Statement By The Family Of Alex Pretti

 

Most Think It's Too Expensive To Have Children In The U.S.

 

The charts above are from the 2025 American Family Survey -- done between August 6th and 18th of a nationwide sample of 3,000 adults, with a 2.1 point margin of error.

U.S. Public Supports Liberal Policies For Families

 

These charts are from a YouGov Poll -- done between February 6th and 10th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Public Agrees With Democratic Efforts To Help Families

The charts above are from the recent Morning Consult Poll -- done on July 19th and 20th of a nationwide sample of 2,210 adults, with a 2 point margin of error.

23% Of Workers Pay 50% Or More Of Income For Housing

The chart above is from the Pew Research Center. It shows a big (and growing) problem in the United States -- too many Americans have to pay too much of their income for Housing. Nearly a quarter of U. S. families (23%) pay 50% or more of their income for Housing, and another 8% pay more than 40% of their income. That is not sustainable, especially since these people are mainly in the lower income portion of workers. Having to pay so much for housing leaves very little for other necessities (food, clothing, school, etc.). Congress needs to address the shortage of affordable housing in this country.

Politicians Claim To Love Children/Families - But They Don't

 Our politicians claim to love and support children and families. But sadly, their actions (or rather inaction) shows otherwise. The United States ranks a pitiful 40th among rich countries in child care. While other developed nations have policies to help children and families, the United States would rather protect the rich and super-rich.

The following is part of an op-ed by E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post:

Our society claims to love children, admire parents and revere the family. But our public policies send the opposite message.

A June 2021 UNICEF report on where rich countries stand on child care found that the United States ranked 40th. . . .

Unlike every other well-off democracy, the United States has “never adapted to the needs of families in today’s labor market and economy,” said Olivia Golden, executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy. “We’ve never responded to so many women with young children being in the workforce.”

It’s hard to think of work more important to a society’s long-term well-being and prosperity than raising children. Yet the market economy values work outside the home that produces goods, services and profits far more than the work of parenting. While parenting’s value is, well, infinite, it goes largely unmeasured in our gross domestic product. . . .

Child care is often cast as a “women’s issue,” which it is, since our society continues to place the largest parenting responsibilities on women. But it should also be seen as a family issue and an economic issue.

No one can claim to be “pro-family” without being willing to deal with the stresses the modern economy places on family life. In Europe, effective child-care policies have been championed not only by Social Democrats, in keeping with their long history of egalitarianism, but also by Christian Democrats and other moderately conservative parties concerned with strengthening the family.

Adjusting the work-family balance is also good politics, as research by Kimberly J. Morgan, a political scientist at George Washington University, has shown.

It was a coalition of the social democratic Labor Party and the Christian Democrats, Morgan writes, that instituted “the first major shift in Dutch work-family policy” in 1989, while in Germany, former chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats “grabbed the limelight in tackling the country’s inadequate work-family policy regime,” on her own and during her party’s recent coalitions with Social Democrats.

Republicans who talk a lot about the family — and would like Americans to see their party once again as operating on the responsible center-right — might consider learning from their European counterparts.

Economic interest is at stake as well, since future prosperity depends on a growing labor force. . . .

Despite recent job gains, women are still down a net 1.4 million jobs since February 2020, the National Women’s Law Center reported this month.

Our country needs a sensible family policy. That’s why child care, universal pre-K, family leave and an expanded child tax credit were central components of President Biden’s Build Back Better plan. But our debate last year about his proposal rarely got to the merits. It focused instead on the overall size of the plan, what package might get 60 votes in the Senate, and how the resulting legislative train wreck would affect Biden’s poll ratings and the November elections. . . .

There is still time before this Congress closes its books to do something significant for parents and kids, even if it’s not all that Biden wanted. Is it too much to ask politicians of various ideological orientations to align their glowing tributes to family life with the world in which families actually live — and struggle?

And have we entirely forgotten the gratitude we expressed during the pandemic’s worst moments for “essential workers”? They’re the people in our labor force who face some of the toughest work-family challenges.

