Tag Archives: Lincoln

America Nears El Tipping Pointo – With Ignorance

Standard

In a recent articles in both the Huffington Post and  Latina magazine online, Ann Coulter is highlighted as attacking hispanics.  You can read her entire musings here.  As always, Coulter  serves as the conservative right’s “in your face “attack dog”.   The fact that she’s considered pretty perhaps makes it easier (and more scary) for some to sit there and listen to her ignorant pronouncements; pronouncements that serve to stir the emotions of many on both sides.  We’ve all heard snippets likes “Our Blacks are so much better than their Blacks.”  Snippets meant to incite, meant to gain publicity, divide, and meant to get her paid.

Coulter does not care about this country.  She may argue differently, but ultimately, her words and rhetoric speak far louder.  She is paid to be hateful, something that she seems to enjoy doing when you watch her on conservative news programs. The sad part in all of this is that Coulter will often mix in “facts” without citing the sources; this means that more often than not, her facts are pure fiction. I continue to submit to those who bother to pay attention to her diatribes that rather than have an emotional reaction to her statements, it’s important to understand the purpose of the statements and dissect them appropriately.

I refer back to my November 17th blog where I critiqued and discussed the need for the Republican party to evolve and become more inclusive.  Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal have both moved forward in publicly decreeing the need for Republicans to move past this election cycle. These men along with the McCain women have noted that the party must diffuse  the perception that it cannot move past this election loss with grace and dignity.  The party itself has to take the long view to ensure its sustainability by no longer pandering to extremist. In fact, this notion was bolstered more so by Speaker of the House John Boehner’s decision to remove Tea Party Republicans from key financial committees in the House.

In fact, in spite of Coulter stating clearly on the Sean Hannity Show  that the Republicans should cave to Obama on the issue of taxes because “We lost the election“, she and the most conservative among the GOP can’t seem to let this election go.  So they write what they write without any real logic or reasoning…  just emotion.

And while that is good for rallying up the crazy crew, it provides no value or service to the citizens of this great union.  In fact, Coulter’s recent musings about Latinos is straight out of Lee Atwater’s 1981 Southern Strategy play book with respect to using her scribes to speak to her constituency in code.  The underlying message is that by 2024 “you” (Whites) will be the minority and that is a scary thing.  Why? Could it be because connected to that message is the subliminal and irrational fear that “they” may treat “us” like “we’ve” treated “them”?

Let’s take a moment and really look at what Ann Coulter is saying.  After all, she is no Rachel Maddow, when she talks, it’s more like verbal vomit and not necessarily factually based.

“What the youth vote shows is not that young people are nitwits who deserve lives of misery and joblessness, as I had previously believed, but that America is hitting the tipping point on our immigration policy.  The youth vote is a snapshot of elections to come if nothing is done to reverse the deluge of unskilled immigrants pouring into the country as a result of Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act.  Eighty-five percent of legal immigrants since 1968 have come from the Third World. A majority of them are in need of government assistance.”

  • Ok, let’s look at this. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was passed and we saw it’s implementation in effect by 1968.  This means in a 44 year period (1968-2012)  Coulter can’t speak to which ethnic groups have come here during that time?  Ms. Coulter said a majority of them are in need of government assistance but there are no facts as to how many received any assistance.  There is no data to support how many received assistance in 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998, or even 2008.    This matters because while Mexicans were Latin America’s largest immigrant group after the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, there was also an influx of Asian, African, and Middle Eastern immigrant groups as well.  However, Coulter speaks of no other immigrant group.  Why is that?
  • Further, according to data provided by the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, over 9/10 of “subsidies” go to the elderly, disabled, and working households. “Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households.  People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.” (Source: CBPP) So how much actually goes to immigrants?
  • Additionally, according to a 2008 article in Bloomberg Businessweek entitled, “Immigrants Are More Likely to Be Entrepreneurs”, there is conclusive evidence based on a survey of 2.054 companies, that immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs by establishing a small business niche in local communities.  50% of Silicon Valley engineers and tech startups were founded by immigrants in comparison to 25% nationally. “Now, a November 2008 study by Robert W. Fairlie, a professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, gives the strongest evidence to date that critics of open-immigration policies have misjudged the impact of immigrants on the U.S. economy.” (Source: Bloomberg Business Small Business, Immigrants are More Likely to Be Entrepreneurs-  on November 25, 2008)
  •  Coulter completely fails to define “third world”.  Are we talking third world in terms of political and civil rights? Or in terms of economics and the country’s Gross National Product (GNP)?  Or perhaps she defines third world in the context of human development, poverty, or freedom of the press.

