Category: 2022 Elections

By on

Mark Tapscott at the Epoch Times reports that, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), Unions spent $25 billion dollars on 2022 election. Which is really kind of remarkable because Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reported that the total amount of money spent on political campaigns was 8.9 billion dollars. You might have spotted a glaring difference between the two organization’s figures. I certainly did.

Why the difference? First, and this is pretty important, the NILRR is anti-union. They want to demonize the union movement so they fiddled with the figures to make the actual 54 million labor spent on 2022 campaigns $25 billion. After this little switcheroo, the relative modest spending becomes outrageously large, especially with the untampered figures from corporations. $25 billion says unions are this powerful behemoth who have an endless supply of money to force their collectivist ways on the poor employers of America.

How did $54 million become $25 billion? NILRR’s much broader interpretation of union political spending can be found here: “the bulk of unreported political power is wielded by government union officials. They’re armed with the monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions, and hiring practices for entire swaths of federal, state, and local government workers. This makes monopoly bargaining in the public sector, by its very nature, political.” So, everything a union does is political and, therefore, must be included in political spending. Voila, you now have a rich monster with billions to spend facing those poor corporations who are just trying to run their business.

It’s a blatantly unfair comparison. Why isn’t the same standard applied to corporate spending? In non-union shops, which is close to 90% of all American worker’s experiences, the companies have this same monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions and hiring practices. When there are no unions, the worker is on his own and the company has all the power. Does the NILRR consider the money spent on Union Busting as political spending? Technically, I am sure it isn’t but by the NILRR broad definition of political spending, it definitely should be.

I am confident that when you add up all the Corporate Spending on salaries, benefits, HR policies and union busting, there would be a much higher amount of money for corporate political spending. Then we can talk political spending for both Corporations and Labor. Until then I think the FEC’s figures on money spent directly on political campaigns is the only fair way to appraise political spending. It gives a much different story about who is spending more money than Tapscott and NILRR.

By on

I use to worry more about election results because I thought that whoever won the election, now was responsible for governing. With age, comes wisdom. I now realize that elections might tip scales in favor of one party but there are so many institutions that a law must pass before it actually takes affect that it is nearly impossible for radical change to happen in the USA. At least not immediately.

This daunting process involves the House, the Senate, the President, and the Supreme Court. All of these processes may cause changes that require the law to start the whole process from the beginning. The filibuster, as one example, requires a super majority for passage in the Senate, and as we have all experienced in the past few years, it slows the process down considerably. Then there is the Federal System. Each individual states can make their own laws that can run counter to the federal law which then may have to go to the Supreme Court. It just isn’t easy to change things here.

The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, created so many road blocks to change that it is really difficult to get much worried about an election. Rarely does one party have safe control of all the levers of power to get what they want and, even if they did, the individual states would provide another barrier.

What about the January 6th coup? Yes, it is concerning but, interestingly, the system did work on January 6 even with a bat shit crazy President, the active participation of some members of Congress and right wing kooks storming the Congress. Despite all of that, Biden took office without much problem. Most active opposition to Biden taking office took place after he was safely in the White House. Enough Republicans did the right thing in January to ensure that Biden became president. Months later, they denied any participation but, by then, it was too late to change presidents. It was a craven bow to their angry voters but, in no way, something to worry about. And let’s be clear the Republican Establishment hates Donald Trump just as much as the Democratic Establishment. They aren’t interested in revolution as much as they want to keep their money safely hidden from the hands of the tax collector.

Both parties have a tendency to demonize the opposition party. If the Democrats win, socialism will follow. If the Republicans win, facism will follow. It never does though. Elections come and go but before much of anything can really happen, the system grinds through the process and comes up with some version of the change that the majority can live with.

Democracy, unlike revolutions, is a pretty boring process. It takes a lot of to and fro with different competing interests and it takes forever to get anything done, but, it is a much better path than revolution or civil war. I know it is difficult to deal with Republicans who, in my humble opinion, want to stand in the way of progress. They won’t listen to reason and are unwilling to make meaningful concessions.(Republicans undoubtedly think the same about me). But, then, imagine how much more difficult it will be if there is blood in the streets. Will the dead bodies of friends and relatives make it any easier.

The end is not nigh. The country is going through difficult times but the country is always going through difficult times. The Civil War, the Great Depression and World War II were all dangerous times and we weathered them all. Now is not the time for sword.

By on

A deranged man attacks Paul Pelosi with a hammer and Donald Trump Jr. thinks it is so funny that he suggests a perfect Halloween costume — a pair of men’s underwear and a hammer. I don’t know why so many conservatives are getting this wrong. This would have been a perfect time for Junior to say something like “we condemn all violent acts and wish Mr. Pelosi the best of health.” This would have been particularly advantageous because it would shown that at least one of the Trumps can take the high road. It would have countered some of the criticism that his father is receiving for encouraging political violence.