Repeat it a few times: “We’re Number 40!”

How Biden's $3.5 Trillion Infrastructure Bill Would Help

 

President Biden has proposed a $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill to help families. The total the bill spends is spread over 10 years, and would be paid for (so it wouldn't add to the deficit). Every single Republican in Congress is opposing the president's bill. That's not surprising, since the GOP is only interested in helping the rich and corporations -- not everyday Americans.

Here, from Robert Reich, is a short summary of what the bill would do:

Right now, Democrats are working to pass a $3.5 trillion package that will provide long overdue help for working Americans.

The final bill hasn’t yet been determined, so we don’t know the exact dollar amounts for all its policies. We’ll probably find that out in late September or early October. For now, the Democrats’ budget resolution frames what’s in the bill.  

First, on families:

The bill would make permanent key benefits for working families, including the expanded child tax credit in the pandemic relief plan that sends families up to $300 per child each month but is now set to expire in December, and is estimated to cut child poverty by half. 

It would also establish universal child care, for which low- and middle-income households would pay no more than 7 percent of their incomes. 

And provide a national program of paid leave — worth up to $4,000 a month — for workers who take time off because they are ill or caring for a relative.

Next, on education:

The bill would reduce educational inequality by establishing universal pre-K for all 3- and 4-year-olds, benefiting an estimated 5 million children, and providing tuition-free community college – essentially expanding free public education from 12 years to 16 years. 

It will also invest in historically Black colleges and universities and increase the maximum amount of Pell grants for students from lower-income families. 

On health care:

The bill expands Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing benefits and lowers the eligibility age. It also expands Medicaid to cover people living in the 12 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid, and makes critical investments to improve healthcare for people of color. 

The big question is how far it will go to reduce prescription drug prices by, for example, allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies. That could reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending, and free up more money for other parts of the bill. But Big Pharma is dead-set against this.

Big corporations and the rich picking up the tab:

In another step toward fairness, all of these are to be financed by higher taxes on the rich and big corporations. 

The bill would also increase the Internal Revenue Service’s funding so the agency can properly audit wealthy tax cheats, who fail to report about a fifth of their income every year, thereby costing the government $105 billion annually. 

In addition, the bill tackles the climate crisis, which also especially burdens lower-income Americans: 

There are a range of solutions – subsidizing the use of solar, wind, nuclear and other forms of clean energy while financially penalizing the use of dirty energy like coal; helping families pay for electric cars and energy-efficient homes. 

The bill might include something known as a carbon border adjustment tax — a tax on imports whose production was carbon-intensive, like many from China.

The bill would also establish a Civilian Climate Corps, and invest in communities that bear the brunt of the climate crisis.

And the bill helps American workers:

It will hopefully contain much of the PRO Act, the toughest labor law reform in a generation. 

Finally, the bill includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
This is all about making America fairer. 

Remember: we won’t know the exact details of the bill for at least a month, but these are the main areas that it will focus on. The big challenge will be ensuring Senate Democrats remain united to get it passed. All of us will need to fight like hell.

Don’t listen to spending hawks who claim it’s too expensive or too radical. For far too long, our government has ignored the needs of everyday Americans, catering instead to the demands of corporations and the super-rich. No more. 

It’s time to get this landmark bill passed and build a fairer America.

Voters Support Using Reconciliation To Pass Biden's Plans

President Biden has introduced two plans to make life better for most Americans -- the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan. Those plans would rebuild our infrastructure, create jobs, provide for affordable child care, and do some other things to help ordinary Americans.

Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell has declared both plans to be dead in the Senate. He has urged his party members to vote against any effort to cut off the filibuster on both plans. But if he thinks that is earning his party the support of the general public, he is very wrong.

The public knows it is the Republicans holding up both plans, and they support Democrats using the reconciliation process to pass the plans without Republican help. 56% of voters would support that while only 34% oppose it.

The Data for Progress Poll questioned 1,175 likely voters between June 11th to 15th, and their poll had a 3 point margin of error.

Too Many Families Are Living On Too Little Income In U.S.

