. Tamim Saidi, Masjid Al Kareem; Fedwa Wazwaz, Engage Minnesota; Dr. Shah Khan, Islamic Center of Minnesota; Dr. Onder Uluyol, Islamic Resource Group; Zafar Siddiqui, Al Amal School; Imam Sharif Mohamed, Islamic Civic Society of America — Masjid Dar Al-Hijrah, and Owais Bayunus, Islamic Center of Minnesota.

Clinton and Sanders Infrastructure Plans

Dear Friends,

Hillary Clinton has finally come out with an infrastructure plan, and as you might imagine it is very middle of the road and certainly would not accomplish what even she says we need.

Everybody agrees that the United States infrastructure is in grave need of repair, costs Americans a ton of unnecessary money each year and is way behind that of other developed countries.  If you don't believe me read the article in Fortune (here) entitled "An investment in America's infrastructure could cost taxpayers nothing".  It is a full throated argument for investing huge sums of money in our infrastructure.

There seems to be general agreement that the US needs to invest well over $1 trillion in our infrastructure to repair it and bring it to a competitive level with other developed countries.  As the Fortune article points out, an up to date infrastructure would save everybody money that is currently spent on lost time and damage done by a crumbling and overcrowded infrastructure.  In addition, infrastructure spending creates lots of good paying jobs.  The Fortune article estimates that even a $18 billion annual investment in infrastructure would create 216,000 jobs in the first year.  As the Fortune article concludes, "It is hard to think of a timelier win-win proposal."

Bernie Sanders has proposed increasing our infrastructure spending by $1 trillion over the next five years (here).  Hillary Clinton, while acknowledging that estimates of "the size of our 'infrastructure gap' register in the trillions of dollars", proposes that we increase our infrastructure spending by just $275 million over the next five years (here).

You can see a comparison of the two plans at Dave Johnson's blog on The Huffington Post (here).

Secretary Clinton's proposal can hardly be called an incremental improvement much less any kind of a solution to our infrastructure deficit.  It is, of course, better than nothing.  Senator Sanders' proposal truly addresses both the infrastructure deficit we face as well as the need for many more good paying jobs.  Once again the extremely modest proposal from the establishment candidate will not generate any enthusiasm among those in our country who are looking for real change and bold ideas.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama eviscerates our rights and protects wrongdoers

Dear Friends,

I have pointed out before that President Obama is often not the President that he could or should be.  He has referred to his administration as "the most transparent administration in history".  Since prior administrations set such a low bar, his statement may be technically true, but it is very misleading.  President Obama has been aggressively pursuing any "leaks" with prosecutions.  A 2013 article in The Guardian (here) leads off with these paragraphs:

Barack Obama has pursued the most aggressive "war on leaks" since the Nixon administration, according to a report published on Thursday that says the administration's attempts to control the flow of information is hampering the ability of journalists to do their jobs.
The author of the study, the former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, says the administration's actions have severely hindered the release of information that could be used to hold it to account.

President Obama continues to aggressively pursue prosecution of whistleblowers while doing nothing to those whose crimes are disclosed by the whistleblowers.

He is now seeking to limit the authority of the inspector generals of various agency who act as watchdogs over those agency.  Here is a summary of the inspector general concept, and President Obama's attempt to destroy it from a recent article in The New York Times (here)

The inspector-general system was created in 1978 in the wake of Watergate as an independent check on government abuse, and it has grown to include watchdogs at 72 federal agencies. Their investigations have produced thousands of often searing public reports on everything from secret terrorism programs and disaster responses to boondoggles like a lavish government conference in Las Vegas in 2010 that featured a clown and a mind reader.
Not surprisingly, tensions are common between the watchdogs and the officials they investigate. President Ronald Reagan, in fact, fired 15 inspectors general in 1981. But a number of scholars and investigators said the restrictions imposed by the Obama administration reflect a new level of acrimony.
“This is by far the most aggressive assault on the inspector general concept since the beginning,” said Paul Light, a New York University professor who has studied the system. “It’s the complete evisceration of the concept. You might as well fold them down. They’ve become defanged.”

Last summer, President Obama's Justice Department issued a new ruling related to the inspector general concept.  Here are the opening paragraphs from an article at the Huffington Post (here)

The Department of Justice watchdog says a new opinion issued by the DOJ's legal office "undermines" the watchdog's independence and will "significantly" impair its ability to "detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse, and to protect taxpayer dollars."
The Office of the Inspector General at the Justice Department conducts oversight of the department's activities and law enforcement agencies within it. But under a new opinion from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, the inspector general has to seek permission from the organization it is meant to oversee in order to obtain certain types of information.
"As a result of the OLC’s opinion, the OIG will now need to obtain Justice Department permission in order to get access to important information in the Department’s files – putting the agency over which the OIG conducts oversight in the position of deciding whether to give the OIG access to the information necessary to conduct that oversight," the Inspector General's office said in a statement. "The conflict with the principles enshrined in the Inspector General Act could not be clearer and, as a result, the OIG’s work will be adversely impacted."

The New York Times article referenced above (here) cited an incredible list of recent examples of investigations that have been hindered or completely thwarted by the agency refusing to provide documents to its inspector general, including, the killing of unarmed Honduran civilians by DEA agents, sexual assaults in the Peace Corps, FBI abuses in counterterrorism cases and the conduct of negotiations of international trade agreements by the Commerce Department.  We have a right to know about the bad and illegal things our government does and to have those responsible held accountable.

As far as we know, President Obama has continued and defended programs which violate our right to privacy and now he is trying his best to ensure that we have no way of finding out about wrongdoings by government officials.  That is not the way a democracy works.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist

Dear Friends,

Notwithstanding the lack of press coverage, Bernie Sanders gave a very important speech yesterday.  Initially, it was to explain what it means to be a democratic socialist, but as a result of the recent terrorist attacks, Senator Sanders expanded it to cover his approach to eliminating ISIS.  If you have the time, you should read it here.

