This week at progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Here is the August 19 edition. Inclusion of a blog post does not necessarily indicate my agreement with—or endorsement of—its contents. |
At Blue Virginia, lowkell writes—Should Germany, Russia, Iraq, etc. Have Followed Corey Stewart’s “Logic” About Preserving “History”?
Native Minnesotan Corey Stewart, who grew up about as far from the Confederacy as possible while still remaining in the United States, has been reborn in recent months as a full-throated fan of the Confederacy, and specifically of protecting public statues of the Confederacy from “political correctness” or “Antifa” or whatever he’s ranting about today. Kind of reminds me of George Allen, who grew up in the south…of California, and who also was a huge fan of the Confederacy. What IS it with these people, anyway? [...]
Anyway, reborn neo-Confederate Corey Stewart loves to rant and rave about how liberals/”the left” are hell-bent on destroying “our history,” and about how that history must be preserved from desecration. Sometimes Stewart adds, oddly, that if we don’t preserve our “historical monuments,” then history will be forgotten, and then god knows what might happen?
I guess Corey Stewart would argue that:
- After World War II, the Germans should have kept statues of Nazi leaders – Hitler, Goebbels, etc. – standing, in public, so that Germans didn’t “forget” Nazi history.
- Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, nobody should have pulled down statues of Lenin or Stalin, because…again, that might lead people to forget how horrible Lenin and (particularly) Stalin were. [...]
- Was Corey Stewart angry to see the Berlin Wall torn down? If not, why not? Isn’t that an example of important “history” that needs to be remembered?
I could go on all day with this, of course, but I think the point is obvious — that remembering history, let alone learning appropriate lessons from that history (e.g., that fascism and Communist totalitarianism are evil) doesn’t require that people leave monuments to those dark histories standing in public spaces.
Now, in some cases, like the Nazi concentration camps (which can’t be moved, nor should be moved even if they could be), I’d argue that it’s crucial that people can see for their own eyes, in the actual historical location, what can happen when genocidal ideology runs amok. But why leave up monuments erected to honor the BAD GUYS — Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc? What on earth does that teach people?
At Bleeding Heartland of Iowa, desmoinesdem writes— Republican budget cuts reduce oversight of Iowa nursing homes:
Iowa’s Long-Term Care Ombudsman has “eliminated virtually all staff visits” to our state’s 850 nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, Clark Kauffman reported for the Des Moines Register on August 23. A large reduction in state funding led to the policy change, announced last month. Republican legislators passed the health and human services budget on party-line Iowa House and Senate votes. Governor Terry Branstad approved the cuts in his final batch of bill signings.
Reducing oversight of nursing homes has long been a goal for Branstad, whose Department of Inspections and Appeals didn’t even fill all the nursing home inspector positions funded by state lawmakers. Iowa already ranked last among the 50 states in terms of ombudsman visits to nursing homes at least once per quarter, according to 2015 statistics cited by Kauffman.
Ending on-site visits by ombudsmen will put approximately 53,000 Iowans at greater risk of receiving substandard care. [...]
Iowans with loved ones in assisted living would do well to keep a closer eye on what’s happening in the facility. People receiving nursing home care may not be in a position to spot red flags or communicate with ombudsmen by phone or e-mail.
At Blue Delaware, Delaware Dem writes—It is time for Carper and Coons to let go of Pharma:
Back in January 2017, Senators Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar proposed a budget-resolution amendment that would have allowed pharmacies and individuals to order their prescription drugs from Canada where they sell for much less than in the U.S. It failed by a 46 to 52 vote. Senators Coons and Carper were among 13 Democrats who voted against it, citing safety concerns as the reason for their no vote. Twelve Republicans voted for the bill, more than enough to ensure its passage if a few more Democrats had voted yes.
In March, Senator Sanders introduced an updated bill that required imported drugs be made in a facility registered with the Food and Drug Administration. Senator Coons and Carper were not among the 20 sponsors.
The current law has a ‘non-interference’ clause that expressly bans the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating with drug companies for the best possible prices for seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D. Senators Mark Warner (D-VA), Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) introduced a bill with 30 co-sponsors that would remove the ‘non-interference ban’ and allow Medicare to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs. By harnessing the bargaining power of nearly 41 million seniors, Medicare could help drive down costs of prescription drugs for everyone. Senator Coons and Carper are not among the sponsors of this bill.