This distinction matters.  It matters because  when you attack an ethnic group and set them up to essentially have to defend itself against lies and distortions, you need to be prepared to support your lies with facts.  While snippets and sound bites sell books and get you a place on television, the truth always comes to light. However, I suppose the ignorant and extremist will cling onto the mistaken notion that Hispanics and Latinos are the same. Immigrants from another country of origin who speak the same language, have babies out of wedlock, lacking in formal education or civility… Except we aren’t.  That’s like suggesting all eastern Europeans are essentially one in the same, especially if they share a common language.  Except, they aren’t.

“That profile has nothing to do with recent Hispanic immigrants, who — because of phony “family reunification” rules — are the poorest of the world’s poor.  More than half of all babies born to Hispanic women today are illegitimate. As Heather MacDonald has shown, the birthrate of Hispanic women is twice that of the rest of the population, and their unwed birthrate is one and a half times that of blacks.”

  • Again, facts are skewed and distorted.  Heather MacDonald’s 2006 article can be found here .  The fact is that she focuses on the Mexican population and uses the term “hispanic” interchangeably with Mexicans.  Additionally, the reasoning (fear) behind the MacDonald report is in part a concern for family values and structure but more importantly to bring home the notion of fear with respect to a White minority in America. “The dimensions of the Hispanic baby boom are startling. The Hispanic birthrate is twice as high as that of the rest of the American population. That high fertility rate—even more than unbounded levels of immigration—will fuel the rapid Hispanic population boom in the coming decades. By 2050, the Latino population will have tripled, the Census Bureau projects. One in four Americans will be Hispanic by mid-century, twice the current ratio. In states such as California and Texas, Hispanics will be in the clear majority. Nationally, whites will drop from near 70 percent of the total population in 2000 to just half by 2050. Hispanics will account for 46 percent of the nation’s added population over the next two decades, the Pew Hispanic Center reports.” (Source: Heather MacDonald – “Hispanic Family Values”, City Journal, Autumn 2006)

The reality is there are disparities among Latinos related to class, culture, politics, policy, and socioeconomic status. and immigration reform.  Similar to that of other immigrant groups who came here, including Germans, Polish, Jews, the Irish, the English, Italians, etc.  Things change with the passing of each generation.  For example, contrary to the claims of Coulter and MacDonald, a November 30, 2012 Pew Research Center study has shown that birth rates among Americans have in fact dropped with Latinas showing the largest decline.

Coulter claims that by 2024, America will have a white minority.  It is inevitable.  And not something to fear.  The factors that will bring about this reality aren’t just a growing Latino population, but an increase in multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-racial relationships that have produced non-White babies, including Barack Obama and my own child.  By in large, many of these households consider themselves progressive households because at their core, their relationships have been considered “progressive” in a society that so long been seeped in institutionalizing racism.

Ms. Coulter, in your article, you skew your facts in order to form a more perfect distortion that Obama won because the majority of our fellow Americans voted for him.  Now it is time for you and your extreme right to consider working with the party moderates to determine how to better at engage the party and diversify the membership. Again, as you acknowledged on Sean Hannity’s show, “We lost the election, Sean.” So get over it and move on with it.