His speech made it very clear that Senator Sanders is a modern version of President Franklin Roosevelt.  The two men have a very similar view of the role of government with respect to providing for the people.  FDR was President in a time of great economic disparity, and he referred to those at the top of the economic ladder who wanted to have it all as "economic royalists"; Bernie Sanders refers to the same type of people as the "billionaire class".  Senator Sanders references President Roosevelt often, including his second Bill of Rights.  The following is an excerpt from President Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union address.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

As Senator Sanders goes on to enumerate what it means to be a democratic socialist, it is easy to see FDR's second Bill of Rights as well as his view of the role of government.  Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist believes

• we must have an economy that works for all not just the few
• healthcare is a right - we need Medicare for all
• education is a right - we need free public college education
• full employment is an obligation of the government if the private sector fails - we need a significant infrastructure building jobs program
• a person working full-time must not live in poverty - we need a $15/hour minimum wage
• wellbeing is a right - we need programs like paid family leave
• a secure and dignified retirement is a right - we need to expand social security
• we need a fair political system not one controlled by the rich 
• we need a tax system where everybody and every corporation pays their fair share

Bernie Sanders made it clear that he agrees with President Roosevelt that freedom requires economic security.  In his 1944 State of the Union Address, FDR said

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.

Bernie Sanders also echoed Martin Luther King, Jr. who said in 1968

This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.

Senator Sanders went on to give a perfect example of what Reverend King meant.

It is a system, for example, which during the 1990s allowed Wall Street to spend $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to get deregulated. Then, ten years later, after the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior of Wall Street led to their collapse, it is a system which provided trillions in government aid to bail them out. Wall Street used their wealth and power to get Congress to do their bidding for deregulation and then, when their greed caused their collapse, they used their wealth and power to get Congress to bail them out. Quite a system!

And, then, to add insult to injury, we were told that not only were the banks too big to fail, the bankers were too big to jail. Kids who get caught possessing marijuana get police records. Wall Street CEOs who help destroy the economy get raises in their salaries. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant by socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else.

Senator Sanders also made the direct connection between our economic security at home and our ability to bring peace in the world.  As did President Roosevelt when he elaborated on his second Bill of Rights.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

When Senator Sanders turned to the question of how to defeat ISIS, he was very clear that the United States must play a very important but supporting role.

But let's be very clear. While the U.S. and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations - with the strong support of their global partners.

These same sentiments have been echoed by those in the region. Jordan's King Abdallah II said in a speech on Sunday that terrorism is the "greatest threat to our region" and that Muslims must lead the fight against it. He noted that confronting extremism is both a regional and international responsibility, and that it is incumbent on Muslim nations and communities to confront those who seek to hijack their societies and generations with intolerance and violent ideology.

With a strong understanding of history and our past foreign policy mistakes, Senator Sanders is clear that he will provide all the support needed to defeat ISIS, but the Muslim nations and communities must take the lead.  He also calls out some of our so-called allies who have not only not done enough to fight ISIS but who have in many ways provided support to radical clerics.

Equally important, and this is a point that must be made - countries in the region like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE - countries of enormous wealth and resources - have contributed far too little in the fight against ISIS. That must change. King Abdallah is absolutely right when he says that that the Muslim nations must lead the fight against ISIS, and that includes some of the most wealthy and powerful nations in the region, who, up to this point have done far too little.

All of this has got to change. Wealthy and powerful Muslim nations in the region can no longer sit on the sidelines and expect the United States to do their work for them. As we develop a strongly coordinated effort, we need a commitment from these countries that the fight against ISIS takes precedence over the religious and ideological differences that hamper the kind of cooperation that we desperately need.

The bottom line is that ISIS must be destroyed, but it cannot be defeated by the United States alone. A new and effective coalition must be formed with the Muslim nations leading the effort on the ground, while the United States and other major forces provide the support they need.

Senator Bernie Sanders is not an extremist.  All of the great programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were called socialist by their detractors, but they provide the bedrock to provide the economic security that all Americans should enjoy.  There is nothing radical or new about providing free public education or government rebuilding our infrastructure or every person paying his or her fair share of taxes or providing paid family leave or having Medicare for all or a minimum wage of $15 an hour so a full-time worker does not live in poverty or regulating and taxing Wall Street so that the banks are not too big to fail and the CEO's not too big to prosecute or any of the other policies that Bernie Sanders advocates.  All of those policies are well within the second Bill of Rights proposed by FDR and at the time commonly accepted.  In addition, Senator Sanders' plan for defeating ISIS is the only realistic one that I have heard; as it is clear that a US lead ground war in Muslim countries will only lead to more terrorism.

Bernie Sanders is the person we need as President.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Hillary Clinton's Plan to Defeat ISIS

Dear Friends,

After Hillary Clinton's speech yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations about how to defeat ISIS, I googled to see what she had to say.  Among the hits were these two headlines:

From Politicususa (here): "Hillary Clinton Rejects New Middle East Ground War By Opposing Sending US Troops To Syria"

From The Guardian (here): "Hillary Clinton calls for more ground troops as part of hawkish Isis strategy"

Last night Chris Hayes, on his show All in with Chris Hayes also made what I consider to be a contradictory statement about her position.  He stated her position was "... rejecting calls for expanded use of ground troops in the Middle East, Clinton urged a new phase in the fight against ISIS, including more special operations forces..."

