By Dale Bowling
Unless something happens today we're headed over the Fiscal Cliff, so we can only hope that 2013 will be the year that Republicans and Democrats can reach some compromises on America's fiscal future.
The Fiscal Cliff is merely a ploy that politicians created to force both sides to table to negotiate about deficit reduction. It doesn't mean that the US is about to default on debts or the deficit will soar as a result. Quite the opposite actually. The automatic spending cuts and tax increases associated with the Fiscal Cliff will cause the deficit to shrink drastically.
This sounds great, doesn't it? Why would we want to avert the first serious attempt at deficit reduction in years?
Because a fragile economic recovery is not the time for a sharp increase in taxes on people already struggling and is certainly not the time to gut a badly-needed social safety net.
Congress can always renew tax cuts for the Middle Class after the first of the year and make that renewal retroactive to Jan.1, 2013. So even going over the Cliff, it's possible to avoid the worst of it. They can prevent the worst effects of cutting the social safety net too after the first of the year. They just have to want to do it badly enough.
Republicans for their part have tried very hard to make the narrative of the Fiscal Cliff one of runaway government spending - that we reached this sorry state because of spending on programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Of course, this is utter malarkey. Social Security doesn't add to the deficit and cuts to Social Security don't help the deficit. Period. It's kept in a separate trust fund and has been for years. Republicans know this, but like to pretend to forget it when it's politically expedient.
Medicare is a deficit issue since the cost of medical care continues to grow faster than the rest of the economy, but increased Medicare spending was not a primary cause of the deficit.
As you may remember, when President Bill Clinton left office the government had a projected budget surplus. It wasn't increased Medicare spending that did away with that.
The Bush Administration did away with that surplus. As far as the deficit goes, Republicans finally found something they built without the rest of us.
The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the first wars in American history not to be accompanied by increased taxes to pay for them. In fact, enormous tax cuts were given at the same time. And you have to remember that Republicans held both Congress and the White House for the first six years of Bush's presidency and in that time President Bush never vetoed a spending bill. Want a bridge to nowhere? Done. So much for Republican fiscal discipline.
In the Golden Age of Republican-Democratic cooperation between WWII and the Reagan Revolution, deficit hawks on both sides of the aisle were concerned about having the money to pay for the things that government did. That meant there were a lot of Republicans that supported tax increases from time to time. And there were Democrats who supported spending cuts when they made sense.
But Republican politicians see the Fiscal Cliff, not as a discussion about fiscal policy or how to deal with deficits, but as an opportunity to strike a blow to Big Government. And that is why the Fiscal Cliff talks have gone no where and 2013 will not be any better if we can't return to productive cooperation on the real issues at hand.
Happy 2013 Everyone!
Monday, December 31, 2012
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Why the Far Right is Wrong on Gun Laws
By Dale Bowling
As I read the Far Right's reaction to the idea of tightening some firearms laws in the wake of the
Newtown shooting, I encounter the same objections over and over. And not surprisingly, they are all
full of malarkey. Let's go through some of them.
I saw this meme today yet again- Stalin took all the guns, Hitler took all the guns, Ataturk took all the
guns and that led to genocide.
Gun control in the US would not mean taking all the guns away. It would most likely mean closing
loopholes in existing laws (like the one that lets people buy guns at gun shows without a background
check). Private sales between individuals are not subject to the same laws as gun dealer sales and
one study showed guns from private sales are used in up to 80% of gun crimes. Why? Because the assailant wouldn't pass the background check to get a gun through a dealer.
US gun control would probably mean the Federal Government would keep track of how much
ammunition you're buying- like they do when you buy certain over the counter medications that can be also used to cook meth. No one ever says their right to fight cold symptoms has been infringed upon by those laws.
The Assault Rifle Ban would likely be reinstituted. This prevents non-military personnel from buying
military type weapons. It would not "take guns away" from anyone who owned one already. We had this ban during the Clinton Administration without transforming into a Police State so I think we might risk it again.
Likewise, high capacity magazines would likely be banned. Did the Founding Fathers think you had a
constitutional right to fire dozens of rounds per second? I don't presume to know what they intended,
but high capacity magazines are one of the things that make mass shootings easier. Losing the right to
own them would be a very small price to pay for having fewer Newtowns.
I hear frequently that no matter what you do, there will always be gun violence because criminals will
still get guns. The Far Right is saying that there shouldn't be a law because criminals would break that law. Is there any law that has totally eradicated the crime that it forbids? If so, I am unaware of it. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws of any kind because they are not effective? Probably not.
I also hear about how many drunk driving deaths there are and how "we haven't banned cars or
alcohol". But the Far Right misses its own point here. Cars and alcohol are both heavily regulated.
There are strong penalties for violating drunk driving laws and underage drinking laws. Have we totally elminated alcohol-related traffic deaths? No. Have these laws reduced drunk driving deaths
significantly?- yes.
And that is the point, isn't it?
Lastly is the Rights issue. The 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution and gives Americans the right to bear arms. But all arms? Really? One doubts that Wayne LaPierre for example, would uphold his next door neighbor's right to collect biological weapons. Or even large amounts of explosives.
And Constitutional Rights are not absolute in any case - there is a long history in American
jurisprudence that limits the rights of the individual when they begin to infringe on the rights of others. One has the right to whatever religion one wants, but not to practice human sacrifice as part of that religion. One has the right to free speech, but can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater if there's no fire. My kid's right to not be trampled to death at a theater, trumps someone else's right to be an idiot in this case.
Ultimately the question is how do we balance the rights of lawful gun owners with the rights of
society? Would any of the above proposed measures seriously impede most gun owners from
exercising their constitutional right? Not significantly. Would these laws likely reduce the number of
gun-related deaths? Yes.
And that's what we want.
As I read the Far Right's reaction to the idea of tightening some firearms laws in the wake of the
Newtown shooting, I encounter the same objections over and over. And not surprisingly, they are all
full of malarkey. Let's go through some of them.
I saw this meme today yet again- Stalin took all the guns, Hitler took all the guns, Ataturk took all the
guns and that led to genocide.