The charts above are from The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. They were contained in a May 2018 report titled Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017. It shows far too many U.S. families struggle to keep their heads above water in this country.

The top chart shows the percentages of families that make certain income levels. Note that 27% of all families make less than $25,000 a year. That's more than a quarter of all families. And anyone who thinks that $25,000 is an adequate income for a family doesn't have to live on that amount. That income would put a family of four below the official poverty level.

And it gets worse. About 38% of families make less than $40,000 a year, and 46% make less than $50,000 a year. That's nearly half of all families. And the median family income is slightly over $59,000 a year. That's $9,000 more than 46% of American families make.

THIS IS INEXCUSABLE IN THE RICHEST NATION ON EARTH!

The second chart shows 41% of families could not pay for a $400 emergency without borrowing or selling some possessions. They are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and wouldn't have the money to meet that $400 emergency. And $400 is not an excessive amount, since many emergencies (car repair, home repair, medical emergency, etc.) can easily surpass $400.

When the Republicans passed their tax cut, they promised workers would get an average raise of $4,000 a year, and a massive number of good-paying jobs would be created. Neither happened. Wages remained basically stagnant while the rich fattened their bank accounts substantially. It was another in a long line of failures for the Republican's "trickle-down" economic theory. Giving more to the rich does not benefit everyone (and never has).

It's time to stop worrying about the rich. They are doing very well. It's time to take action that will help the workers in this country. There are many things that could be done (once the Republicans are voted out of power). I suggest we could start by:

1. Raise the minimum wage substantially. This would lift many families out of poverty. It would also put upward pressure on the wages of those making more, And it would even benefit businesses, since millions of people would have more money to spend on their products.

2. Make it easier for workers to join unions. And work to eliminate "right-to-work" laws (which are just really anti-union laws).

3. Stop rewarding companies that export good American jobs with tax cuts.

Wages should not be so low that they force families to struggle. Those willing to work should be fairly reimbursed. Anything less is immoral -- and it's bad economic policy.

Nearly Half Of U.S. Families Struggle To Afford Basic Needs

( This map is from unitedwayalice.org.)

The unemployment rate is at a several year low, but that doesn't mean life is great for all U.S. families. Far too many of them struggle to meet the basic needs (like rent and food). That's because a huge sector of the people working at full-time jobs are not paid a livable wage. Sadly, this is not going to be fixed by the Republicans, who control the Congress and the White House. They support giving more to the rich (as their recent tax reform showed), but absolutely refuse to raise the minimum wage (which is still $7.25 an hour in most of this country), or do anything else to help most Americans.

Consider this article by Tami Luhby at CNN Money:

Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a studyreleased Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States.

The figure includes the 16.1 million households living in poverty, as well as the 34.7 million families that the United Way has dubbed ALICE -- Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. This group makes less than what's needed "to survive in the modern economy."

"Despite seemingly positive economic signs, the ALICE data shows that financial hardship is still a pervasive problem," said Stephanie Hoopes, the project's director.

California, New Mexico and Hawaii have the largest share of struggling families, at 49% each. North Dakota has the lowest at 32%.

Many of these folks are the nation's child care workers, home health aides, office assistants and store clerks, who work low-paying jobs and have little savings, the study noted. Some 66% of jobs in the US pay less than $20 an hour.

Trump Lied About Contacting Gold Star Families

(Cartoon image is by Dave Granlund at davegranlund.com.)

It will probably come as no surprise to most of you, but Donald Trump was lying when he said he had contacted most or all of the families of soldiers slain on his watch. Consider this article by John Donnelly in Roll Call -- part of which is posted below:

In the hours after President Donald Trump said on an Oct. 17 radio broadcast that he had contacted nearly every family that had lost a military servicemember this year, the White House was hustling to learn from the Pentagon the identities and contact information for those families, according to an internal Defense Department email.

The email exchange, which has not been previously reported, shows that senior White House aides were aware on the day the president made the statement that it was not accurate — but that they should try to make it accurate as soon as possible, given the gathering controversy.