It was clear to me that I needed to read the transcript of her speech, if I were to understand what her plan was.  She did in fact say

Like President Obama, I do not believe that we should again have 100,000 American troops in combat in the Middle East. That is just not the smart move to make here. If we have learned anything from 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that local people and nations have to secure their own communities.

I completely agree with her on this point, and I assume that is the paragraph that lead commentators to say that she was rejecting additional ground troops.

She also said,

To support them [Syrians whom we support who are taking on ISIS], we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight.

This sentence is probably the reason why The Guardian headline said she called for more ground troops and why Chris Hayes said she called for more special operations forces.

Certainly not all ground forces are special operations forces but all special operations forces are in fact ground forces.  My view of what she said is that she rejects large numbers of ground troops but will increase the number of ground troops.  She also argued for more direct involvement of the ground forces that are already authorized to be in the area.

As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes.

There can be no doubt that if our "advisors" are embedded with the Iraqi troops, that they will be much more in harms way, and we will be forced to protect them which will lead to an even greater escalation.  We should remember how we started in Vietnam.

Secretary Clinton's plan is more aggressive than President Obama's plan, particularly with respect to more ground troops, embedding troops and a no-fly zone. While I disagree with those positions, she makes some very good points about the need for the people of the region to overcome their differences and fight ISIS as a common enemy and the need for more and better intelligence.

Now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our Arab and Turkish partners. And we must get them to carry their share of the burden, with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria.

As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS, and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against ISIS.

The United States should also work with our Arab partners to get them more invested in the fight against ISIS. At the moment, they’re focused in other areas because of their concerns in the region, especially the threat from Iran. That’s why the Saudis, for example, shifted attention from Syria to Yemen. So we have to work out a common approach.

We should not stop pressing until Turkey, where most foreign fighters cross into Syria, finally locks down its border.

And once and for all, the Saudis, the Qataris and others need to stop their citizens from directly funding extremist organizations as well as the schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path to radicalization.

I particularly applaud her for calling out the Turks, Saudis and Qataris.  It is well past time for leaders in the United States to tell the truth about what some of our so-called allies are doing.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

The Greatest Threat We Face

Dear Friends,

In the second Democratic Presidential debate, Bernie Sanders said that climate change was the biggest threat that we face.  President Obama has made similar statements.  In light of the terrorist attacks in Paris, many politicians particularly those on the right are pushing the narrative that ISIS is the biggest threat and that there is a real threat that ISIS will destroy the world as we know it.  While stoking fear and hatred of others is a constant political strategy for Republicans, it is important to point out that there is absolutely no way that ISIS can destroy the world as we know it and that ISIS, while a threat that must be eliminated, is in no way a major threat to the world as know it.  For more on that point, I commend to you Paul Krugman's Op-ed piece, entitled "Fearing Fear Itself" published in The New York Times (here).

After 9/11 our Congress passed the Patriot Act to take away our freedoms in order to prevent another terrorist attack.  Then through a series of leaks, particularly by Edward Snowden, we learned that our government was exceeding its authority and that there was no proof that all the invasions of our privacy were of any help.  Now after the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, John Brennan is claiming that the disclosures have made it more difficult to track terrorists, so we need to sacrifice more of our privacy rights.  In addition, Republicans are calling for legislation to stop all Syrian refugees from entering the country.

We can pass more and more legislation that goes against our Constitutional rights and our values to pretend to guard against terrorism, but we cannot pass any legislation to help reduce the gun violence that is rampant in this country.  CNN did this analysis recently (here).

Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350.
In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380.

The numbers used by CNN include the deaths from the 9/11 attacks.  It should be obvious from this analysis that gun violence is a much greater threat to us than terrorism, yet the Republicans are unwilling to consider any action to reduce gun violence.

The threat from climate change is in the short term immense and in the long term existential.  The World Health Organization estimates that there are 150,000 deaths worldwide annually caused by climate change and estimates that between 2030 and 2050 that number will rise to 250,000 additional deaths annually just from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.  For comparison, the worldwide death toll from terrorism in 2014, the latest data available was just under 33,000 people.  That toll was the highest on record, but it is unclear if it represents a trend.  These incredible numbers are only the direct impact.  They do not reflect the deaths and other impacts of the conflicts that will result from the shortage of natural resources and the movement of displaced populations.

Obviously, terrorism is a problem that must be dealt with, but the threat from climate change is much more serious and if left unchecked will actually destroy the world as we know it.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

It's my white privilege.

Dear Friends,

I have tired to recognize my white privilege in all the ways that it exists, but I keep finding new ways.

I have been trying to figure out why I am so much more touched by the terrorist attacks in Paris than  those in Beirut or in Kenya or in any of the many other places around the world that are not predominately white societies.  I have lived in overwhelmingly white communities all of my life and have felt safe almost all of the time.  I do not feel threatened when I see another white person, but I do from time to time feel unsafe when I see a non-white person who fits the stereotype of someone I "should" fear; a young black male, a group of middle eastern appearing men, etc.

Part of my white privilege is that I have always had a community in which I can feel safe.  I am not constantly stopped or harassed by police, I am not in a minority surrounded by people who are "different" (non-white) from me, and I am a privileged member of the majority community.  The Paris that I see is white.  Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nigeria, Kenya, etc. are non-white.  They are all communities where I would be in the minority and in many cases subject to the same harassment and discrimination that a person of color is in Minnesota, or worse.  So I am ashamed to say that the most likely reason that I am more touched by the terrorist attacks in Paris than in Mumbai is that Paris is white, like me, and Mumbai is not.  It is another part of my white privilege that I must acknowledge.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Terrorists and Bigots

Dear Friends,

The terrible terrorist attacks in Paris last week have brought back into the front of our consciousness the fact that terrorism is alive and well in the world.  My heart goes out to all of those who suffer as the result of terrorist acts whether they take place in Paris or Beirut or Charleston.  We need to do all that we can to end terrorism, but to do that we need to understand and admit the facts surrounding terrorism today.