Gun control in the US would not mean taking all the guns away. It would most likely mean closing
loopholes in existing laws (like the one that lets people buy guns at gun shows without a background
check). Private sales between individuals are not subject to the same laws as gun dealer sales and
one study showed guns from private sales are used in up to 80% of gun crimes. Why? Because the assailant wouldn't pass the background check to get a gun through a dealer.
US gun control would probably mean the Federal Government would keep track of how much
ammunition you're buying- like they do when you buy certain over the counter medications that can be also used to cook meth. No one ever says their right to fight cold symptoms has been infringed upon by those laws.
The Assault Rifle Ban would likely be reinstituted. This prevents non-military personnel from buying
military type weapons. It would not "take guns away" from anyone who owned one already. We had this ban during the Clinton Administration without transforming into a Police State so I think we might risk it again.
Likewise, high capacity magazines would likely be banned. Did the Founding Fathers think you had a
constitutional right to fire dozens of rounds per second? I don't presume to know what they intended,
but high capacity magazines are one of the things that make mass shootings easier. Losing the right to
own them would be a very small price to pay for having fewer Newtowns.
I hear frequently that no matter what you do, there will always be gun violence because criminals will
still get guns. The Far Right is saying that there shouldn't be a law because criminals would break that law. Is there any law that has totally eradicated the crime that it forbids? If so, I am unaware of it. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws of any kind because they are not effective? Probably not.
I also hear about how many drunk driving deaths there are and how "we haven't banned cars or
alcohol". But the Far Right misses its own point here. Cars and alcohol are both heavily regulated.
There are strong penalties for violating drunk driving laws and underage drinking laws. Have we totally elminated alcohol-related traffic deaths? No. Have these laws reduced drunk driving deaths
significantly?- yes.
And that is the point, isn't it?
Lastly is the Rights issue. The 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution and gives Americans the right to bear arms. But all arms? Really? One doubts that Wayne LaPierre for example, would uphold his next door neighbor's right to collect biological weapons. Or even large amounts of explosives.
And Constitutional Rights are not absolute in any case - there is a long history in American
jurisprudence that limits the rights of the individual when they begin to infringe on the rights of others. One has the right to whatever religion one wants, but not to practice human sacrifice as part of that religion. One has the right to free speech, but can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater if there's no fire. My kid's right to not be trampled to death at a theater, trumps someone else's right to be an idiot in this case.
Ultimately the question is how do we balance the rights of lawful gun owners with the rights of
society? Would any of the above proposed measures seriously impede most gun owners from
exercising their constitutional right? Not significantly. Would these laws likely reduce the number of
gun-related deaths? Yes.
And that's what we want.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Senator, come out, come out, wherever you are
By Walt Zlotow
Sen.
Dillard, how long must your patient constituent...me, wait for you to respond to
a simple constituent request: How will you vote when the historic marriage equality measure is called
in Illinois?
You need to come out of the closet....not that you're gay of course, and not that there's anything wrong with that. Its the closet of fear you are hiding in from all the homophobes in your district and your party who you possibly feel might jeopardize your chances of being governor if you "come out" for marriage equality.
Gov. Quinn says he'll sign the measure if you pass it because, as a Democrat, he is for granting marriage equality and Ist class citizenship to all Illinoisans. You see, there are no homophobes left in the Democratic Party. They all reside in your party, Senator.
I look forward to your appearance....and your decision.
Respectfully,
Walt Zlotow
24th IL Senate District
You need to come out of the closet....not that you're gay of course, and not that there's anything wrong with that. Its the closet of fear you are hiding in from all the homophobes in your district and your party who you possibly feel might jeopardize your chances of being governor if you "come out" for marriage equality.
Gov. Quinn says he'll sign the measure if you pass it because, as a Democrat, he is for granting marriage equality and Ist class citizenship to all Illinoisans. You see, there are no homophobes left in the Democratic Party. They all reside in your party, Senator.
I look forward to your appearance....and your decision.
Respectfully,
Walt Zlotow
24th IL Senate District
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Congratulations Mr. President
By Dale Bowling
President Barack Obama was named Time's Person of the Year for 2012. It is the second time he has
had this honor.
Obama's approval rating is the highest its been in ages at 57%.
Like "Just got bin Laden" big.
It's not hard to see why really. Obama has led America through some of the hardest years in recent
memory. He set the agenda that picked up the pieces and built a steady recovery from the Bush
Recession.
President Obama's policy of economic stimulus was gutsy. If it blew up in his face, there wasn't anyone else to hang the blame on. President Obama and Congressional Democrats did it because it was the best way to shore up our failing economy and protect Main Street. And it created millions of jobs and kept America from plunging into a Second Great Depression.
Obama brought America the first meaningful health care reform since the Great Society of the 60s. And again, it didn't always earn him a lot of fans. He did it because it was the right thing to do.
Our President took out Osama bin Laden and broke up Al Qaeda networks everywhere.
Barack Obama has helped build a coalition of voters who will bring Democratic victories for years to
come.
President Obama has proved to be a leader when America most needed one.
Congratulations Mr. President on being named Time's Person of the Year for 2012!
President Barack Obama was named Time's Person of the Year for 2012. It is the second time he has
had this honor.
Obama's approval rating is the highest its been in ages at 57%.
Like "Just got bin Laden" big.
It's not hard to see why really. Obama has led America through some of the hardest years in recent
memory. He set the agenda that picked up the pieces and built a steady recovery from the Bush
Recession.
President Obama's policy of economic stimulus was gutsy. If it blew up in his face, there wasn't anyone else to hang the blame on. President Obama and Congressional Democrats did it because it was the best way to shore up our failing economy and protect Main Street. And it created millions of jobs and kept America from plunging into a Second Great Depression.
Obama brought America the first meaningful health care reform since the Great Society of the 60s. And again, it didn't always earn him a lot of fans. He did it because it was the right thing to do.
Our President took out Osama bin Laden and broke up Al Qaeda networks everywhere.