Until then, this married with one child American born legal Latina with a Master’s degree thanks you for the amusing chuckles you provide and the opportunity to respond with data to your insidious claims.

Respectfully,

Akilah Rosado-McQueen

The Death of the G.O.P… And the Rise of the Dems…

Standard

So we’ve survived this last round of presidential elections and I managed to only discuss it in the Twitterverse.  Then Romney and Ryan and the other annoying “r” guy… Rove, began their assault on the voting public due to their failure to acquire a win.  There are some significant lessons to be learned here for Democrats and Republicans alike.

But first, a little history… In 1991, at the tender age of 18, I registered as a Republican for my first election.  Why? Well, it was contrary to my parents political views and I did believe it to be the original party of Lincoln.  Parenthetically, based on the cheesy films I was exposed to in the ’80’s, I also thought it was the party of rich people and by being one, I’d somehow be rich.  That never happened.  Ultimately, William Jefferson Clinton happened to me and I was wooed over to declare my status as a Democrat where I have remained since, firmly aligned with core democratic values and principles.  But I digress.

It is worth noting that Ronald Reagan began his career as a Democrat and later switched to the Republican party. (Under the Republican party he served as Governor of California and ultimately succeeded Jimmy Carter as President of the United States.) While I began as a Republican, I associated myself as a Republican with liberal leanings, who was very concerned with social issues and ensuring that all people had basic needs met, without necessarily having big government.  In short, I was and continue to be at heart, a Lincoln Republican. This context is relevant because as a voter who is (1) female, (2) a child of social and political activist, (3) Caribbean descent (specifically Puerto Rican and Barbadian), and (4) politically astute, I am not your typical run of the mill voted down the ticket voter.  I vote and have voted across party lines.  I stay informed on current and historical trends.  I live and love politics and believe in our government and leadership.  I’ve read the constitution, the bill of rights.  In short, I am a true Lincoln Republican/moderate Democrat.

But the reality is that party of Lincoln no longer exists.  And Reagan Republicans have been forced out of the Republican party because they are too moderate and/or liberal in their leanings to be accepted.  Even Senator John McCain’s daughter and wife have advised Republicans to evolve or die.  And while many liberals  and conservative, extreme leftist and right wingers don’t care if the Republicans evolve or not, I do.  I care about those who have been left out of the political process because they don’t fit an either/or category.  I care that it is in the interest of the citizens of this country to have at minimum a two-party system (if not a multi-party system) which, focuses more on policies than rhetoric.  Americans should have a real opportunity to choose the best leaders to represent us, not least bad of two.  And more importantly, I care where those votes will go over the next four years, in 2016, and beyond.

So, where does that leave us?

With a Democratic party that was against the ropes in 2010 and rebounded thanks to a sect of extreme right-wing social conservatives that managed to hold hostage the Republican party.  And with GOPers became weak-kneed and scared that folks like the Tea Party Movement (note movement, not party) had somehow created a large and concentrated base that required pandering to.  Everyone jumped on that fascist band wagon and Republicans moved from the middle to the far right in order to show an essentially racist coalition, that they were on their side.  In 2010, the Dems were reeling from a butt kicking, the GOP is now in the same boat.

2008 brought back the Lee Atwater Southern Republican strategy (a la Karl Rove per Reagan) to scare the crap out of White Americans regarding African Americans.  They increased their efforts around utilizing  “code words” to speak to those fears publicly and institutionally in the hallowed halls of government.  And it was this particular strategy, the Atwater strategy, that Romney and Ryan employed in this election.  Only we saw it.  We knew.  And, as Americans (with a slim majority 50.6% vs 47.8%) we did not find it acceptable.  This election was a fight about the soul of America; who we are and what we represent.