There is a very common misconception that terrorist attacks are most often perpetrated by those claiming to be acting on their Islamic beliefs.  This misconception is reinforced by politicians who are using fear and hatred of "others" for their own selfish political gain.  Here are some facts which clearly counter the common wisdom.

The chart below, courtesy of ThinkProgress (here) is based on information from Europol, the EU's law enforcement agency.

Most of the terrorist attacks in the EU have been by separatist organizations.

The ThinkProgress article goes on to discuss the statistics in the United States.

Religious motivations makes up just a slightly larger portion of terrorist attacks in the U.S.
Islamist militants lag far behind other groups when it comes to carrying out terrorist attacks in the U.S. too. According to FBI data compiled by the Princeton University’s Loon Watch, Islamist extremists were responsible for just 6 percent of terrorist attacks between 1980 and 2005 — falling behind Latino groups, Extreme left-wing groups, and Jewish extremists.

While the coverage by the media in the United States has helped to perpetuate the myth that most terrorist attacks are related to Islam, an article in The New York Times (here) from June 24, 2015 actually does a good job of summarizing the facts.

But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.

Here is the table from New America showing the incidents that is cited by The New York Times.

The tables below show the lethal terrorist incidents in the United States since 9/11.

Deadly Jihadist Attacks
Total number of people killed:
26
Plot name Persons killed2014 Washington and New Jersey Killing Spree 4
2014 Oklahoma Beheading 1
2013 Boston Marathon Bombing 4
2009 Little Rock Shooting 1
2009 Fort Hood Shooting 13
2006 Seattle Jewish Federation Shooting 1
2002 Los Angeles Airport Shooting 2

Deadly Right Wing Attacks
Total number of people killed:
48
Plot name Persons killed
2015 Charleston Church Shooting 9
2014 Tallahassee Police Ambush 1
2014 Las Vegas Police Ambush 3
2014 Kansas Jewish Center Shooting 3
2014 Blooming Grove Police Shooting 1
2012 Tri-State Killing Spree 4
2012 St. John's Parish Police Ambush 2
2012 Sikh Temple Shooting 6
2011 FEAR Militia 3
2010 Carlisle, PA Murder 1
2010 Austin, TX Plane Attack 1
2009 Pittsburgh Police Shootings 3
2009 Holocaust Museum Shooting 1
2009 George Tiller Assassination 1
2009 Ft. Walton, FL Shooting 2
2009 Flores Murders, Pima County, AZ 2
2009 Brockton, MA Murders 2
2008 Knoxville, TN Church Shooting 2
2004 Tulsa OK, Bank Robbery 1

An article on the Huffington Post website (here) entitled "White Supremacists More Dangerous To America Than Foreign Terrorists, Study Says" describes very clearly the misconception itself as well as a view on it based on the history of the United States.  I recommend the article to you.

The politicians and the press do not call terrorist groups that claim to have Christian views, Christian terrorists, but they should if they are going to call terrorist groups that claim to have Islamic views, Islamic terrorists.  Salon, reprinting an article from AlterNet, has a great article entitled "6 modern-day Christian terrorist groups our media conveniently ignores" (here).  Below is the first paragraph of that article.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently released an in-depth report on terrorism in the United States. Covering April 2009 to February 2015, the report (titled “The Age of the Wolf”) found that during that period, “more people have been killed in America by non-Islamic domestic terrorists than jihadists.” The SPLC asserted that “the jihadist threat is a tremendous one,” pointing out that al-Qaeda’s attacks of September 11, 2001 remain the deadliest in U.S. history. But the study also noted that the second deadliest was carried out not by Islamists, but by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995—and law enforcement, the SPLC stressed, are doing the public a huge disservice if they view terrorism as an exclusively Islamist phenomenon.

You will note that while the time frame for the data from the Southern Poverty Law Center is different from the New America report that the conclusion is the same - non-Islamic related domestic terrorists are a greater threat.  The article then goes on to discuss six terrorist groups that claim to have Christian views.  You can find another list of eight terrorist groups that claim to have Christian views here.

In the last two days the Republican Presidential candidates and the media have given us many perfect examples of our unwillingness to accept the fact that Christian extremists are just as bad as Islamic extremists.  Yesterday, The Washington Post published an article entitled "Cruz: 'No meaningful risk' of Christians committing terrorism" (here).  Cruz's comment is patently false and provided the perfect opportunity for the media to expose the false narrative that we only need to be concerned about terrorists who claim to believe in Islam.  However, the author of the article, Katie Zezima, never once mentions the fact that Cruz's comment is factually incorrect.  Cruz was making the point that the United States should only take Christian refugees from Syria. Cruz was using fear of the "others" and the terrible attacks on Paris for his own selfish political gain, and Ms. Zezima and The Washington Post let him do it.  Jeb Bush has taken a similar position without coming out and saying that Christians are safe and Muslims are not.

The Washington Post is not alone in missing the opportunity.  Time and President Obama both missed today.  Time published an article (here) about President Obama's reaction to Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush.  Neither President Obama nor Time mentioned that the premise for the Bush/Cruz position was blatantly false.  President Obama focused only on not having a religious test for refugees.

The Republican governors are now lining up to declare that their states will not take any Syrian refugees because they do not want to put their populations at risk for terrorist attacks.  While they do not say out loud what Bush and Cruz have said about accepting Christians only, it is clear that they are focusing on creating fear and hatred of "others".

We must stand up to bigotry in all its forms, just as we must have compassion for those who feel the pain of terrorism.  We must not permit people to fuel hatred and fear for their own selfish political gain, just as we must not give into the fear that terrorists strive to create.