Barack Obama has helped build a coalition of voters who will bring Democratic victories for years to
come.
President Obama has proved to be a leader when America most needed one.
Congratulations Mr. President on being named Time's Person of the Year for 2012!
Monday, December 17, 2012
"These Tragedies Must End"
By Dale Bowling
The President's speech last night concerning the school shootings in Newtown, CT gave voice to the
Nation's grief, its desire to comfort the victims and their loved ones and America's responsibility to
protect its most precious resource - its children.
Newtown, Connecticut is a normal American town. Nothing about it or Sandybrook Elementary would make a person think something so horrible might happen there. As the President said, this could have been any school, any town in America.
And in this normal American town, 20 children and 6 adults were murdered at a school.
As the President said last night, "These tragedies must end."
But things don't just change by themselves. "To end this, we must change."
There have been 31 school shootings since Columbine in perfectly normal schools and normal towns
all across the Nation.
And every time it happens, we express our National anguish that such Evil could exist and we pound
our chests and weep. And then we go back to our own lives and we wait for the next terrible tragedy
that we've done nothing to prevent to pop up so we can start the entire process of National Anguish
followed quickly by National Thumb Twittling over again.
The President has said it rightly, these tragedies have to end. We must do something about that.
The very first thing is to begin the conversation. But as the Daily Show pointed out a recently in a
bitterly funny talking head montage, there never seems to be a good time to talk about what we can do because it's always too soon. And as soon as it's not too soon, there's a new tragedy that makes it too soon again.
The horrifically ironic thing is that Jon Stewart was talking about the shooting in Portland, Ore and that has already fallen out of the news cycle because of the shooting at Sandybrook Elementary.
So let's throw out the "too soon" thing and start talking now. What can be done? Lots of things.
We most often hear about legislative action and that is certainly one road to explore. We could pass
new laws or enforce existing laws to make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands. We could
close loopholes in existing laws. We could pass harder sentences for gun crimes. Renew the assault
weapons ban.
Another thing is that we can really work to get help for those who need it. Public health officials and
educational authorities can work harder to identify people with mental disorders and get them
treatment, as the President mentioned in his speech.
There are certainly many other things we can do that will come to light if we can just have this
conversation.
But let us be honest for a moment. All this costs money. Law enforcement, educational institutions and public health officials need to be given the resources to do their jobs properly and this funding can't be subject to taxpayer kvetching or political blackmail a year or two down the road.
President Obama said, "this job of keeping our children safe and teaching them well is something
we can only do together."
We all have to sacrifice for America's children. And again, the President said it best, "if we don't get
that right, we don't get anything right. "
The President's speech last night concerning the school shootings in Newtown, CT gave voice to the
Nation's grief, its desire to comfort the victims and their loved ones and America's responsibility to
protect its most precious resource - its children.
Newtown, Connecticut is a normal American town. Nothing about it or Sandybrook Elementary would make a person think something so horrible might happen there. As the President said, this could have been any school, any town in America.
And in this normal American town, 20 children and 6 adults were murdered at a school.
As the President said last night, "These tragedies must end."
But things don't just change by themselves. "To end this, we must change."
There have been 31 school shootings since Columbine in perfectly normal schools and normal towns
all across the Nation.
And every time it happens, we express our National anguish that such Evil could exist and we pound
our chests and weep. And then we go back to our own lives and we wait for the next terrible tragedy
that we've done nothing to prevent to pop up so we can start the entire process of National Anguish
followed quickly by National Thumb Twittling over again.
The President has said it rightly, these tragedies have to end. We must do something about that.
The very first thing is to begin the conversation. But as the Daily Show pointed out a recently in a
bitterly funny talking head montage, there never seems to be a good time to talk about what we can do because it's always too soon. And as soon as it's not too soon, there's a new tragedy that makes it too soon again.
The horrifically ironic thing is that Jon Stewart was talking about the shooting in Portland, Ore and that has already fallen out of the news cycle because of the shooting at Sandybrook Elementary.
So let's throw out the "too soon" thing and start talking now. What can be done? Lots of things.
We most often hear about legislative action and that is certainly one road to explore. We could pass
new laws or enforce existing laws to make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands. We could
close loopholes in existing laws. We could pass harder sentences for gun crimes. Renew the assault
weapons ban.
Another thing is that we can really work to get help for those who need it. Public health officials and
educational authorities can work harder to identify people with mental disorders and get them
treatment, as the President mentioned in his speech.
There are certainly many other things we can do that will come to light if we can just have this
conversation.
But let us be honest for a moment. All this costs money. Law enforcement, educational institutions and public health officials need to be given the resources to do their jobs properly and this funding can't be subject to taxpayer kvetching or political blackmail a year or two down the road.
President Obama said, "this job of keeping our children safe and teaching them well is something
we can only do together."
We all have to sacrifice for America's children. And again, the President said it best, "if we don't get
that right, we don't get anything right. "
Friday, December 14, 2012
What will Concealed Carry Mean for Illinois?
By Dale Bowling
A few days ago a Federal Appeals Court declared Illinois' ban on Carrying a Concealed Weapon (CCW) unconstitutional. Illinois is the last state in the Union to not have a CCW law on the books. The Court gave Illinois 180 days to pass their own version of a Concealed Carry Law. Opponents have vowed to fight the decision.
Proponents of CCW say that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to bear arms. They say that self-defense is a right of Americans and as the Court specifically stated that right does not end when a person leaves the home. Lastly, they say that violent crime on average is down since similar laws were passed in other states.
Opponents say that more guns is inevitably going to lead to more gun violence. They also question whether oversight on CCW is effective given the numerous cases where violent offenders and the mentally ill were found to possess CCW permits.
There is a problem with the conversation though. There are two separate questions that tend to get jammed together. The rights question and the efficacy question.
In other words, 1) Do you have the right to a firearm? and 2) Is it a good idea to have a firearm?
Gun Control advocates tend to say no to both questions and Gun Rights Advocates say yes to both questions.
Leaving aside the first question, let's just ask the second. Does owning a gun make you safer?