Instead Junior decided to rub it in. Why? There is absolutely nothing to be gained by being a dick in this situation and some advantage to being kind. The people who like Trump are going to still like him. The people who hate Trump are going to still hate Trump. But, for those few people who still haven’t made up their mind regarding Trump, it would be a chance to show some grace. Give the Trumps a different look. But, no, Junior couldn’t pass up a good joke.

And please don’t give me that the Democrats are just as bad. I disagree but for the sake of argument let’s say it is true. So what? Do you really want to defend yourself with a child’s tally of the bad behavior from your political opponents and say until our bad behavior tallies with the Democrats bad behavior tallies, we are going to act like a bunch of dicks? Wouldn’t your prefer to look better than them? I guess not.

For some reason, some Republicans think that Democrats are going to use this attack to their advantage. The Democrats might try but I really, and I am speaking as a Democrat here, can’t see how. Yes, there have been some comment about political violence but this is just a continuation of what they have been saying throughout the campaign. Also there have been some pretty smart Republicans who have condemned the attack while also pointing out the problem of urban violence. The rich aren’t even safe. Again, I disagree and thought they might have waited a few days to voice their concerns but it is kind to Mr. Pelosi and still driving home a legitimate political point. I don’t think anyone would have given the attack on Pelosi a second thought until a bunch of dicks started conspiracy theories and jokes. Now all bets are off.

By on

When last I was talking about Paul Pelosi, Greg Kelly, conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, speculated that Nancy Pelosi had someone attack her husband with a hammer to gain sympathy for the Democrats in the upcoming election. I am happy to say they have moved on. To another conspiracy theory. This conspiracy theory carried a little more heft as it was passed on by one of the richest men on earth — Elon Musk. This theory has Paul Pelosi galavanting at gay bars (he lives in San Francisco for Christ’s sake), and we all know Paul is a bit of a drinker (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), bringing home a hustler (more winks, more nudges) and later is attacked by said hustler.

What to say. First that one of the most powerful men on earth would choose to pass on unsubstantiated speculation speaks poorly of Musk. Given that he is about to take over Twitter with its huge social network, and that there is already criticism about how Musk might handle such power, now would have been an excellent time for him to show some restraint. Instead, he threw himself into spreading speculation without giving it a second thought. At this point, there is no evidence that Paul Pelosi was at a gay bar nor that his attacker was a hustler. What responsible person would pass on this unsubstantiated gossip? Apparently, Elon Musk.

Then, in this situation at least, Paul Pelosi is a victim of a crime. Even if it turns out that Musk’s gossip proves to be true, none of it matters, because someone hit Paul Pelosi in the head with a hammer. Nobody deserves that. Not if the person is gay, not if the person was hiring a hustler. Musk, very slyly, is blaming Pelosi for being attacked. Forget the hammer, why was he in a gay bar with a hustler. Neither of which is known to be true.

Contrary to current thinking, passing on gossip as truth is not some innocent act. Just because you hear information, doesn’t mean you need to pass it on. Now, if Musk was some neighborhood biddy passing along gossip, it would be bad enough, but he is, and he know he is, a very visible person. A lot of people listen to what he has to say. For him, to pass on gossip is unforgivable. He is clearly trying to undermine Nancy and Paul Pelosi. Why?

Right now all we know is that Pelosi was attacked and in the hospital. If people want to say anything, it should be to wish him a quick recovery. If you hate the Pelosi’s so much, and you can’t bring yourself to wish him well, then just keep your mouth shut. You aren’t required to say anything. Musk should try it more often. It would add to his mystery and certainly enhance his reputation more than the things he says.

By on

If you want to know why elections get so ugly, it is because undecided voters are so difficult to read. It could be almost anything. Hair color, a divorce, being sick, driving cross country with the dog on the roof of car, an affair, and a long list of wrong doings that rarely have anything to do with the national interest.

I get why Republicans are staying with their less than stellar candidates. If they were Democrats I would do exactly the same thing. If Hershel Walker was a Democrat and he was running against Ted Cruz, I would vote for Hershel Walker. It makes more sense to me to vote the party and not the person.

I can’t quite understand people who vote for the person and not the party. It may have made sense fifty years ago when independent thinking people could get elected to congress and would occasionally vote differently than the majority of their party. However, in these polarized times, why would I vote a person. An individual in Congress has little chance to affect policy or law making. Independent thinkers are so rare as to be extinct. If an individual is a member of the majority party, they have a slight chance to get something done. If an individual is in the minority, it is pretty much hopeless. Republicans have their agenda and Democrats have their agenda and never the twain will meet. This means I vote for the better party and not the better person.