Thank you for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Seniors and Veterans Emergency Benefits Act

Dear Friends,

Elizabeth Warren has introduced a bill along with Bernie Sanders and 16 other Democratic Senators to provide a one time payment to seniors and veterans who are not getting a cost of living increase in 2016 because of the way in which the cost of living is calculated.  The amount of the payment is 3.9% which is the average raise for the top CEOs.  It would be paid for by eliminating a corporate loophole.  It is a great idea and not just because I am on Social Security.  You can read more here, here and here.

I searched the internet for quite awhile to find what Hillary Clinton had to say about this legislation, and I found nothing.  She is probably for it, but she certainly is not expending any energy to help the legislation get a hearing or passed.  While Secretary Clinton has said many times that she supports Social Security and will work to keep it from being cut back, she is not pushing to expand it.  An article on the Huffington Post website entitled "Hillary Clinton Hesitates on Expanding Social Security" (here) summarizes the differences between Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders on this issue.

"I fully support Social Security and the most important fight we're going to have is defending it against continuing Republican efforts to privatize it," Clinton said, after hesitating.
Asked again whether she would expand Social Security benefits, Clinton conceded that she would expand benefits for some of the program's poorest beneficiaries, specifically citing widows and single women.
"I want to enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security,” Clinton said. “We have a lot of women on Social Security, particularly widowed and single women, who didn't make a lot of money during their careers and they are impoverished and they need more help from the Social Security system."
Sanders, by contrast, has introduced a bill that would expand Social Security across the board and increase its solvency by lifting the cap on earnings subject to Social Security payroll taxes.
Responding to Clinton, Sanders said the reason he so strongly supports expansion is because he believes current benefits are inadequate for the vast majority of seniors.

The difference is clear, not only will Bernie Sanders fight to expand Social Security, he will lead with specific proposals while Hillary Clinton will give support to maintain and maybe perhaps expand for some if pushed really hard but with no specifics.  Bernie Sanders is a true leader.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Hillary Clinton and Fossil Fuels

Dear Friends,

As I have said before, I am pleased that Secretary Clinton has come out against drilling in the Arctic, against the Keystone XL pipeline and in favor of renewable energy.  The problem is that she is once again taking baby steps when giant steps are needed.

Try to find out where Secretary Clinton stands on fracking.  I thought I had found the answer when I came across an article in the Huffington Post entitled "Hillary Clinton Calls For Banning Fracking On Public Lands, With Some Conditions" from July 2015 (here).  Unfortunately upon reading the article, she actually called for phasing out the extraction of fossil fuels from Federal lands over some unstated period of time.

Clinton said she would not stop the extraction right away, but would try to make the transition as quickly as possible.
"We still have to run our economy, we still have to turn on the lights," Clinton told a town hall meeting in Dover, New Hampshire.
Clinton said the United States needs to balance its aspiration to be an energy super power with the need to lead on addressing climate change.

Oh how she loves to hedge her bets.  She says she is against it, but she says she will continue it.  She always wants it both ways.

Consider also her position on lifting the ban on exporting crude oil from the United States.   After months of silence on the issue, in mid-September she came out in favor of lifting the ban if the oil and gas industry made concessions.  Here are a few paragraphs from a Reuters article about her comments (here).

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Friday she would support lifting the 40-year-old U.S. ban on crude exports only if the measure included concessions from the oil and gas industry to move toward cleaner energy.

Clinton said she had not yet seen any legislation on lifting the ban that included concessions from the fossil fuel industry, In the absence of that, "I don't think the ban should be lifted," Clinton told reporters.

Clinton did not specify exactly what kind of concessions she wants from the oil and gas industry.

She is now on record as in favor of lifting the ban so long as there are unstated concessions, and she also on record as being against lifting the ban unless there are unstated concessions.

Bernie Sanders' position on both of these issues is very clear and has remained unchanged over time.  Senator Sanders believes that fracking should be banned. Senator Sanders is against lifting the ban on the export of crude oil from the United States.  In August 2015, Senator Sanders posted this statement on his campaign Twitter account.

We need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and move to 100 percent renewable energy - and we need to act immediately.

Hillary Clinton seems incapable of making a plain straightforward statement of her positions.  You can agree or disagree with Senator Sanders, but you certainly know where he stands.  Senator Clinton wants to find a way to agree with you regardless of what you believe.

There may be many reasons why Secretary Clinton acts in this way on this issue as well as many others.  I came across an article in the Huffington Post from July 2015 entitled, "Hillary Clinton's Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists" (here).  The first two paragraphs read as follows:

Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.
A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.

The network of Clinton charities and foundations has also been the recipient of millions of dollars from big business, including oil and gas companies.  In February 2015, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, "Hillary Clinton's Complex Corporate Ties" (here).  The article catalogues the millions of dollars that have flowed into Clinton related charities and foundations from major corporations.  The article begins with these two paragraphs:

Among recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co.
At the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family’s global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures.

The article continues

The Wall Street Journal identified the companies involved with both Clinton-family charitable endeavors and with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department by examining large corporate donations to the Clinton Foundation, then reviewing lobbying-disclosure reports filed by those companies. At least 44 of those 60 companies also participated in philanthropic projects valued at $3.2 billion that were set up though a wing of the foundation called the Clinton Global Initiative, which coordinates the projects but receives no cash for them. ...

Corporate donations to politically connected charities aren’t illegal so long as they aren’t in exchange for favors. There is no evidence of that with the Clinton Foundation.

In some cases, donations came after Mrs. Clinton took action that helped a company. In other cases, the donation came first. In some instances, donations came both before and after. All of the companies mentioned in this article said their charitable donations had nothing to do with their lobbying agendas with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.