There haven't been really good studies on the effects of concealed carry on violent crime. Period.
The pro-CCW studies that do exist state that violent crime has gone down on average since these laws have been on the books. The problem here is that violent crime was already going down before CCW was on the books and despite public perception that crime is getting worse and worse, violent crime has been going down steadily on average since the 60s. So it's not clear that CCW had anything to do with that.
Lacking good studies on CCW, it makes sense to look at studies of the classic case of "someone broke into my house and he/she had a gun" to see if being armed makes you safer when confronted by an armed assailant.
The most relevant study, cited in the American Journal of Public Health showed that when a homeowner had a gun and the home invader also had a gun, the homeowner was between 4.46x and 5.45x more likely to be shot than if the homeowner was unarmed. The study concluded that the combination of an intruder who felt his safety was in jeopardy (and was therefore more jittery) and a homeowner who felt more confident (and was therefore more likely to seek confrontation), accounted for the increased incidences of injury among homeowners with guns.
Does this tell us anything about CCW? Well, probably. As the Federal Appeals Judge said, the issues involving self-defense don't change just because you're not in your house. CCW will lead to more people feeling confident in confronting assailants and more criminals who feel they are losing control of the situation.
Bad things are likely to happen as a result, but only time will tell.
A few days ago a Federal Appeals Court declared Illinois' ban on Carrying a Concealed Weapon (CCW) unconstitutional. Illinois is the last state in the Union to not have a CCW law on the books. The Court gave Illinois 180 days to pass their own version of a Concealed Carry Law. Opponents have vowed to fight the decision.
Proponents of CCW say that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to bear arms. They say that self-defense is a right of Americans and as the Court specifically stated that right does not end when a person leaves the home. Lastly, they say that violent crime on average is down since similar laws were passed in other states.
Opponents say that more guns is inevitably going to lead to more gun violence. They also question whether oversight on CCW is effective given the numerous cases where violent offenders and the mentally ill were found to possess CCW permits.
There is a problem with the conversation though. There are two separate questions that tend to get jammed together. The rights question and the efficacy question.
In other words, 1) Do you have the right to a firearm? and 2) Is it a good idea to have a firearm?
Gun Control advocates tend to say no to both questions and Gun Rights Advocates say yes to both questions.
Leaving aside the first question, let's just ask the second. Does owning a gun make you safer?
There haven't been really good studies on the effects of concealed carry on violent crime. Period.
The pro-CCW studies that do exist state that violent crime has gone down on average since these laws have been on the books. The problem here is that violent crime was already going down before CCW was on the books and despite public perception that crime is getting worse and worse, violent crime has been going down steadily on average since the 60s. So it's not clear that CCW had anything to do with that.
Lacking good studies on CCW, it makes sense to look at studies of the classic case of "someone broke into my house and he/she had a gun" to see if being armed makes you safer when confronted by an armed assailant.
The most relevant study, cited in the American Journal of Public Health showed that when a homeowner had a gun and the home invader also had a gun, the homeowner was between 4.46x and 5.45x more likely to be shot than if the homeowner was unarmed. The study concluded that the combination of an intruder who felt his safety was in jeopardy (and was therefore more jittery) and a homeowner who felt more confident (and was therefore more likely to seek confrontation), accounted for the increased incidences of injury among homeowners with guns.
Does this tell us anything about CCW? Well, probably. As the Federal Appeals Judge said, the issues involving self-defense don't change just because you're not in your house. CCW will lead to more people feeling confident in confronting assailants and more criminals who feel they are losing control of the situation.
Bad things are likely to happen as a result, but only time will tell.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The Right To Work For Less
By: Dale Bowling
Michigan just became the 24th state to enact a "Right To Work" Law. In the state legislature there, Republicans just lost seats and when the new State Government meets Republicans would lack the votes to enact Right to Work, so they're ramming it through at the 11th hour.
For those of you who aren't familiar with Right To Work Laws, they allow workers at union companies to opt out of paying dues to the union that go to pay for collective bargaining. So if you don't like your union or are really cheap or whatever, you can just not pay your dues.
Advocates of Right To Work say this gives workers more rights to make decisions and creates a work-friendly business environment. They say this creates more companies wanting to locate in those states and therefore brings more jobs to the state.
The fact of the matter is that meticulous study has shown that Right To Work states do not see improved job opportunities or employment after passing Right to Work legislation.
What they do see is the power of organized labor decrease, which is what Republicans wanted all along.
Of the 10 states with the highest poverty rates, 8 of them are Right To Work States.
The President has called this the "Right To Work For Less".
It's not a coincidence that the time in American history when income inequality was the lowest and economic growth reached record highs was also the time when Union membership was at its height.
When workers could bargain with management on more or less equal footing, then workers could see income gains from higher productivity.
To put it simply when workers had a stake in how their company did and the company had a stake in its workers, everyone treated each other fairly and everyone did well.
But if workers can opt out of paying union dues then the union sees its budget fall, which makes protecting its members interests that much harder (a lot of union dues go to paying labor attorneys which negotiate contracts). When members see that their interests aren't being defended, they're more likely to stop paying their dues which furthers the union's downward spiral.
The ultimate result is that the income of both union and non-union employees stagnate even as corporate profits rise ever higher. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich remarked recently that, "The ratio of corporate profits to wages is now higher than at any time since just before the Great Depression."
The reason both union and non-union suffer is because in the Golden Age of American Labor one of the things that drove non-union shops to deal fairly with its employees was the fear they might unionize.
The fewer rights that American Labor has and the less it is able to defend them leads to what we see today- enormous abuse in the system.
We have Walmart which has been accused of sustained discrimination, worker intimidation, manipulating work schedule to circumvent labor protections, etc.
We see Hostess ask their workers to take a pay cut for the companies sake, give executives a hefty raise with it, further mismanage the company, raid their workers' pensions to pay operating costs and then ask the workers to take a second pay cut and when they refuse, blame the company's demise on the union.
We see Papa John and the rest complaining that their operating costs from giving their employees insurance (which translates to like a nickel a meal) is going to drive the company under.