Let me be clear (and I say this as an Obama supporter) I agree with my good friend, Obama would not have won had Romney stayed true to his core moderate Republican roots and base.  Had Romney remained centered and not pandered to the racist and extremist base as he did, women, liberals, Latinos (who are a diverse and disparate voting bloc), independents, and those who were disappointed in his performance would not have voted for Obama.  But instead, Romney’s inconsistencies, his rhetoric, along with those of Fox News idiots, and the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world ensured an Obama win through their Atwater-ish stupidity. And even now they continue.

The GOP need to realize, people by in large did not vote for Obama per se. They voted to reject the GOP’s message and proposed policies.  They voted to send a message to the party that while they were pissed off at Obama in 2010, they are thoroughly disgusted with the direction that the party has gone in 2012.  Marco Rubio is changing his stance (passively), Bobby Jindal is back to opening his mouth after being silenced by his party,  and other prominent Republican leaders are suggesting that the party reflect and regroup (via a proctology exam).

The GOP as is should die.  The level of hate and racism emitting from the party’s leadership and its pundits is divisive and horrible for this country.  As Meghan McCain stated in her Tweet, it must evolve, it must reflect the growing diversity that is America, it must embrace its roots as the party of Lincoln, it must review in great detail, it’s decision to move so far to the right and those implications. OR it should embrace it’s current extreme configuration with aplomb.  And if they do, those with any basic sense and love for this country, should create a nationally recognized 3rd party that holds true the core principles of the Republicans while ensuring its evolution.

And my fellow Dems should take heed. We should not pat ourselves on our collective backs or rest on our laurels.  People, throughout this nation, are pissed off and disenfranchised with their political leadership.  From local state races to major national races, the people are getting tired of the bullshit.  And they should.  With social media being utilized to share information and call out mis-information, we have a more sophisticated constituency who seeks results and accountability of its leadership.  Obama won by 2.8%.  That isn’t much and it is a message for those in either party willing to listen.  While the GOP is licking it’s wounds, now is the time to batten down the hatches, take a good look at ourselves, and make sure that the next election (when the campaign begins in roughly 2.5) we can give the voting public a clear reason why they should continue to let us represent them. Because the jury on that is still out.  And there is enough time to rebuild a  party or create a New Republican Party…

The slow death of democracy…

Standard

Lincoln once said, “‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” And my experience of the average American voter is that we can be a bit fickle and forgetful, so I suppose that quote is fitting. Politicians have to be experienced in something, typically it is the propensity to be charming and a capacity to ‘woo’ people. If they have a modicum of intelligence, then that is a great combination that is hard to beat. Some start off to really be of service their community, they want to do better, economic development, workforce development and resources, lower child asthma and mortality rates, provide care and services to struggling families, bring hope and inspire… heck, its great to get paid to try to help and save. I can’t knock it and once toyed with the idea of running myself. But there is another side of the political game that many voters don’t get to see. That is what is commonly referred to as the backroom deals. I can’t say it doesn’t happen. It does, on occasion, by some.

Bloomberg ran on a platform of reform. He went from being a Democrat, to a Republican, to an Independent. It strikes me as being inconsistent and a bit fickle. Now, I was a Republican once, this was in college, I was 18 and wanted to be the polar opposite of my father. I voted for Clinton in the first election I was eligible to vote in and have been a card carrying Democrat ever since. That doesn’t mean I agree with my party consistently, quite the contrary, I don’t. But that is what makes me a good democrat, I think, when I can question the actions, motives, and decisions that my party engages in.

As a native New Yorker, I haven’t seen Bloomberg do that. I have seen, during his tenure, the elimination of real parent advocacy in the public school system (its hard to advocate for your children in the public school system, so I went private), I have seen an over the top (and overblown) pro-developer, pro-landlord, pro-wealthy agenda under the Bloomberg administration. I have seen the isolation of both the middle class and of those that don’t quite meet the poverty line but are damn close. I have seen the schools run like businesses under the guise of performance management with the wrong measures/metrics and a complete lack of understanding around what results they are trying to produce in the school system for the kids, teachers, etc… its a recipes for disaster. As a woman who has worked in government all her life, gets paid as a consultant to do performance management and leadership development in the public sector, and teachers organizational leadership for public employees, I saying, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, especially when the middle class tends to be what stabilizes most economies. Sure, it makes sense to drive the middle class out…

So, it is not big surprise that the Bloomberg legislation would pass the City Council. It would not have been introduced or put before the Council without the votes. The undecided knew in general which way they were leaning. So what does that mean today?

