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