And these are just the prominent examples that have been in the news this week.
Union busting is just another example of Republicans taking something that works pretty well overall, breaking it, and then claiming it doesn't work and should be replaced or further weakened.
I have a prediction. If someday Republicans gain control of the Illinois legislature, we'll start to hear how Right To Work laws would promote employment and economic growth in the Land of Lincoln.
When that day comes, all we'll have to do is look across the Lake to see if there is an economic miracle in Michigan since the law was passed. Maybe the 24th time is a charm?
Michigan just became the 24th state to enact a "Right To Work" Law. In the state legislature there, Republicans just lost seats and when the new State Government meets Republicans would lack the votes to enact Right to Work, so they're ramming it through at the 11th hour.
For those of you who aren't familiar with Right To Work Laws, they allow workers at union companies to opt out of paying dues to the union that go to pay for collective bargaining. So if you don't like your union or are really cheap or whatever, you can just not pay your dues.
Advocates of Right To Work say this gives workers more rights to make decisions and creates a work-friendly business environment. They say this creates more companies wanting to locate in those states and therefore brings more jobs to the state.
The fact of the matter is that meticulous study has shown that Right To Work states do not see improved job opportunities or employment after passing Right to Work legislation.
What they do see is the power of organized labor decrease, which is what Republicans wanted all along.
Of the 10 states with the highest poverty rates, 8 of them are Right To Work States.
The President has called this the "Right To Work For Less".
It's not a coincidence that the time in American history when income inequality was the lowest and economic growth reached record highs was also the time when Union membership was at its height.
When workers could bargain with management on more or less equal footing, then workers could see income gains from higher productivity.
To put it simply when workers had a stake in how their company did and the company had a stake in its workers, everyone treated each other fairly and everyone did well.
But if workers can opt out of paying union dues then the union sees its budget fall, which makes protecting its members interests that much harder (a lot of union dues go to paying labor attorneys which negotiate contracts). When members see that their interests aren't being defended, they're more likely to stop paying their dues which furthers the union's downward spiral.
The ultimate result is that the income of both union and non-union employees stagnate even as corporate profits rise ever higher. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich remarked recently that, "The ratio of corporate profits to wages is now higher than at any time since just before the Great Depression."
The reason both union and non-union suffer is because in the Golden Age of American Labor one of the things that drove non-union shops to deal fairly with its employees was the fear they might unionize.
The fewer rights that American Labor has and the less it is able to defend them leads to what we see today- enormous abuse in the system.
We have Walmart which has been accused of sustained discrimination, worker intimidation, manipulating work schedule to circumvent labor protections, etc.
We see Hostess ask their workers to take a pay cut for the companies sake, give executives a hefty raise with it, further mismanage the company, raid their workers' pensions to pay operating costs and then ask the workers to take a second pay cut and when they refuse, blame the company's demise on the union.
We see Papa John and the rest complaining that their operating costs from giving their employees insurance (which translates to like a nickel a meal) is going to drive the company under.
And these are just the prominent examples that have been in the news this week.
Union busting is just another example of Republicans taking something that works pretty well overall, breaking it, and then claiming it doesn't work and should be replaced or further weakened.
I have a prediction. If someday Republicans gain control of the Illinois legislature, we'll start to hear how Right To Work laws would promote employment and economic growth in the Land of Lincoln.
When that day comes, all we'll have to do is look across the Lake to see if there is an economic miracle in Michigan since the law was passed. Maybe the 24th time is a charm?
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
When You're In A Hole, Stop Digging.
By Dale Bowling
In a conversation about Mitt Romney's most recent asinine assertion, a prominent Republican Senator
expressed his disapproval by saying that "when you're in a hole, you stop digging." Always good
advice.
The Bush Recession wrecked the economy. Democrats have built a steady recovery, but we fell so far
down the rabbit hole because of Republican excess, that America has had a long, hard road to travel
and many Americans still struggle.
This means that we need to stop digging.
And what would put us further down the hole than saying to the Elderly, the Poor, the Sick (often the
same folks) that, "hey, we know you're having a hard time, but the Deficit is high and though you've
played by the rules your whole working life, paid for your benefits and earned them, we're going to
slash your income drastically because Republicans won't give on keeping tax cuts for rich people"?
Is this how we builder a better, fairer, stronger America? Is that the America that any of us want to live in?
Besides being utterly without decency, the idea of cuts in Earned Benefits, like Social Security and
Medicare or Need-Based Benefits like Welfare or Medicaid, don't even make fiscal sense - they harm the economy more than they help it.
Both the elderly and the poor spend nearly all the money that they receive. They spend it on food,
health care, rent, keeping the lights and gas on, clothing, etc. Besides greatly improving the quality of
their own lives, this money is cycled back into the economy and represents the earnings of a whole lot of businesses, great and small who pay employees. Maybe like you.
Study after study shows that tax cuts for the rich don't make as much impact on the economy. Rich
people can only consume so much and therefore, less gets put back into the economy. Even their
investments don't produce the job growth that consumption does.
So as a way to reduce the Deficit, tax rate increases on the wealthiest and luckiest of Americans
provide more bang for the buck than decreases in spending for everyone else. The richest Americans represent the place where there is enough excess that can be profitably applied to reduce the Deficit (which their own tax cuts ran up anyway).
This is a matter of fairness. Pure and simple. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
Let your representatives know that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare cuts should take a backseat to increases in tax rates on those who make more than $250,000/year. Their information is
below.
Do it now.
Congresswoman Judy Biggert- Illinois 13th Congressional District
Address:
Judy Biggert
United States House of Representatives
2113 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-1313
Phone: 202-225-3515
Website: http://biggert.house.gov/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/judybiggert
Twitter: http://twitter.com/judybiggert
Congressman Peter Roskam- Illinois 6th Congressional District
Address:
Peter Roskam
United States House of Representatives
227 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1306
Ph: 202-225-4561
Website: http://roskam.house.gov/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepRoskam
Twitter: @PeterRoskam
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin
Address:
Sen. Dick Durbin
United States Senate
711 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-2152
Website: http://www.durbin.senate.gov/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorDurbin
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin
Illinois Senator Mark Kirk
Address:
Senator Mark Kirk
524 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
Phone: 202-224-2854
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorKirk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/SENATORKIRK
In a conversation about Mitt Romney's most recent asinine assertion, a prominent Republican Senator
expressed his disapproval by saying that "when you're in a hole, you stop digging." Always good
advice.