Not only had the president not contacted virtually all the families of military personnel killed this year, the White House did not even have an up-to-date list of those who had been killed.

The exchange between the White House and the Defense secretary’s office occurred about 5 p.m. on Oct. 17. The White House asked the Pentagon for information about surviving family members of all servicemembers killed after Trump’s inauguration so that the president could be sure to contact all of them.

Capt. Hallock Mohler, the executive secretary to Defense Secretary James Mattis, provided the White House with information in the 5 p.m. email about how each servicemember had died and the identity of his or her survivors, including phone numbers.

The email’s subject line was, “Condolence Letters Since 20 January 2017.”

Mohler indicated in the email that he was responding to a request from the president’s staff for information through Ylber Bajraktari, an aide on the National Security Council. The objective was to figure out who among so-called Gold Star families of the fallen Trump had yet to call. Mohler’s email said that the president’s aides “reached out to Ylber looking for the following ASAP from DOD.”

Trump had said in a Fox News Radio interview earlier that day that he had contacted the families of “virtually everybody” in the military who had been killed since he was inaugurated.

“I have called, I believe, everybody — but certainly I’ll use the word virtually everybody,” Trump said.

Since then, the Associated Press contacted 20 families and found that half had not heard from Trump. It is not clear how many of the families that have heard from the president received the calls this week, since the controversy over his contacts with military families erupted. It is not clear when the White House first asked for data on Gold Star families, but it is clear that the answers had not been provided before Tuesday. . . .

The White House-Pentagon email scramble Tuesday undermines the veracity of Trump’s statement about his record of contacting all Gold Star families. The internal document also sheds light on how the White House staff, on this and other occasions, has had to go into damage-control mode when the president makes inaccurate statements.

"This Guy Has The Empathy Of A Cockroach"

(This caricature of "patriot" Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

Donald Trump has made a joke of demonstrating for equality recently, posing as a great patriot by denigrating those who kneel during the anthem. It has nothing to do with patriotism though -- just an effort to change the subject and make himself look good. He doesn't realize that standing for the anthem doesn't show patriotism -- supporting and defending the Constitution does.

But Trump doesn't really care about supporting our troops or their families. He demonstrated that when he attacked the Khans (a Gold Star family) during the 2016 campaign.

And like a leopard, he doesn't seem to be able to change his "spots". Four American soldiers were ambushed and killed in Niger. Two weeks later, Trump had not tweeted a word about that, and even worse, had not contacted the families of those soldiers.

When asked about that by the press, Trump immediately tried to pass the blame for his inaction by saying that previous presidents had not called the families of fallen soldiers. That was exposed as an outrageous lie by members of both the Bush II and Obama administrations. Both of those presidents contacted the Gold Star families and showed respect and caring for the soldiers and their families.

Trump also said he had contacted all of the families of fallen soldiers. That was also exposed as a lie, as members of several families said Trump had not contacted them in any form.

It turns out that actually may have been for the best. When Trump contacted the wife of Army Sgt. La David Johnson, he commented that the soldier "knew what he signed up for". He was supposed to be consoling the family on behalf of the nation -- not chiding them. His unfeeling comment was reported by Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida), who was with the widow when Trump called.

Trump could have apologized for his uncaring behavior, but his rampant narcissism won't let him do that (or ever admit he's made a mistake). Instead, he resorted to his favorite tactic -- LYING. he claimed he never said that. But the mother  of Sgt. Johnson backed up Rep. Wilson, and said, Trump "did disrespect my son and my daughter and also me and my husband".

Trump's behavior shames himself and our nation -- and certainly is not proper behavior for a president. Phil Mudd, former director of the CIA's CounterTerrorist Center, puts it best when he said:

This guy has the empathy of a cockroach. From the day after his inauguration when he showed up at my former agency, the CIA, in front of the wall of fallen heroes, and spoke about the size of his inauguration. Fast-forwarding now nine months, and he can’t figure out his responsibility not only as the Commander-in-Chief, but as the consoler-in-chief.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Speaks Out On Presidential Race

Many people have spoken out about Donald Trump's anti-muslim bias, and his attacks of a Gold Star family who are  muslims. But one of the best responses I've read was written for Time magazine by former NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Photo by Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images for Yahoo News).