The article notes that Exxon Mobil has contributed $2 million to the Clinton Global Initiatives and since 2007 has contributed $16.8 million to Vital Voices a charity co-founded by Secretary Clinton.  It also contributes to the Clinton Foundation; the article notes a $250,000 contribution in 2013.

If you believe in the old adage about following the money, all of these contributions to Clinton related charities and campaigns must have some impact on Secretary Clinton's positions or lack thereof.

Senator Sanders has pledged not to accept contributions from the oil and gas industry.  We have a clear choice as to the type of candidate we want for President.  Bernie Sanders is a true liberal with long standing progressive positions on the issues and an unbending commitment to those positions.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

The Death Penalty

Dear Friends,

Capital punishment is in the news quite often these days.  Even Jeb Bush, who presided over 21 executions as Governor of Florida, has announced that he is conflicted about the death penalty.  He nevertheless remains a supporter of the death penalty.  There is a short but good article in The Guardian (here).

Hillary Clinton finally after many years of silence on the issue has indicated that she thinks that the death penalty is applied too often and not fairly, but she still supports it.  Secretary Clinton evolved from thinking the death penalty was unconstitutional to being a strong on crime person to her current position that we need significant criminal justice reform including reform of the death penalty, but we should not abolish the death penalty.

There are two articles that I would recommend to you if you want to know more about the wide range of positions that Hillary Clinton has held during her lifetime.  The first is entitled "Hillary's forgotten death penalty shift" by Adam Lerner in Politico in April 2015 (here).  The article focuses on her position when she was the head of a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas and how she has evolved over time.  The second is entitled "A (More or Less) Definitive Guide to Hillary Clinton's Record on Law and Order" by Eli Hager at The Marshall Project (here) published in May 2015.  This article is exactly what the title says, and it is very comprehensive.  Both these articles were written before Secretary Clinton's recent statement indicating support for the death penalty.

Bernie Sanders has opposed the death penalty for his entire career.  Hillary Clinton has moved around a lot on the issue, but continues to support the death penalty.  Another clear difference in the views of these two candidates.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

The Rich and Powerful are protected by the Rich and Powerful

Dear Friends,

Two items in the news yesterday, combined with the Republican presidential debate and the cold, rainy weather we are having, have left me feeling very sad about the state of my country and what we do compared to what we say we stand for, i.e. our hypocrisy.

I was dismayed by the assassination of Osama bin Laden when it occurred concluding in a blog post in May 2011 (here)

Justice was not done by assassinating Osama bin Laden. Revenge was taken, plain and simple. Justice is a critical and core value of a great society. Vengeance has no place in one.

So when The New York Times reported (here) on the legal justification for assassinating Osama bin Laden, it raised a painful memory for me.  At best the legal justification was a real stretch.  I found this sentence in the article particularly disturbing.

The legal analysis offered the administration wide flexibility to send ground forces onto Pakistani soil without the country’s consent, to explicitly authorize a lethal mission, to delay telling Congress until afterward, and to bury a wartime enemy at sea.

The lawyers said that the United States could violate the sovereignty of another country, explicitly authorize the killing of a person without due process, not tell Congress and violate the person's religion by burying him at sea.

Every one of those conclusions is doubtful.  The four lawyers even went to the extreme position that
the President was obligated to follow domestic law but not international law if a covert action were involved.

Consider another scenario.  Dick Cheney is a war criminal because he lead the planning and execution of an invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, causing the death of thousands of people and is continuing to espouse similar activities. So the Iraqi government decides to send its forces into the United States without asking permission from the United States to kill Cheney and dump his body at sea.  The only difference between the two scenarios is that the powerful get to write the rules and history.

The second item was the vote by the Parliament of the European Union to urge its member states to drop all charges against Edward Snowden, treat him as a “whistle-blower and international human rights defender” and shield him from extradition and rendition. While the message is important and powerful, it is not legally binding.  This courageous vote by the European Union stands in bright contrast to the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration.

The Obama Administration insists that Edward Snowden violated the law by disclosing the illegal activities that were being conducted by the Untied States government, and he probably did violate the law.  It is also clear that Vice President Cheney and President George W. Bush violated both domestic and international law in connection with torture, spying on US citizens and invading Iraq under knowingly false pretenses.  If President Obama insists on prosecuting Edward Snowden, then to be consistent, intellectually honest and moral, he must also prosecute Bush and Cheney.  Since it is very clear that he will never do that, he has no moral authority to prosecute Edward Snowden.

President Obama's lawyers can find legal justification for assassinating people, both American citizens (see my post from April 2010 here) and others without due process, violating the sovereignty of other nations, and spying on American citizens, but surprisingly cannot find any reason to prosecute the war crimes committed by the the highest members of the United States government.  We see the same rule applied when it comes to Wall Street crimes.  The big corporations get fines but none of the leaders are criminally prosecuted, just the occasional little guy.  

The rich and powerful are protected by the rich and powerful.  That should never be the rule in my country, the United States of America.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Hillary Clinton tries to rewrite history

Dear Friends,

Hillary Clinton was interviewed on The Rachel Maddow Show last week (here).  During that interview, she said that passing DOMA was a defensive move to stop a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I think what my husband believed -- and there was certainly evidence to support it -- is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America and that there had to be some way to stop that.  In a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further.

I think it is great that Bill and Hillary Clinton's views have changed on gay marriage over the years, and that they now recognize that DOMA was a big mistake.  What I do not understand is why Secretary Clinton refuses to simply say it was a mistake, and now I am a huge supporter of gay rights including the right to marry and the right to not be fired for being gay.