The Bush Recession wrecked the economy. Democrats have built a steady recovery, but we fell so far
down the rabbit hole because of Republican excess, that America has had a long, hard road to travel
and many Americans still struggle.
This means that we need to stop digging.
And what would put us further down the hole than saying to the Elderly, the Poor, the Sick (often the
same folks) that, "hey, we know you're having a hard time, but the Deficit is high and though you've
played by the rules your whole working life, paid for your benefits and earned them, we're going to
slash your income drastically because Republicans won't give on keeping tax cuts for rich people"?
Is this how we builder a better, fairer, stronger America? Is that the America that any of us want to live in?
Besides being utterly without decency, the idea of cuts in Earned Benefits, like Social Security and
Medicare or Need-Based Benefits like Welfare or Medicaid, don't even make fiscal sense - they harm the economy more than they help it.
Both the elderly and the poor spend nearly all the money that they receive. They spend it on food,
health care, rent, keeping the lights and gas on, clothing, etc. Besides greatly improving the quality of
their own lives, this money is cycled back into the economy and represents the earnings of a whole lot of businesses, great and small who pay employees. Maybe like you.
Study after study shows that tax cuts for the rich don't make as much impact on the economy. Rich
people can only consume so much and therefore, less gets put back into the economy. Even their
investments don't produce the job growth that consumption does.
So as a way to reduce the Deficit, tax rate increases on the wealthiest and luckiest of Americans
provide more bang for the buck than decreases in spending for everyone else. The richest Americans represent the place where there is enough excess that can be profitably applied to reduce the Deficit (which their own tax cuts ran up anyway).
This is a matter of fairness. Pure and simple. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
Let your representatives know that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare cuts should take a backseat to increases in tax rates on those who make more than $250,000/year. Their information is
below.
Do it now.
Congresswoman Judy Biggert- Illinois 13th Congressional District
Address:
Judy Biggert
United States House of Representatives
2113 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-1313
Phone: 202-225-3515
Website: http://biggert.house.gov/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/judybiggert
Twitter: http://twitter.com/judybiggert
Congressman Peter Roskam- Illinois 6th Congressional District
Address:
Peter Roskam
United States House of Representatives
227 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1306
Ph: 202-225-4561
Website: http://roskam.house.gov/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepRoskam
Twitter: @PeterRoskam
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin
Address:
Sen. Dick Durbin
United States Senate
711 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-2152
Website: http://www.durbin.senate.gov/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorDurbin
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin
Illinois Senator Mark Kirk
Address:
Senator Mark Kirk
524 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
Phone: 202-224-2854
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorKirk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/SENATORKIRK
Friday, December 7, 2012
Why We Won And Why We Will Continue To Win
By Dale Bowling
Democrats won big time in November. America re-elected President Obama, we expanded our majority in the U.S.Senate and received a million more votes for our candidates in the U.S. House of Representatives than the GOP. Just as importantly, we seriously improved our numbers in local and county government. Historically DuPage has been a tough nut to crack for Democrats, so this is quite an accomplishment on our part. The momentum is ours.
Why did we do so well? Democrats had a lot of advantages and Republicans had a lot of disadvantages true, but there is one reason above all others that explains this victory.
America trusts the Democrats. It's really not a lot more complicated than that.
You see, Democrats have proven over and over again that we have America's back.
Who picked up the pieces from the Bush Recession and built a steady recovery? Democrats.
Who said they were going to push through Health Care Reform and actually did it? Democrats.
Who ended the war in Iraq and is winding down the war in Afghanistan, just like they said they would? Democrats.
Who has supported your rights over and over again, be they the right to marry who you want, or the right to earn as much as someone else doing the same work or the right to decide what to do with your own body? Democrats.
Who reformed Wall Street so the worst abuses in the last administration don't come back to haunt us? Again, the Democrats.
If you were the poll-reading type during the election when they asked the "trust" question, respondents said over and over again they trusted Democrats to reform the economy, protect and invest in America, and make America a stronger, better, fairer place for our children and their children.
For their part, Republicans always got high marks at protecting the interests of the wealthy.
And Democrats have shown in the current debate on the Fiscal Cliff that they are the grown-ups, that Democrats favor balanced approaches to fix America's problems and not just doubling down on failed polices America has firmly rejected- as their Republican colleagues continue to do.
Democrats will continue to win because Americans know that Democrats will fight for them.
Forward!
Democrats won big time in November. America re-elected President Obama, we expanded our majority in the U.S.Senate and received a million more votes for our candidates in the U.S. House of Representatives than the GOP. Just as importantly, we seriously improved our numbers in local and county government. Historically DuPage has been a tough nut to crack for Democrats, so this is quite an accomplishment on our part. The momentum is ours.
Why did we do so well? Democrats had a lot of advantages and Republicans had a lot of disadvantages true, but there is one reason above all others that explains this victory.
America trusts the Democrats. It's really not a lot more complicated than that.
You see, Democrats have proven over and over again that we have America's back.
Who picked up the pieces from the Bush Recession and built a steady recovery? Democrats.
Who said they were going to push through Health Care Reform and actually did it? Democrats.
Who ended the war in Iraq and is winding down the war in Afghanistan, just like they said they would? Democrats.
Who has supported your rights over and over again, be they the right to marry who you want, or the right to earn as much as someone else doing the same work or the right to decide what to do with your own body? Democrats.
Who reformed Wall Street so the worst abuses in the last administration don't come back to haunt us? Again, the Democrats.
If you were the poll-reading type during the election when they asked the "trust" question, respondents said over and over again they trusted Democrats to reform the economy, protect and invest in America, and make America a stronger, better, fairer place for our children and their children.