Here is what he had to say:

Khizr Khan’s impassioned speech last week at the Democratic National Convention about the heroics of his Muslim-American son didn’t just shame Donald Trump’s crude lack of American values—it reminded us of a quaint concept that we haven’t paid too much attention to lately: sacrifice. Since John F. Kennedy in his 1961 inaugural speech encouraged Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” we haven’t really had much of a national discussion about the role sacrifice plays in maintaining a free society.

Mr. Khan reminded us of that noble ideal when he talked about his son, Army Capt. Humayun S.M. Khan, a Muslim-American who sacrificed his own life in Iraq in 2004 to save other soldiers. Mr. Khan, of Pakistani heritage, had moved to the U.S. in the 1970s for “freedom and opportunity,” the two ideals that Americans feel proudest of providing. Mr. Khan told us that had it been up to Trump, his son never would have been permitted into the country.

“Have you ever been to Arlington cemetery?” he said directly to Trump.“Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America. You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.” Mr. Khan’s passion for justice was contagious, but his story of sacrifice was as inspiring as JFK’s call to action. Days after Mr. Khan brandished his pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution, that same edition became the number two bestseller on Amazon (behind the new Harry Potter book), 80,000 copies were downloaded through the American Civil Liberties Union and views of the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution increased by 16 percent. Mr. Khan had made the U.S. Constitution hip again.

The Khan family’s national presence couldn’t have come at a better time for America—and for me personally.

Although I have been politically active for most of my life, especially in civil rights, this year’s Democratic National Convention was my first. I was excited to contribute, but a part of me had been disheartened in the months leading up to the convention. I had begun to feel like America was trapped in a nightmarish Alien sequel, with Donald Trump starring as the toothy creature who feeds on America’s insides until bloated with our vital organs, ultimately destroying the host.

Much of my dystopian despair was the result of watching the Republican National Convention. I observed with shock and embarrassment mobs of people rally behind a man who gazes out at America with eyes, as Yeats put it, “as blank and pitiless as the sun.” My anguish wasn’t a left wing-right wing thing or blind loyalty to a particular party. It was a patriotic thing. I liked to believe that these conventions were about groups coming together to create a platform that reflected us striving to be our best selves—our most humane, most “American” selves. We would discuss how we could go forth in the coming four years applying the principles of the U.S. Constitution by choosing a person to champion those principles. Instead, I was standing by watching in HD clarity while reasoned loyalty was being set ablaze by combustive rhetoric, as if it were a witch being burned at the stake.

So when I arrived at the DNC, I worried that this going to be just another exercise in preaching to the choir. The lines had been drawn, the sides already chosen. However, I met so many enthusiastic and hopeful people who were dedicated to bringing about their vision of a diverse and inclusive American society that I couldn’t help but get caught up in their enthusiasm. No one was talking about who we hate, who we should blame, who we should exclude, who we should punish. They were talking about justice, freedom, and opportunity. All of that was well and good, but I couldn’t shake the knowledge that a whole lot of Americans supported the man who contradicted a whole lot of American values.

But all that apprehension fell away as soon as I heard Khizr Khan speak.

Whatever doubts, depression, or disgust I felt before were washed away by Mr. Khan. I realized that Capt. Khan’s sacrifice—as well as the sacrifices made by so many others to protect our Constitution—demanded that we don’t indulge in lazy melancholy or hipster cynicism, but work twice as hard to make sure those sacrifices are not in vain. The day after Mr. Khan’s speech, Trump responded in the typical non-sequitur fashion: “I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices… I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I’ve done, I’ve had tremendous success.”

So, my first time attending the DNC changed me. But the Khan family and other courageous people have rejuvenated and invigorated me for the fight ahead. Because it’s a fight that must be won. No matter the sacrifice.

Donald Trump makes A Huge Mistake - Again

(Caricature of "The Donald" is by DonkeyHotey.)