The Huffington Post has a great article on the subject (here), entitled, "Sorry, Hillary, Gay Rights Advocates Say Bernie Is Right On DOMA History, Bill Clinton signed the law primarily because of politics, the record shows."  The article includes the following paragraphs:

"It's ridiculous. There was no threat in the immediate vicinity of 1996 of a constitutional amendment. It came four years later," said Elizabeth Birch, who was executive director of the Human Rights Campaign from 1995 to 2004. "It may be that she needs to revisit the facts of what happened."
Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, said, "It is not accurate to explain DOMA as motivated by an attempt to forestall a constitutional amendment. There was no such serious effort in 1996." At the time, Wolfson was an attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

I should note that there is a post on the Daily Kos (here), entitled "Sorry Bernie: DOMA Really Was A Defensive Action Against A Possible Constitutional Amendment".  This post uses statements from 2013 to support its contention.  Here is the response to this argument from the Huffington Post article.

The only material testimony HuffPost found that a constitutional amendment was the "greater damage" that some DOMA supporters feared came many years after President Clinton left office. In a March 2013 amicus brief arguing the illegality of DOMA, several senators referenced the vote as something that some lawmakers felt "would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more."

The Huffington Post article provides this comment from Hillary Clinton's campaign:

"Whatever the context that led to the passage of DOMA nearly two decades ago, Hillary Clinton believes the law was discriminatory and both she and President Clinton urged that it be overturned," said spokesman Brian Fallon. "As President, Hillary Clinton will continue to fight to secure full and equal rights for LGBT Americans who, despite all our progress, can still get married on a Saturday and fired on a Monday just because of who they are and who they love."

You will note that the statement does not actually say that Secretary Clinton was wrong when she said it was to stop a constitutional amendment, it simply says ignore what she said and focus on what she believes now.  It would be great if Secretary Clinton would just come right out and admit when she has made a mistake and when her views have evolved.  Unfortunately, instead of doing that she tries to rewrite history to make herself look good.  She would be much more trustworthy if she would just acknowledge her mistakes, she is, after all human like the rest of us.

At a fundraiser many years ago for Paul Wellstone, a young woman approached him and confronted him on his lack of support for gay marriage.  I remember his perfect response clearly today, "I am just not there.  Help me to understand."  He then listened and talked to her for several minutes with an obviously open and honest mind.  Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA and subsequently agonized about his vote.  By 2002, he had a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign.  He did not try to rewrite history, he listened, learned, evolved and acknowledged change.  We need more politicians like Paul Wellstone.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

The Questions that Hillary Clinton should answer

Dear Friends,

Hillary Clinton endured 11 hours of questioning on Benghazi yesterday, and absolutely nothing new was learned.  The salient facts have not changed.  The attack was a terrible tragedy.  We have made significant changes to reduce the risks of such a thing happening again.  It was not Hillary Clinton's fault.  In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Hillary Clinton and the United States government made statements about the cause of the attack that they knew to be false. Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration have never given a reasonable explanation for that lie.  It certainly does not disqualify Hillary Clinton from being President, but it does raise some concerns.

For me there are far more important concerns and more important questions for Secretary Clinton to answer.  Here are some.

We all know that in 2007 and 2008, the biggest banks were too big to fail and had to be bailed out.  Those banks are even bigger now and control even more of the assets of the industry.  Thus they are even more too big to fail.  Given those facts, why do you not support breaking them up now, before another financial crisis ruins regular Americans lives, jobs and finances?

Given the facts above about too big to fail, why do you continue to refuse to support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act?  Why do you say that instead we should focus on shadow banking?  The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can reinstate Glass-Steagall and regulate shadow banking at the same time.

Why did you call the pharmaceutical and insurance industries your enemies when you have taken millions of dollars from them in contributions?  If you have time read this article in US News (here) entitled, "Hillary Takes Millions in Campaign Cash From 'Enemies'".

Medicare is the most efficient and well liked healthcare plan in the country.  The United States spends  more and has worse results than other countries.  Here is the first paragraph from The Commonwealth  Fund's 2014 update on its healthcare study (here).

The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.

Given all this why do you refuse to support universal single payer healthcare (Medicare for all)?

The United States middle class was built in part on an educated population as a result of free universal public school education through high school.  We all know that a high school diploma is not sufficient today; that a college education is required to succeed.  Why do you refuse to support free public college education?

In 1960 the maximum United States tax bracket carried with it a 91% marginal rate.  We can afford to pay for universal single payer healthcare, free public education through college, rebuilding our infrastructure, providing for those among us in need of help and many more things if the richest among us pay their fair share.  How high are you willing to raise the federal income tax rates in order to make America great and rebuild the middle class?

There are more questions that Hillary Clinton should give clear answers to but they will have to wait for another day.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Why Sanders defeats Trump, but Trump defeats Clinton

Dear Friends,

The title of this post is the title of an article on The Hill  (here) by H.A. Goodman.  The first paragraph of the article is a great summary:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) currently leads Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump by 4 percentage points more than Hillary Clinton does, according to RealClearPolitics. However, while the polls have Clinton over Trump now, it's Sanders who represents the best chance for a Democrat to beat the reality star. The Vermont senator is the worst nightmare for a GOP challenger, primarily because his value system is the antithesis of Republican stances on war, foreign policy, Wall Street and the economy.

The article goes on to discuss the well known baggage that comes with Secretary Clinton as well as the fact that Trump and Clinton both have close ties to Wall Street and have similar views on some issues.  One of his major points is that to defeat Trump, the Democrats have to present the exact opposite of Trump and that is Bernie Sanders.

On the other hand, Sanders isn't linked to scandal, he's vehemently against billionaires controlling politics, and his brand of democratic socialism serves as a stark contrast to Trump's brash billionaire persona. Everything Sanders warns about is personified by Trump; billionaires in politics, Republicans and Democrats uniting to coddle Wall Street, a rigged economic system, etc.