For their part, Republicans always got high marks at protecting the interests of the wealthy.
And Democrats have shown in the current debate on the Fiscal Cliff that they are the grown-ups, that Democrats favor balanced approaches to fix America's problems and not just doubling down on failed polices America has firmly rejected- as their Republican colleagues continue to do.
Democrats will continue to win because Americans know that Democrats will fight for them.
Forward!
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Congressman Roskam must rescind false tax issue job loss claim
By Walt Zlotow
We expect
our Congressmen to engage in a certain amount of hyperbole in their self serving
communications with their constituents. However, my Congressman Peter Roskam's
latest email to constituents titled "This is small business America" is beyond
the pale and must be rescinded. His charge that the President's proposed tax
increase "could cost as many as 700,000 jobs" is unsubstantiated hype that has
no basis in fact. It is a blatant scare tactic designed to deceive low
information voters and placate his wealthy base which has made very clear that
continued support depends on keeping the trillions in tax cuts they
received since 2001. Besides that scurrilous claim, Roskam omits the fact that
the President's tax proposal contains tax cuts for 100% of taxpayers including
100% of all businesses, large and small. For 98% of taxpayers, including 97% of
small business owners, his tax plan covers 100% of their income. For the
remaining 2% of taxpayers, including 3% of small business owners, they enjoy
current tax rates on the first $250,000 of income. Over that very generous
amount they will pay a modest higher tax rate to bring long overdue fairness to
our tax system that has been skewed to the wealthiest Americans for eleven years
now. During that time, massive income disparity between that favored upper 2%
and the remaining Americans has widened to the biggest disparity since the
period before and leading up to the Great Depression.
We do not know the income of the family owned Gorski Engineering Roskam says will see their taxes increase, but if they fall within the 97% of small businesses making under $250,000, they will pay not an extra penny in tax. If they are in that golden 3% making over $250,000, they will not pay a penny of extra tax on the first $250,000 of income. Roskam also states that their 17 employees will also pay more tax. Are we to believe that each of those 17 employees makes over $250,000 yearly? If so, why do they need Roskam to shill for their extravagant life style at the expense of the middle class being sunk by the tax and wealth disparity Roskam champions to retain his wealthy base. Those of us who truly care about the entire society instead of just the wealthy, will continue to scrutinize Roskam's communications and hold up a mirror to his misstatements. The Congressman is in denial if he ignores the roughly two thirds of the electorate who favor increased tax rates for those most able to pay but who have engorged on unneeded tax cuts for over a decade. Congressman Roskam should resend this email without the false charges but including the facts that he so feverishly works to hide. It will make Congressman Roskam's work on our behalf a lot easier. He won't have to remember what he said.
We do not know the income of the family owned Gorski Engineering Roskam says will see their taxes increase, but if they fall within the 97% of small businesses making under $250,000, they will pay not an extra penny in tax. If they are in that golden 3% making over $250,000, they will not pay a penny of extra tax on the first $250,000 of income. Roskam also states that their 17 employees will also pay more tax. Are we to believe that each of those 17 employees makes over $250,000 yearly? If so, why do they need Roskam to shill for their extravagant life style at the expense of the middle class being sunk by the tax and wealth disparity Roskam champions to retain his wealthy base. Those of us who truly care about the entire society instead of just the wealthy, will continue to scrutinize Roskam's communications and hold up a mirror to his misstatements. The Congressman is in denial if he ignores the roughly two thirds of the electorate who favor increased tax rates for those most able to pay but who have engorged on unneeded tax cuts for over a decade. Congressman Roskam should resend this email without the false charges but including the facts that he so feverishly works to hide. It will make Congressman Roskam's work on our behalf a lot easier. He won't have to remember what he said.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Why Raising the Age of Medicare Eligibility Doesn't Fix The Deficit
By Dale Bowling
Republicans made it clear that if the US is going to avert the Fiscal Cliff, it's going to be primarily through government spending cuts.
They wouldn't list what they wanted to cut because they knew taxpayers would be up in arms -the things Republicans want to cut the most are the most popular programs that benefit the most Americans. Go figure.
Now we finally have an explicit policy idea from Republicans: raise the age of Medicare eligibility.
This sounds like a common sense idea. Medicare is expensive. It will be less expensive if fewer people are on it.
Well, that actually is true. Raising the age that seniors qualify for Medicare would save taxpayers $113 Billion over the next decade.
That sounds like a lot, but actually this $11.3 billion a year savings is less than NASA's budget.
The Bush Tax Cuts and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added trillions to the Deficit. Trillions with a "T". Republicans think that $11.3 billion a year savings from raising the age Seniors can get Medicare is going to dent that? This is the party of fiscal discipline? Really?
By contrast, President Obama's plan of returning to the Clinton era tax rates for the top 2% of earners would produce $1.6 Trillion over the next decade. This is over ten times more than the savings to be had from raising the age of Medicare eligibility to 67.
To understand why raising the age of eligibility for Medicare doesn't save more money, you have to think for a second about how insurance works. Money comes from all policyholders and money goes to those who are sick right now. Healthier people help pay for the folks who are sicker in the pool of policyholders.
On average the healthiest are the youngest people in a given pool of policyholders. If you take the youngest out of the pool of Medicare patients, then the cost for the rest has just increased per person. The risk is spread over fewer, sicker people and this is going to mean higher costs to patients on Medicare.
Also, since most people retire before 67 nowadays there is going to be a few years where you're not covered by your current insurance, but aren't yet eligible for Medicare. Is it going to be cheap (remember- you're retired) to get coverage at age 65 from a private insurer? You're typically the least healthy of that pool and insurers charge accordingly.
Raising the age of Medicare eligibility is such a terribly bad idea when the benefits are weighed against the disadvantages that you have to wonder about it. It will hardly touch the Deficit, but it will cost Seniors big time. Shouldn't Republicans have thought of all that?
This could be another attempt by Republicans to Break Big Government, so that it doesn't work and then complain loudly about how Big Government doesn't work. Then maybe people will start to believe the Private Sector is always the way to go.