Donald Trump has stepped in it again, and it doesn't look like the stink will go away anytime soon. By attacking khazir and Ghazala Khan, the parents of a U.S. Army Captain who gave his life in Iraq saving his comrades (receiving a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart), Trump has earned the ire of nearly everyone. That includes the VFW (normally partial to GOP candidates), Gold Star families, and even his fellow Republicans. Here are what they had to say about Trump's inexcusable statements:

Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)

“Election year or not, the VFW will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression.” 

“There are certain sacrosanct subjects that no amount of wordsmithing can repair once crossed. Giving one’s life to nation is the greatest sacrifice, followed closely by all Gold Star families, who have a right to make their voices heard.”

17 Gold Star Families

You recent comments regarding the Khan family were repugnant, and personally offensive to us. When you question a mother's pain, by implying that her religion, not her grief, kept her from addressing an arena of people, you are attacking us. When you say your job building buildings is akin to our sacrifice, you are attacking our sacrifice.

You are not just attacking us, you are cheapening the sacrifice made by those we lost.

Senator John McCain

 "While our party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us."

"I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump’s statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers or candidates."

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

"All Americans should value the patriotic service of the patriots who volunteer to selflessly defend us in the armed services. And as I have long made clear, I agree with the Khans and families across the country that a travel ban on all members of a religion is simply contrary to American values."

Speaker Paul Ryan

"America's greatness is built on the principles of liberty and preserved by the men and women who wear the uniform to defend it. As I have said on numerous occasions, a religious test for entering our country is not reflective of these fundamental values. I reject it.

"Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military and made the ultimate sacrifice. Capt. Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period."

Senator Sue Collins

"No one should criticize grieving parents who have lost a son in combat. Capt. Khan was an American hero."

Senator Lindsey Graham

"If you're going to be leader of the free world, you have to be able to accept criticism. Mr. Trump can't. The problem is, 'unacceptable' doesn't even begin to describe it." 

The smart thing would be for Trump to apologize to the Khans, all Gold Star families, and all Americans. But Trump's huge ego (i.e., narcissism) won't allow him to do that. He never apologizes, even when it would be the best thing to do.

Do we really want this fool to become president?

Supreme Court Allows Mean-Spirited Injunction To Stand

(Photo of current Supreme Court is from nbcnews.com.)

We just got a sad reminder of why the Supreme Court needs all nine justices yesterday. And since the Republican Senate refuses to give President Obama's nominee (Merrick Garland) a hearing or a vote, it becomes important that our next president (who will fill the current vacancy) be a Democrat (Hillary Clinton).

In 2014, President Obama issued two executive orders. The first was DAPA (Deferred Action for the Parents of Americans). The second was DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) -- an expansion of the Dream Act. But before either program could go into effect, some right-wing Republicans took the matter to court. They got an injunction to stop both orders from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (one of the most conservative appeals courts, located in New Orleans).

President Obama appealed that injunction to the United States Supreme Court. On Thursday, the Court said they were in a 4 to 4 tie -- which means the lower court injunction will stand (at least for now). It's possible that the matter could again go to the Supreme Court after they get a full compliment of nine justices. But for now, this non-decision means that immigrant families can be torn apart -- with immigrant parents being separated from their American citizen children and deported. It also means that some immigrants who came as a child, and have grown up in this country, could be deported to a country they have little or no knowledge of.

The crazy part is that a substantial majority of Americans support both DAPA and the Dream Act. That's what the Public Religion Research Institute found in a survey. About 73% support DAPA and 66% support the Dream Act -- and that approval of both spans all demographic groups (including Republicans).

Americans Prefer The Clinton Family Over The Bush Family - And Hillary Over Jeb

If Hillary Clinton were to win the 2016 presidential election, it would mean that 6 out of the last 8 presidential elections would have been won by a member of either the Clinton or Bush family. And with the growing possibility of Jeb Bush being the GOP nominee to run against Hillary Clinton in 2016, that would insure that 6 out of 8 for the two families.