Well, other than being deeply disappointed in Speaker Quinn, it means that during the Mayor’s remaining tenure, he should put in front of the the people, the citizens, you know, the customer, what he plans to do to get NY’s economy stabilized for the next 13 months. He should also explain why, with his financial savvy, he made decisions to nearly triple our debt while failing to see the collapse of the markets. Bloomberg should also pledge to cease running for another term if the economic begins to stabilize itself, since this is his primary argument for seeking another term.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Mayor hasn’t been such a whiz at ensuring the health of our economy. I have cited this article before but on October 16, 2008, editorial board member Jason L. Riley wrote, “But the argument for extending the two-term limit for Mr. Bloomberg — a self-made billionaire who got his start on Wall Street — is that the city needs someone with his financial acumen to help weather the fallout from the banking crisis. The biggest problem with that argument is that Mr. Bloomberg hasn’t been very adept at managing the city’s finances, even though he’s had record revenues to work with.

Between 2000 and 2007, New York’s tax receipts grew by 41% after inflation. “That’s something that’s never happened or come close to happening in the city’s modern history,” says Nicole Gelinas, who follows municipal finance at the Manhattan Institute. This windfall had everything to do with the Wall Street bull market, and everyone knew that the rate of growth was unsustainable. Instead of using the flush-year surpluses to put New York’s fiscal house in order, however, Mr. Bloomberg mostly squandered them.

The four big costs to New York’s budget are Medicaid, pensions, debt and health care for public employees. Since the mayor took office seven years ago, those costs are up 57% after inflation. His handling of the city’s debt is particularly disappointing, if not irresponsible, since debt-service payments are legal obligations that can’t be suspended during economic slowdowns.

Since 1990, debt per person in New York is up by 185%, exceeding inflation by 118 percentage points and exceeding tax revenue growth by 27 percentage points. By most measures, New York has higher per-capita debt (about $7,000) than any other city in the nation. And while the problem obviously predates the current mayor, the future burden has worsened substantially on his watch.

Instead of cutting other parts of the budget and using the city’s swollen coffers to service debt and pay for capital projects out of operating spending, Mr. Bloomberg chose to increase borrowing. Between 2000 and 2007, debt grew by 5.7% annually and will continue to grow by 5.9% annually over the next four years. By increasing the city’s debt obligations while doing nothing to decrease the city’s overdependence on income tax revenue from Wall Street wages and bonuses, Mr. Bloomberg has exacerbated a bad situation.

The mayor’s spending record isn’t much better. Between 1975, when New York faced its last fiscal crisis, and the Giuliani era, city spending rose by just 9% after adjusting for inflation and population growth. Mr. Bloomberg’s 2008 budget is nearly 50% larger than the one he inherited from Mr. Giuliani in 2001. That far outpaces inflation, which rose 21% over the same period. Nor has the mayor shown any sustained interest in working with the state to reform a Medicaid system that costs the city $6 billion per year and is rife with waste and abuse. New York state’s per-capita Medicaid spending is easily the highest in the U.S.”

I would like the Mayor to answer the charges in this article. I would not and could not in good conscious cast my vote for Bloomberg based on this information. If the economy is indeed the reason why he says New Yorkers need to have a choice to vote for him, then let’s look at his record. I plan to begin my research and urge voters to do the same. Of the three candidates running for Mayor, Congressman Anthony Weiner, Comptroller Bill Thompson, and Mayor Mike Bloomberg… who adds up and who does not? This is how you ensure the viability of democracy.