Please contact the Senators’ offices in the coming two weeks as the Senators return from their August break and ask to both co-sponsor the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, and vote for the bill when it comes to the floor.
At Capital & Main of California, Larry Buhl writes—Study: State Climate Policies Boost Inland Empire’s Economy:
Southern California’s Inland Empire — San Bernardino and Riverside counties — netted more than $9 billion in direct economic activity and gained 41,000 jobs over five years from the state’s climate programs, a new study has found.
The study flies in the face of arguments that regulations kill jobs — arguments some politicians reel off without taking a breath. Researchers looked at the economic effects of California’s renewables portfolio standard and cap-and-trade policies, along with the California solar initiative, federal solar investment tax credit and investor-owned utilities energy efficiency programs between 2010 and 2016.
The state’s renewables portfolio standard mandates that 50 percent of California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2030. The proliferation of renewable energy plants is responsible for over 90 percent of the direct economic benefit to the region from the state’s major climate programs and more than $12 billion in net benefits, the study found.
Commissioned by Next 10, a San Francisco-based non-partisan, non-profit group, the study was conducted by the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center and the university’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment.
Researchers found that one-time investments in building renewable energy power plants boosted construction that benefited the region indirectly as well. The ripple effects of these investments, including retail and real estate, generated $14.2 billion in economic activity and 73,000 jobs, the study said.
At Politics North Carolina, Thomas Mills writes—Redistricting Hearings Are a Sham:
The public hearings on the new legislative maps bought for the GOP with taxpayer money are little more than a ruse. The Republicans in the House and Senate are going to pass the maps without any real discussion and without considering alternative maps. It’s so clear, that according to people in Lee County, Republican Representative John Sauls has already sent out letters to his prospective new constituents. He wouldn’t have done that if the maps were in question.
At the public hearings, legislators dismiss criticism out of hand. They’ve got veto proof majorities and most incumbents are in extremely safe districts. They’re not really interested in input. They’re interested in saying they had public hearings. So, really, this whole process is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
Yesterday, the Southern Coalition for Social Justice released its own maps. They’re more favorable to Democrats so they won’t get serious consideration from the Republicans who control the legislature. However, they do show that alternative maps are possible and set the stage for another challenge to the districts the GOP bought.
The districts are certainly drawn to give Republicans maximum representation and to reduce competition in elections. That said, some of what Republicans say is true. Democrats have basically ceded rural America, giving the GOP an advantage in district configurations here and across the country. Democrats might be able to garner majorities in statewide and national elections, but they win with large margins in highly concentrated areas.
To win back majorities, Democrats need a two-front strategy. They should contest the extreme gerrymandering brought about by professional mapmakers to rig elections. They also need to broaden their appeal to build a bigger tent. If they want to win legislative majorities in states like North Carolina or Virginia, they need to redefine themselves with an economic message that has broad appeal. Right now, most rural residents see them as a party consumed with pushing an agenda of social change while ignoring the huge hurdles facing working-class families outside of major urban areas. For Democrats to win control of legislative bodies, that perception must change.
At Honolulu Civil Beat, Kirstin Downey writes—Republicans Pushing To Slice Up The 9th Circuit Court:
Congressional Republicans, with President Donald Trump’s encouragement, are pushing ahead with a proposal to shrink the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court that covers Hawaii.
On Thursday, U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona, held a field hearing in his home state of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, which he chairs, to discuss how and whether to split the 9th Circuit into two parts.
He has proposed legislation, S 276, co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain, also of Arizona, and Sen. Dean Heller, a Republican from Nevada, that would restructure the appellate court and reduce its size.
The 9th Circuit, the court system’s largest appellate district, encompasses 12 states, including California and Hawaii. It stretches from Alaska through the Pacific Northwest to Nevada and Arizona, and from the Northern Mariana Islands to Montana, representing about 40 percent of the country’s land mass and 20 percent of its population.
There are varying proposals about how to chop it up. [...]
Judges and lawyers from throughout Hawaii are strongly opposing the proposal, saying it would hurt judicial administration in the state.
At Appalachian Voices, Erin Savage writes—White House halts review of mountaintop removal health impacts:
On Aug. 18, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) sent a letter to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) ordering it to halt its review of the links between mountaintop removal coal mining and human health impacts.
In 2016, the DOI’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) had commissioned the NAS to complete the two-year review, providing a budget of $1 million. The review came at the request of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, which was under pressure from West Virginia citizens concerned with the growing body of research pointing to negative health impacts strongly linked to living near surface coal mines. [...]