This prompts the question -- what does the American public think of the Clinton and Bush families? Are they tired of either a Bush or Clinton being president? If not, would they prefer a Bush or a Clinton in the White House next? A new Washington Post / ABC News Poll tries to answer those questions. They surveyed a random national sample of 1,000 adults between April 24th and 27th, and their survey has a margin of error of about 3.5 points.

It seems that the prospect of another member of those two families wouldn't upset Americans too much, because they like both families. The public gives the Bush family a 54% favorable rating. That's not bad, but it is 12 points lower than the 66% favorable rating they gave the Clinton family. And looking at that, it should be no surprise that they prefer the next president be Hillary Clinton instead of Jeb Bush (53% to 41%).

That same poll also surveyed Republicans on who they want to be their nominee in 2016 -- and they got the same general answer as other polls. That answer is that their is no favorite in the GOP race for president, with no candidate getting as much as 15% support. It's still a wide open race for the GOP.

Americans Are Spending Less On Food

This is not really a surprise. A recent Gallup Poll shows that Americans are currently spending less money (in 2012 dollars) on feeding their families than at any time since 1944 (when Gallup first starting asking this question). The average amount of money spent to feed a family in this country is now about $151 a week, down from a previous low of $157 a week.

But don't get the idea that all, or even most, American families can afford to spend $151 on food. That figure is an average, and like average pay in this country, is skewed by richer Americans who spend a lot more on food than most other Americans (10% spend more than $300 a week on food, and 31% spend more than $200 a week for food).

A much better idea of how much Americans are spending to feed their families can be seen by considering the median figure instead of the mean average. That median figure is $125 a week -- meaning half of all Americans spend less than $125 a week for food (and half of Americans spend more). And a full 25% of American families spend less than $99 a week for food (with 8% spending less than $50 a week).

Of course, millions of Americans are having to be very careful about their spending, even for necessities like food, thanks to the recession costing millions of Americans their jobs (due to the Republican economic policies of the last 30 years). We know that half of all American families now must live on an income of less than 150% of the poverty level, and with an income that low, they have to watch every penny they spend just to try and make ends meet.

And things are not going to get better any time soon. According to figures from the Economic Policy Institute, more than one out of every four American workers now holds a low-wage job (defined as a full-time job paying at or less than the poverty level). This is expected to continue for several more years at least, with the figure predicted to be 28% in the year 2020. Too many of the few new jobs being created are low-wage jobs, and with many millions of unemployed people the employers don't feel they need to pay very much to fill their open positions.

Adding to the problem of supplying food for a family on low wages is the droughts in this country last year and this year. That is expected to bump up food prices by 3.5% this year, and possibly another 4% next year. But the Republicans say they have a solution to America's serious economic problems. They want to cut government help for hurting Americans (including food stamps and free school lunches for poor children) so they can give the rich more tax cuts. They have to be brain dead.

Majority Of Congress Has Ethical Problems

If you follow politics much at all this probably won't surprise you, but it should make you mad as hell. It seems that the "fat cats" in Congress are using their position in government to enrich themselves (and their family and friends). I'm not talking about the money they get from corporations and lobbyists (although that is still a problem). I'm talking about them using the federal treasury as their own personal piggy bank to enrich themselves, their families, and their friends.

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) did a survey of every member of the House of Representatives. They found that at least 248 members of the 435 member House (about 57%) was guilty of using their position to enrich themselves and their families in such ways as paying family members with congressional or campaign funds, getting family members jobs as lobbyists, earmarking government money for family businesses, funneling money to campaigns of other family members, and other ethically problematic behavior.