Or it could be that Republicans haven't really thought out all the consequences of their policy changes. As I have said before, not what you want from the people who are making huge decisions about your life and well-being.
Or it could be that they've come to believe their own propaganda. Government is always the problem, never the solution and basic mathematics and polls showing how satisfied Medicare patients are can't pierce the veil that Republicans have wound around themselves.
So there again are your choices with Republicans on the Fiscal Cliff: Dishonest, Clueless, Crazy.
An alternative put forth by President Obama is that Medicare should be able to use its buying power to get bulk discounts on prescription drugs. Medicare's prescription drug benefit created by Republicans didn't allow that or the purchasing of generics because it was largely a taxpayer-funded giveaway to Big Pharma. By eliminating that restriction, Taxpayers could get the same savings from Medicare age changes, but patients on Medicare wouldn't see their costs go up. If anything, they'd go down.
America needs to tell its Representatives what it thinks. Contact your Senators and Congressional Representatives and tell them what a terrible idea raising the age of eligibility for Medicare would be for America's Seniors.
Congresswoman Judy Biggert- Illinois 13th Congressional District
Address:
Judy Biggert
United States House of Representatives
2113 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-1313
Phone: 202-225-3515
Website: http://biggert.house.gov/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/judybiggert
Twitter: http://twitter.com/judybiggert
Congressman Peter Roskam- Illinois 6th Congressional District
Address:
Peter Roskam
United States House of Representatives
227 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1306
Ph: 202-225-4561
Website: http://roskam.house.gov/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepRoskam
Twitter: @PeterRoskam
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin
Address:
Sen. Dick Durbin
United States Senate
711 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-2152
Website: http://www.durbin.senate.gov/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorDurbin
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin
Illinois Senator Mark Kirk
Address:
Senator Mark Kirk
524 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
Phone: 202-224-2854
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorKirk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/SENATORKIRK
Republicans made it clear that if the US is going to avert the Fiscal Cliff, it's going to be primarily through government spending cuts.
They wouldn't list what they wanted to cut because they knew taxpayers would be up in arms -the things Republicans want to cut the most are the most popular programs that benefit the most Americans. Go figure.
Now we finally have an explicit policy idea from Republicans: raise the age of Medicare eligibility.
This sounds like a common sense idea. Medicare is expensive. It will be less expensive if fewer people are on it.
Well, that actually is true. Raising the age that seniors qualify for Medicare would save taxpayers $113 Billion over the next decade.
That sounds like a lot, but actually this $11.3 billion a year savings is less than NASA's budget.
The Bush Tax Cuts and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added trillions to the Deficit. Trillions with a "T". Republicans think that $11.3 billion a year savings from raising the age Seniors can get Medicare is going to dent that? This is the party of fiscal discipline? Really?
By contrast, President Obama's plan of returning to the Clinton era tax rates for the top 2% of earners would produce $1.6 Trillion over the next decade. This is over ten times more than the savings to be had from raising the age of Medicare eligibility to 67.
To understand why raising the age of eligibility for Medicare doesn't save more money, you have to think for a second about how insurance works. Money comes from all policyholders and money goes to those who are sick right now. Healthier people help pay for the folks who are sicker in the pool of policyholders.
On average the healthiest are the youngest people in a given pool of policyholders. If you take the youngest out of the pool of Medicare patients, then the cost for the rest has just increased per person. The risk is spread over fewer, sicker people and this is going to mean higher costs to patients on Medicare.
Also, since most people retire before 67 nowadays there is going to be a few years where you're not covered by your current insurance, but aren't yet eligible for Medicare. Is it going to be cheap (remember- you're retired) to get coverage at age 65 from a private insurer? You're typically the least healthy of that pool and insurers charge accordingly.
Raising the age of Medicare eligibility is such a terribly bad idea when the benefits are weighed against the disadvantages that you have to wonder about it. It will hardly touch the Deficit, but it will cost Seniors big time. Shouldn't Republicans have thought of all that?
This could be another attempt by Republicans to Break Big Government, so that it doesn't work and then complain loudly about how Big Government doesn't work. Then maybe people will start to believe the Private Sector is always the way to go.
Or it could be that Republicans haven't really thought out all the consequences of their policy changes. As I have said before, not what you want from the people who are making huge decisions about your life and well-being.
Or it could be that they've come to believe their own propaganda. Government is always the problem, never the solution and basic mathematics and polls showing how satisfied Medicare patients are can't pierce the veil that Republicans have wound around themselves.
So there again are your choices with Republicans on the Fiscal Cliff: Dishonest, Clueless, Crazy.
An alternative put forth by President Obama is that Medicare should be able to use its buying power to get bulk discounts on prescription drugs. Medicare's prescription drug benefit created by Republicans didn't allow that or the purchasing of generics because it was largely a taxpayer-funded giveaway to Big Pharma. By eliminating that restriction, Taxpayers could get the same savings from Medicare age changes, but patients on Medicare wouldn't see their costs go up. If anything, they'd go down.
America needs to tell its Representatives what it thinks. Contact your Senators and Congressional Representatives and tell them what a terrible idea raising the age of eligibility for Medicare would be for America's Seniors.
Congresswoman Judy Biggert- Illinois 13th Congressional District
Address:
Judy Biggert
United States House of Representatives
2113 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-1313
Phone: 202-225-3515
Website: http://biggert.house.gov/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/judybiggert
Twitter: http://twitter.com/judybiggert
Congressman Peter Roskam- Illinois 6th Congressional District
Address:
Peter Roskam
United States House of Representatives
227 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1306
Ph: 202-225-4561
Website: http://roskam.house.gov/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepRoskam
Twitter: @PeterRoskam
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin
Address:
Sen. Dick Durbin
United States Senate
711 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-2152
Website: http://www.durbin.senate.gov/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorDurbin
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin
Illinois Senator Mark Kirk
Address:
Senator Mark Kirk
524 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
Phone: 202-224-2854
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorKirk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/SENATORKIRK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)