The former head of OSMRE, Joseph Pizarchik, expressed his displeasure after the NAS review was abruptly put on hold. “The American people need to know whether living close to a coal mine is killing them, Pizarchik told S&P Global. “The economic viability of the coal industry is dependent upon whether or not the industry is incurring liability for the health and lives of the American people.”
It remains unclear whether the NAS review of mountaintop removal coal mining and human health impacts has been specifically targeted by the Trump administration, but it appears likely at this point. The review is well underway — two public comment meetings have been held in Central Appalachia, and two additional meetings have been held in Washington, D.C. Given that the review is nearly halfway into its short 24-month timeframe and that its $1 million budget represents less than 1 percent of the DOI’s current spending on grants, it seems ridiculous not to allow the review to proceed.
At Juanita Jean’s of Texas, El Jefe writes—Still Blaming Bernie:
Yesterday, Newsweek published a story accusing Bernie voters of tipping the 2016 election to Trump. It uses data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, compiled by Political Wire, that showed that, indeed, 10% of Bernie primary voters went for Trump in the general. It then goes into a swing state analysis that showed that Trump’s winning margin was less than the Bernie’s voters who went for Trump. The implication was clear – stubborn Bernie voters wrecked Hillary’s bid for the presidency. How evil they were and inconsiderate of Hillary and all of her supporters. Fair enough.
There was an interesting mention, though, of a few not insignificant details at the very end of the article…First, the 10% of Bernie voters that went for Trump paled in comparison to the TWENTY FIVE percent of Hillary voters who went for McCain in 2008 (hypocrisy, anyone?). More important, and one that I hadn’t realized was so large, was that almost 30% of Bernie voters were actually self identified Republican or leaned Republican. Conversely, Hillary only attracted about 6 or 7% of the same demographic.
So, was it Bernie and his evil bots who wrecked Hillary’s election, or was it actually the fact that Hillary failed to attract the same demographic that Bernie did? Trump certainly attracted a wide demographic of support. Bernie attracted a wide demographic of support. Hillary simply did not. So, should the headline of the Newsweek article have been BERNIE SANDERS VOTERS HELPED TRUMP WIN AND HERE’S PROOF, or should it have been HILLARY CLINTON LOST BECAUSE SHE FAILED TO ATTRACT A WIDER DEMOGRAPHIC THAN TRUMP?
I know the answer, but Hillary’s supporters, and many in the party, still cling to the myth that Bernie wrecked her election. The inconvenient truth is that the numbers are the numbers and they speak for themselves; this lesson must be learned by the Democratic party lest it have to re-learn it in 2020.
I’m not holding my breath.
At The Montana Post, Don Pogreba writes—Secretary Zinke’s Sham Review of Monuments Fizzles to an Uncertain End, Insults the Public:
No doubt freshly tanned from an oddly timed vacation to Greece near the end of his review of national monuments, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke released a massive 1 1/4 page document summarizing his work and refused to hand over his actual recommendations to the American public the day it was due.
The report summary looks very familiar to this teacher’s eyes. Most of it repeats the assignment rather than offering any new, substantive information. I assume everyone (including even the President) knew, for instance, that ” use of the Act has not always been without controversy,” one of the observations passing as original work in the report.
The fundamental con here is that Zinke is presenting his work as something other than the political gamesmanship. His review, which he proudly notes included tours “over air, foot, car, and horseback,” excluded most of the monuments he said he’d review. At some point, he must have decided that there were diminishing returns to be had by getting photographed while on horseback and he simply gave up on visiting the local stakeholders and communities involved. Zinke wants us to believe that a rushed, self-promoting, incomplete review is somehow more scientific than the work that went into previous monument designations, a claim even more ludicrous than the way Secretary Zinke wears a cowboy hat.
The worst part of the report summary, though, comes in its only new work. The last two paragraphs are dedicated to shitting on the people who took the time to comment on the fate of our national monuments. Instead of commending people who took the time to directly engage with their government, Zinke dismissed them and insulted their intelligence. Faced with overwhelming public support for the preservation of monuments, Zinke’s report summary calls their entirely warranted fears about land transfer unfounded and dismissed their remarks as part of an “orchestrated” campaign.
Just a little reminder that Secretary Zinke isn’t interested in what the people want.