Personally, I was surprised that CREW found only 57% of the House members were engaged in these ethically-dubious financial transactions. I had thought the percentage would be much higher. The bad news is that this shady behavior is not limited to any one party. Republicans and Democrats both engage in it (105 Democrats and 143 Republicans). That should irritate the rank-and-file members of both parties. Here's some of what CREW found:

82 members (40 Democrats and 42 Republicans) paid family members through their congressional offices, campaign committees and political action committees (PACs);

44 members (20 Democrats and 24 Republicans) have family members who lobby or are employed in government affairs;

90 members (42 Democrats and 48 Republicans) have paid a family business, employer, or associated nonprofit;

20 members (13 Democrats and 7 Republicans) used their campaign money to contribute to a family member’s political campaign;

14 members (6 Democrats and 8 Republicans) charged interest on personal loans they made to their own campaigns;

38 members (24 Democrats and 14 Republicans) earmarked to a family business, employer, or associated nonprofit.

If you would like a more in-depth view of some of the worst offenders, you can go here.

Family Research Council Disrespects Families

The Family Research Council (FRC), started by right-wing fundamentalists Gary Bauer and James Dobson, calls itself "the leading voice for the family in our nation's halls of power". They claim to be a defender of decency and family values. But the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) believes that is just baloney. They list the FRC as nothing more than an anti-homosexual hate group who's only real value is hate. So who is right -- the FRC or the SPLC?

One of the latest actions of the FRC answers that question pretty well. They have honored Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Illinois), a teabagger congressman (pictured above), with their "True Blue" award -- citing him for his "Unwavering support of the family". FRC president Tony Perkins said "We thank Congressman Walsh who has voted consistently to defend faith, family and freedom." perkins went on to say he applauded Walsh for his "commitment to uphold the institutions of marriage and family."

I have to wonder just what the FRC's definition of commitment to marriage and family is, since Walsh is divorced and refuses to pay any child support for his own children. As of last July, Walsh owed $117,000 is back child-support payments. And he is still refusing to pay. Walsh is not an example of a father who is jobless and cannot afford to pay. He is a congressman who makes three times the median income of an American worker. He could afford to pay -- he just refuses to do so. He's the dictionary definition of a "deadbeat dad".

That should be more than enough to prevent Walsh from getting any kind of award for commitment to family values, but Walsh goes even further. To pander to his teabagger base, Walsh turned down the congressional health insurance plan for his family -- at a time when he and his current wife were uninsured and she had a pre-existing condition and needed surgery. It turns out he doesn't care for either of his families -- past or current.

So why did Walsh get the FRC award since he won't even support his own family, let alone other American families? Because the FRC isn't really interested in protecting American families. Their only real values are hatred and bigotry -- and those are values that Walsh has consistently supported with his anti-gay, anti-muslim, and anti-familiy (at least poor or unemployed families) votes in Congress.

The SPLC is right -- the FRC is nothing more than a hate group. And Walsh has earned their award for bigotry. But neither the FRC nor Walsh respect families.

Hunger & Homelessness Rise In U.S. In 2006

We have more proof of the abject failure of the Bush administration. Most people know of the failures in foreign policy, but Bush and his cohorts are also failing in their domestic policies.

The U.S. Council of Mayors has just released a report that shows this failure in stark terms. The report says that both homelessness and hunger have risen in this country in the last year, as they have been doing since Bush took office in 2000.

Here are some of the findings of the Mayors' report:

- requests for food have risen by 7% in the last year
- requests for shelter have risen by 9% in the last year
- requests for shelter by families with children rose by 5%
- children make up a quarter of those in homeless shelters
- families often have to split up & stay in different shelters
- 23% of food requests went unfulfilled
- more than a third of adults asking for food aid are employed

The Bush administration was quick to point out that food requests were actually down in a few cities like Cleveland. What they don't tell you is that the demand for food subsidies in up by 29% in Cleveland since 2000, the year that Bush took office. Food subsidies and food stamps now make up 60% of the budget of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

This is a shameful situation. The Bush economic policies have helped only the rich, who are making larger profits than ever. But the poor and working class are losing ground every day, and the middle class is now being put in jeopardy. Many middle class families are only a paycheck or two away from disaster.

Bush seems to think that whatever is good for his rich buddies is good for all Americans. The above-stated figures show that to be a big fat lie! The Bush economic policies have been an unmitigated disaster for most Americans.

When you combine Bush's domestic policies with his foreign policy failures, we can see that Bush is truly the worst president ever.