Which brings me to the undecided voter, first, how can anyone be undecided at this point in an election. It boggles the mind. The Democrat position and the Republican position are so starkly different that I find it very difficult to believe that there are people are still dithering over who they will vote for. I can accept that you may be a Republican but an undecided voter. How can this be?

This is also, of course, why Hershel Walker’s craziness and John Fetterman’s health are important. Apparently, these are the considerations that guide the undecided voter. The parties are throwing spaghetti at the wall hoping something will stick with the undecided voter. Any muck will do because unknown voters are rogue. What is important to them is not important to the typical voter. But these are the very voters that each party needs to put them over the top in close elections.

Which bothers me. The undecided voter could shift one way or the other for most insignificant and obscure of reasons. I know a woman who voted for Trump because she didn’t like the way the Clintons handled Chelsea’s wedding. That is right Chelsea’s wedding became the deciding factor on who got her vote. It revealed to her Hillary Clinton’s true character and it appalled her. Now speaking as a Democrat, who voted for her at least twice but never was wild about her, I can say there are other better examples of why you would vote against Hillary Clinton. Decisions she made, positions she took, I can understand people voting against her for those reasons, this makes sense to me but Chelsea’s wedding? Who cares? Apparently, my friend.

This challenge is always going to be here in a democracy. People make their decisions they way they make decisions. And it is scary because it is so intangible, so unknown. What will get the undecided voter to vote my way?

By on

Early polling for the November elections look bad for the Democrats. The economy is suffering from inflation and the Democrats are in charge. They are going to get the blame. It is frustrating and familiar. I, also, can accept that.

If the Democrats must go down to defeat, let’s lose on issues that matter to the general population and avoid the trap the Republicans are setting with peripheral issues. Democrats should focus on abortion rights, gun control and health care. Issues they still can lose on, but issues that could pull in enough voters to win.

But to lose on Don’t Say Gay, Defund the Police or correct pronoun use would be senseless mistake.

I am gay. I see the importance of it being able to say gay in school. The Republicans didn’t frame it that way — they said we just don’t want sexuality being discussed in the classroom. Because Gov DeSantis cleverly eluded to not wanting to talk about trans or gay sex, opponents of the law came up with the slogan Don’t Say Gay. Which is exactly the chant DeSantis wants protesters saying. I expect most people would scratch their heads and ask why do they want to say Gay to a 2nd grader. This isn’t the impression we want to give. What we mean is if a 2nd Grader sees another kid with two Moms or two Dads that the teacher can give an explanation suitable for a 2nd Grader. There just isn’t an easy way to say something so nuanced in a slogan but I can assure you that Don’t Say Gay misses the mark.

The same complaint can be said for Defund the Police. When people hear that they think that you want to end all police protection. That isn’t it at all. Defund the Police is about moving resources to people who can better handle different situations. Police now are saddled with an array of responsibilities other than crime fighting. A lot of these problems would be better handled by mental health professionals or social workers. This would allow the police to focus on crime while also hopefully stopping these situations from getting violent. Try to make a slogan out of that. But Defund the Police isn’t it. If you have to constantly explain why you want to do away with the police, then your slogan is terrible, it is alienating potential voters and you should stop using it. Immediately.

This brings me to personal pronouns. When I first started reading about the pronoun issue I had no idea what people were talking about. What was a pronoun? I know I learned about them many years ago but, for the life of me, why were they creating such a fuss. After I reacquainted myself with what pronoun was, my first thought is why are we even talking about this. The first time someone introduced their pronouns along with their name to me, I was baffled. Why is she saying she/her after her name? Then I recalled that this was part of the new way to introduce yourself. You give your name and your personal pronouns. But is middle America actually buying this? Are they going to vote for a candidate that wants to put the proper use of person’s pronoun as a priority issue. Yes, people should honor people’s preferences on their pronouns, however is it worth losing an election over? I am emphatically no on this one.

In order to run government, political parties have to win elections. Given the political structure of the United States, this means getting votes across a large and diverse country. Now you may not like it. You may think the Electoral College and the Senate give too much power to smaller rural states and is unfair to larger urban states. I happen to agree with you. However the system is the system. It doesn’t change because you don’t like it. That means we have to live with it until we can change it. The only way to change the system is to win elections. This means biting your tongue when necessary in order to concentrate on the issues that will bring as many voters to your candidate as possible.

Political parties can choose which battles to fight. Just because Republicans are laying traps for the Democrats to fall in, doesn’t mean we have to be fooled. Let’s not go down to defeat over personal pronouns when we can focus on abortion or gun control or better health care. Issues we might be able to persuade enough voters to win. Losing this election, particularly at this dangerous time, is irresponsible and I am afraid that the Democrats might be doing that.