At the Hope Policy Institute Blog of Mississippi, Sara Miller writes—State Funding for Colleges and Universities in Mississippi Still Well Below Pre-Recession Levels and Falling:
A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) looks at state spending for higher education throughout the United States. According to the report, states as a whole have struggled to adequately fund higher education over the last decade due to deep cuts made during the Great Recession. As state funding has declined, tuition of public 4-year colleges and universities has been rising, but those rises have not covered the full cost of the decline in state dollars, leaving many colleges and universities also making cuts to faculty, staff, programs, and financial aid. As stated in the report: “At a time when the benefit of a college education has never been greater, state policymakers have made going to college less affordable and less accessible to the students most in need.”
Mississippi’s higher education system has been hit with cuts much like those in other states. However, during the recession, Mississippi’s colleges and universities faced cuts deeper than the average and, afterward, have recovered more slowly than the average. According to the CBPP report, when adjusted for inflation, state funding for Mississippi’s colleges and universities is still down 22 percent from pre-recession levels and per student spending is still down $2,247 from 2008 to 2017. As revenues increased after the recession ended, states began to restore funding to its key services like higher education. However, before Mississippi’s revenue was able to fully recover, it began to decline again due to slowing economic growth paired with some new tax breaks. As a result, while nationally per student state spending for higher education rose by $170 in the last year, Mississippi’s spending per student fell by $233 from 2016 to 2017. Unfortunately, without some changes to increase revenue, the budget picture for the future is even bleaker; with a $415 million tax cut that begins to phase in this year.
Even before those tax cuts take effect, cuts have already caused reductions in faculty, staff, programs, and state financial aid as well as increases in tuition at Mississippi’s 4-year colleges and universities in real dollars by $1,902, or 34.5 percent. Lowering the availability of financial aid and rising tuition has made higher education less accessible for families with low-wage workers.
At Better Georgia, Regina Willis writes—Georgia women rank poorly according to new study:
Women in Georgia fare poorly in the areas of employment, health and political empowerment. When compared to women in other states, Georgia women rank 46th in the nation — that’s the fifth worst — in these areas according to a recent study by WalletHub.
The WalletHub study evaluated fifteen metrics across three main areas — Workplace Environment, Education and Health and Political Empowerment — to reach their conclusion that Georgia is a very inequitable state for women. But their study isn’t the only research that supports this conclusion.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, women in Georgia are more likely to be in poverty than men. Nearly one in five women in Georgia live in poverty, whereas only twelve percent of men are living in poverty.
There are real consequences when women struggle to access equal pay and advancement opportunities, adequate healthcare and leadership roles in our political process. Unfortunately, addressing sexism is simply not a priority for many state leaders. Talking about each of these issues individually also fails to capture how these disparities interact.
About two-thirds of minimum wage jobs are held by women; this drives the gender wage gap. It also drives women’s lack of access to heath care, as many low wage jobs do not offer health care or other benefits. Because Georgia did not expand Medicaid, many low wage workers fall into the coverage gap — they do not qualify for Medicaid and they cannot get Obamacare-subsidized insurance through the marketplace.
At The Left Hook of California, an unnamed blogger writes—Nearly 300 Residents Gather for First in a Series of Community-Led Town Hall on San Jose Google Mega-Campus:
Yesterday evening, nearly 300 residents gathered for the first in a series of community-led town halls on the potential impacts across the City, as well as the opportunities, of Google’s proposed San Jose Mega-Campus. Residents shared their vision for addressing issues of affordable housing, access to quality jobs and education and other community needs within the project.
The City of San Jose has begun negotiations with Google and, despite vocal concerns from the community, has yet to offer residents across the City the opportunity to share their vision for the project. Yesterday, neighbors joined to say the community needs a seat at the table to ensure its needs are addressed within the project as San Jose negotiates the sale of some its most valuable public lands to Google.
The town hall consisted of a “learn-in”, breakout sessions in English, Spanish and Vietnamese, and a larger discussion on the community’s overall vision for the project. The residents were joined by Vice Mayor Magdalena Carrasco. The community vision for the project that develops through the series of town halls will be shared with the Mayor, City Council and Google representatives.
Silicon Valley Rising partners that are making these town halls possible include South Bay Labor Council, Working Partnerships USA, SEIU-USWW, SOMOS Mayfair, Law Foundation, Housing Network, LUNA, UNITE HERE Local 19, TEAMSTERS, UA Local 393, and Silicon Valley DeBug.