As we saw in the last Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton is not in favor of breaking up the big banks that are too big to fail, she is not in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagall, and she does not speak forcefully about taxing Wall Street and billionaires as Sanders does.

The article concludes

Ultimately, the only hope for Democrats beating Donald Trump is Bernie Sanders. He's honest and brings tremendous enthusiasm to progressives and he's raising more than enough money, without a super-PAC, to win the presidency... He experienced a greater boost in the polls than Clinton after the debate, so Democrats are rallying around the Vermont senator even as loyal supporters defend Clinton at all costs. When given the choice between Sanders or Clinton, Trump and the GOP would choose Clinton and her scandals over an energized base of progressives championing a Sanders presidency.

The more people see and hear Bernie and his ideas and positions, the more they like him.  His support will continue to grow particularly among new voters.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Bernie, Hillary and Big Banks

Dear Friends,

I cannot believe that the media has not spent any time on the big difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on breaking up the big banks.  Since the great recession starting in 2008, the five largest banks in the United States have increased their share of the total industry assets to almost 45%.  So the too big to fail banks are getting even bigger.  

Bernie Sanders is clearly for reinstating Glass-Steagall and immediately breaking up the big banks that are too big to let fail.  Hillary Clinton is for closer regulation but not for taking any action now.  Amazingly enough she actually said this during the debate:

I represented Wall Street as a senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 before the big crash that we had, and I basically said, "Cut it out." 

She spoke the truth; she represented Wall Street, and she has done a good job of that.  She continues to be on their payroll in the form of political contributions.  Her approach was to tell them to "cut it out".  Well we all know how that worked, the banks ignored her and millions of Americans lost their jobs and homes and retirement plans.   Wall Street never has and never will be self regulating.  We need to break up the big banks, and we need to deal with shadow banking as well.  Bernie will do that and Hillary will not.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Why our country needs Bernie Sanders

Dear Friends,

Our political system is broken and corrupt.  The old saying that the world is run by those who show up is no longer true with respect to our political system.  Now the correct saying is that the United States is run by those who show up and those with money, and we are not sure for the moment which of those two groups will win.

Even I was shocked by the recent article in The New York Times reporting that 158 families have given half of all contributions to the 2016 Presidential elections so far (here).  Although I should not have been shocked since I already knew that the Koch brothers were planning on spending as much if not more than either of the two major political parties for 2016 election cycle.  Congress does not represent the interests of the people.  It represents the interests of the oligarchs who fund the process and pay the lobbyist.  Just one example is the power of the gun lobby, fronted by the NRA.  Consistently +90% support background checks and a majority support stronger gun control legislation, yet Congress will not even give new laws consideration.

How does Congress get away with not taking action on things that the vast majority of Americans want and support?  People do not vote and big business spends billions of dollars to buy the system.  In the 2014 midterm elections only 36.4% of eligible voters actually voted.  It was the worst turnout percentage since 1942.  The United States ranks 31st out of 34 top industrialized democratic countries even using our 2012 Presidential year election (53.6%).  Belgium was first with 87.2%.  If Americans had voted in the same percentage as the Belgians in 2012, there would have been 200 million votes cast instead of only 129 million.  That is 71 million more voters.  Just to put that in perspective, President Obama beat Mitt Romney in the popular vote by 5 million; President Obama got 65.4 million votes.  Just think what would have happened if those other 71 million people had voted.

There are a lot of what are referred to as safe districts.  According to Chris Cillizza's analysis after the 2012 elections in the Washington Post (here), 38% of all Congressional seats are "safe"; that is to say the current incumbent won by at least 67%.  Clearly gerrymandering has had a big impact on the creation of these safe districts and while both parties have gerrymandered districts, the Republicans have done a much better job.  The Republicans have also been able to enact voter suppression legislation at the state level.  But Republicans also do a much better job of getting out their supporters to vote.  Higher voter turnout has always helped Democrats.  Getting everybody to vote would certainly make those "safe" districts much less safe particularly when you consider that the incumbents have moved so far right to protect themselves against Tea Party primary challengers.

People do not vote because they see no reason to vote.  The Democratic Party during my lifetime has been on a steady move to the right, accelerated under the Clinton administration.  Remember in 1960, the last year that President Eisenhower was President the highest income tax bracket was 91% and the country was doing very well economically.  This move to the right has coincided with increased political contributions by big business and the very wealthy, accelerated by the Citizen's United decision.  The Democratic establishment disowned Obamacare rather than educating the people about the good that it would do.  The Democratic establishment has and continues to pursue a strategy of being Republican light because they are too uncomfortable with real change and bold ideas.

The October 19th "All in with Chris Hayes" had a segment about the electability of a democratic socialist (Bernie Sanders).  The two guests were John Nichols who was not endorsing Bernie Sanders but who has great confidence in the American people's ability to embrace new and bold ideas and ended with the idea that perhaps the person with the boldest ideas will be the winner.  The other guest was Matt Bennett a Clinton supporter and advisor who could not imagine changing the narrative that the Republicans have crafted that government is bad and cannot solve the problems.  If you accept the Republican narrative, you have lost the battle.  Here is link to that segment.  It is very thought provoking.

Hillary Clinton is at best an incrementalist.   She will not dramatically increase the number of people voting.  Bernie Sanders has clearly demonstrated that he can and is getting some of those 71 million people that did not vote to become involved in politics because there is a difference between a political revolution and more of the same establishment politics.  Money can only be defeated by huge voter turnout and engagement, and Bernie is the only candidate with a chance to do succeed.  He can get this country headed back to being a democracy.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal