Voting Rights

Following the American Civil War, three Reconstruction Amendments were ratified between 1865 & 1870.  The 13th Amendment, was adopted on December 18, 1865 and abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment, adopted on July 9, 1868, grants citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States and guarantees every person due process and equal protection rights.  The 15th Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, prohibits governments from denying the right to vote based on race, color, or previous position of servitude (slavery).  

Given that the lives and political rights of newly freed slaves continued to be threatened, three Enforcement Acts were passed between 1870 & 1871.  These acts protected African Americans’ rights to vote, hold office, and serve on juries, and also allowed the federal government to intervene in states that did not abide by the law.  And yet, the United States did not live happily ever after.

From 1868 to 1888, actual electoral fraud and violence worked to suppress the African American vote in the South.  In 1890, Jim Crow Laws were enacted enforcing racial segregation in the South.  The southern states then amended their constitutions and passed legislation to enact various voter restrictions such as literacy tests, poll taxes, property ownership requirements, moral character tests, and grandfather tests which allowed people to vote only if their grandfather had voted (excluding African Americans as their grandfathers had been slaves.)

This continued until the 1950s at the onset of the Civil Rights Movement which put pressure on the federal government to protect the voting rights of racial minorities.  The Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed, which authorized the Attorney General to sue on behalf of person who was having their 15th Amendment Rights restricted. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 introduced penalties for anyone obstructing someone’s right to vote.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 further outlawed discrimination, unequal voter registration requirements, and racial discrimination in schools, the workplace, and public accommodations.

And yet, oppostion still found ways to suppress the African American vote.  So, following the 1964 elections, when the Democrats found control of both chambers of Congress, John F. Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, privately instructed Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to draft the “goddamndest toughest voting rights act that you can.”  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was introduced to Congress while civil rights leaders, under the protection of federal troops, led 25,000 people in a march from Selma to Montgomery.

The Act, yet again, prohibits racial discrimination in voting and secures voting rights for racial minorities, especially in the South.  It prohibits states and local governments from imposing any law that results in discrimination.  It specifically outlaws thing like literacy tests and other legislation listed above.

So, we’re good now, right?  Of course not.  Because in recent years, thinly veiled attempts at suppressing the African American vote have sprouted up in the form of Voter ID laws.  And, in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the portion of the law that would prohibit states from changing their election laws without advance federal approval.  This allowed states like Texas to immediately enact their previously blocked Voter ID Law and redistrict their state without federal approval.

The claim is that Voter ID laws are common sense and that they prevent voter fraud despite the fact that multiple sources have found instances of voter fraud to be rare.  From 2000 to 2014, there were only 31 instances out of 1 billion ballots cast that would have been prevented by voter ID laws.  In-person voter fraud, as it currently happens, would have no chance of swinging an election.

What does swing elections?  Voter ID laws (which happen to be rather expensive as well as discriminatory).  Voter ID laws disproportionately exclude minorities, young people, low-income voters, seniors, and women.  Voter ID laws are the modern day version of literacy tests, property ownership requirements, and grandfather tests.

Here is where the candidates stand on voting rights.

Clinton:  Clinton’s plan is to automatically register voters when they turn 18 unless they opt out and make sure voter registrations are accurate and secure.  She wants to restore the Voting Rights Act and fight back against voting restrictions.  She wants to set a national standard for early voting.

Trump:  Trump has become the mouthpiece for spouting the false rhetoric that the election will be rigged and stolen through voter fraud despite all evidence to the contrary.  Despite being behind in every poll following his post-RNC surge, he perpetuates that the only way he can lose is if cheating goes on.  So, he pushes voter ID laws by arguing that, without them, voters will vote 15 times for Hillary.

Veterans

I don’t think a lot of background is needed this week.  Everyone knows our veterans’ care in this country is a mess.  Here is what the candidates plan to do about it.

Clinton:

Experience fighting for veterans:

• As first lady, she brought attention to Gulf War Veterans by fighting for the recognition of Gulf War Syndrome.
• As Senator, she served on the Armed Services Committee where she
• fought for help for families caring for veterans with Traumatic Brain Injuries & Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
• worked to increase the survivor benefit from $12,000 to $100,000.
• worked with Sen. Lindsey Graham to expand health care benefits to National Guard Members and Reservists.
• introduced the new G.I. Bill that included educational opportunities, home buying programs, and low interest loans of up to $100,000 to start small businesses.
• cosponsored the Retirement Pay Restoration Act to expand retirement pay and disability compensation.
• cosponsored legislation that led to the Defense Authorization Act which allowed families of wounded service members to take 6 months of leave to care for their family members.

Clinton has an extensive and comprehensive Veterans Agenda.  Here are just a few highlights:

• Block efforts to privatize the Veterans Health Administration
• Create a new framework for veterans’ health care delivery that is timely and high quality.
• New funding to improve healthcare for women at the VHA.
• Increase funding for mental health providers and substance abuse treatment to end the veteran suicide epidemic.
• Expand programs targeted at providing effective mental health treatment.
• Identify and treat war consequences such as Agent Orange exposure, Gulf War Syndrome, burn pits, Post Traumatic Stress, and Traumatic Brain Injury.
• Streamline and modernize the Veterans’ benefits system.
• Create a standing President’s Council on Veterans.
• Convene a White House Summit on Veterans.
• Expand tax credits for veterans’ employment.
• Increase funds for concurrent certification and credentialing programs so that veterans can transfer their skills to the workforce.
• Increase funding for reducing veteran homelessness.
• Expand complementary programs such as job training, disability benefits, and transportation for veterans.
• Provide budgetary certainty as  addressed in my military post.

Note:  She also has an extensive agenda to support military personnel and families which include things like increased benefits and spousal employment initiatives.

Trump Veterans Agenda:

Trump has a 10 point veterans plan.  6 of the 10 points are about going after the Department of Veterans Affairs including

• Create a private white house hotline answered by a real person 24 hours a day devoted to answering veterans’ complaints about wrongdoing at the VA.

The other 4 points:

• Appoint a VA Secretary whose sole purpose is to serve veterans.
• Reform the visa system so that veterans are at the front of the line for health care.
• Increase the number of mental health care professionals available to veterans.
• Ensure every veteran has the chance to seek care at the VA or a private service provider of their choice.

Taxes

This really says it all.  It moves fast, so you have to have quite a bit of background knowledge to follow, but it covers nearly everything I've unearthed in my research: 

• Clinton's plan is most fiscally responsible, protects those making less than $250,000/yr, raises revenue to invest in infrastructure, etc. 
• Trump's plan explodes debt to dangerous levels while helping out the millionaires who don't need a lot of help, cuts revenues which threatens entitlements and defense. 

Also, did you know that most of us don't pay that much in federal income taxes at all? It's true. Do the math and see for yourself. Last year, when all was said and done, about 5% of our family income went to federal income taxes.

Social Security & Medicare

In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act with the initial intent of providing federal assistance to those unable to work.  At this time, the time of The Great Depression, over 50% of senior citizens lived in poverty.  It has been amended many times and currently stands primarily as the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. It is funded by payroll taxes.  The IRS collects these taxes and entrusts them to the Social Security Trust Funds: Federal Old Age & Survivors Trust Fund, Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund.  

The largest component of OASDI is the payment of retirement benefits.  Most employees see FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) tax taken out of their paycheck at a rate of 6.2% (during 2011 & 2012 it was 4.2% as a part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 which I referenced in my post on the Economy).   Employers pay another 6.2%.  Self employed individuals pay SECA (Self Employed Contributions Act) tax at a rate of 12.4%.  For 2015, all salaried income up to $118,500 had a FICA or SECA tax collected.  Income above $118,500 is not taxed by FICA or SECA.  The program is largely self-sufficient.

People who have paid into FICA and SECA for 40 quarters of credit or more and meet a specified minimum income are considered fully insured and can start receiving social security retirement benefits at a reduced rate at age 62 and a higher benefit if they wait until 65, 66, or 67 depending on their birth date.

Medicare Health Benefits were added to Social Security in 1965.  In 1966, a FICA-Medicare Tax was added and currently stands at 1.45% of an employee’s income.  The employer pays another 1.45%.  Self-employed individuals pay 2.9%.

Under Medicare, the government contracts 30-50 private insurance companies to provide health insurance for Americans 65 and older who have paid into the system.  Some younger people with disabilities are also eligible for Medicare.

Clinton:  Concerning Social Security, Clinton is opposed to privatization, reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments, and raising the retirement age.

She points out two concerning facts that she would like to change concerning Social Security.  She says that the poverty rate for widowed women 65 and older is 90% higher than that of other seniors due to the loss of benefits when a spouse dies.  She wants to change how much social security benefits drop when a spouse dies.

Additionally, she believes that Americans should receive credit to their Social Security benefits when they take time out of work to serve as a caregiver.  Since benefits are calculated based on the top 35 years of an individual’s earnings, those who take time off to care for a child or an aging parent, receive a reduced benefit.  Clinton wants to change that.

Concerning Medicare, she will protect the Affordable Care Act which made preventive care available and affordable to 29 million Americans on Medicare.  She is opposed to Republican attempts to privatize Medicare which would drive up costs.  She also has plans for lowering prescription drug costs and for lowering out-of-pocket health care costs.

Trump:  Trump breaks with his party (and his running mate) on Social Security and Medicare and vows to preserve social security and Medicare without cuts.  He is opposed to raising the retirement age and opposed to reducing the cost of living calculations.  He basically wants to leave it all, as is.

Small Business

A successful small business is one of the best ways for citizens to move up the “ladder of prosperity.”  Small businesses create nearly ⅔ of new jobs which really drives the American economy.  The Great Recession of 2008 hit small businesses hard and new business formation has fallen 15% since 2007.

Here is what the candidates will do for small businesses.

Clinton:  As the daughter of a small business owner, this is a very important issue for Clinton and she has an extensive and detailed plan aimed at making it easier to start a business, make a profit, get financing, find investors, offer health care and benefits, work with the federal government, and fight back when you’re getting taken advantage of.  She also wants to provide tax relief.  Her plan is representative of someone with a deep understanding of the issues who has spent years listening to the concerns of small business owners.  Here are some highlights.

She will federally fund any state that makes starting a business cheaper, easier, and who will streamline unnecessary licensing programs.  She will expand access to credit and offer training and mentorship programs in underserved communities for budding entrepreneurs and small business owners.  She will allow small business owners to defer student loans with no interest while they are getting their businesses off the ground.  She has called for a 100% tax exclusion on capital gains tax for long-term small business investments.

Concerning taxes, she will make a new standard deduction for small businesses, similar to what is available to individual filers.  She wants to simplify the tax process and quadruple the start-up tax deduction.  She wants to expand the health care tax credit through the Affordable Care Act and allow small businesses to pool together to offer retirement plans to their employees.

She will work to ensure that federal regulations aren’t holding small businesses back and therefore holding the economy back and she will do more to ensure small businesses get paid what is due to them so they aren’t taken advantage of by bigger businesses that hire them.  She has announced a plan to specifically enhance legal protections for small businesses who get stiffed by large firms.

Trump:  The only detail concerning small businesses I could find comes from Trump’s speech at the Detroit Economic Club, where he said, “No American company will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes.”  Although, I have also found sources where he leaves out small businesses in his plan. Still, he reiterated this in the 1st presidential debate by saying, “Under my plan, I’ll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses.”  He went on to say, “That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan. It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.”  

First of all, a reminder from my post on jobs: Bill Clinton was the all-time leader in jobs creation followed by Carter, Johnson, and Reagan in 4th.  Additionally, according to Fortune.com, economists and policy experts don’t agree that it will be a miraculous job creator.  They quote co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, Dean Baker, who says, “The idea that cutting taxes will lead to a surge in business investment should not be taken seriously at this point.  We have a large body of academic research showing investment is relatively unresponsive to tax rates, but more importantly we have actually tried this twice—(with) Reagan and Bush–and neither time was there a noticeable uptick in investment.”  

Of note here, also, is Donald Trump’s reputation for not paying the small business owners who work for him.  There is story after story after story about how he put people out of business when he didn’t pay them their due.  When confronted with this in the debate he replied flippantly, “Maybe he didn’t do a good job, and I was unsatisfied with his work.”

Additionally, a strong economy is the best indicator of success for small businesses, and Trump has proven himself a major threat to the U.S. economy which has been cited by numerous independent sources and backed by billionaires such as Warren Buffett, Meg Whitman, and Michael Bloomberg.

Finally, did you know that 40% of Fortune 500 companies have been started by immigrants or their children, including Steve Jobs, son of a Syrian immigrant?  Discouraging immigration hurts the economy and ultimately, small business.

Reproductive Rights

I am pro-life.  For me, a statement like that could lead to the loss of many allies.  I have friends and family that are strongly pro-choice.  And, they will argue that by being pro-life I am threatening a woman’s right to make medical decisions regarding her body and women’s health overall.  They will say, and I agree with them, that you can't legislate your own morality or religion.  They will argue with me about science and when life begins.  I also have friends and family members that are strongly pro-life. They will argue that I am not, in fact, pro-life.  They will argue that if I had ever voted for a “pro-choice”candidate, which I have, I am endorsing the “unfettered killing of babies,”  and I am pro-abortion.  Additionally, I know people who have received abortions for a variety of reasons, and I still support them completely and without judgment.  However, I recognize that by making this statement, they might not see me as a safe person.  All around, this would have been an easier issue to just skip all together, because in this very moment, I can’t picture a single person that is going to like this post.  It doesn’t side with any one ideology completely, and all sides might have a criticism.  And, in some cases, those criticisms might be rather divisive.  But, I made a commitment to myself to cover all issues, so here it goes.

I consider myself pro-life because, for the most part, I personally disagree with abortion.  And, I want to reduce the number of abortions.  But, I can’t ignore the evidence that anti-abortion laws don’t reduce the number of abortions.  If they did, maybe I would think differently.  But, they don’t.  According to a study published in May of 2016, “In countries where abortion is completely illegal or permitted only to save the life of the pregnant woman, the most recent data places the average annual abortion rate at 37 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. In countries where abortion is legal in most cases, the rate is 34 per 1,000 women.”  Latin America has some of the most intensive anti-abortion laws in the world and the highest abortion rate at 32%.  Criminalizing abortion does not prevent abortion.  It just seeks illegal and dangerous ways for women to seek abortions.  Additionally, it puts women’s health at risk.

Maternal deaths are increasing across the country.  According the World Health Organization, the United States is the only developed country where maternal deaths are on the rise.  Unsafe abortions are one of the three leading causes of maternal mortality.  

In 2011, Texas slashed family planning funding by 66%.  As a result, 82 family planning clinics closed, ⅓ of which were Planned Parenthood clinics (which offer a myriad of health care options including safe, legal abortion), cutting the number of women the state could serve in half.  Low income women were especially at a loss to affordable birth control and had more babies.  And alarmingly, pregnancy-related deaths nearly doubled, with 72 in 2010 and 148 in 2012.  We are failing at offering affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare to women.

So, if criminalizing abortion doesn’t prevent abortion, what does?  Contraception and sex education.  And, I am big proponents of both.  In Eastern Europe, abortion rates have fallen from 88 out of 1,000 women to 42 out of 1,000 women over the past 25 years due to a rise in contraception popularity and accessibility.  Colorado began offering free birth control to anyone who wanted it in 2009, and over the first 5 years of the program, saw unintended pregnancies drop by 40% and abortion fall by 42%.  It also reduced teen pregnancies.  The fact that contraception decreases abortion rates has been proven time after time after time.

I am encouraged when I hear that abortion rates have dropped by 40% in the past 25 years and, as of 2014, was at its lowest point since 1973, the year Roe vs. Wade was decided and abortion was legalized.    Notice that in the graphic to the left, that abortion has continued to fall under Barack Obama.  Barack Obama may be a pro-choice candidate, but he also has policies that make healthcare and childcare more affordable, contraception more accessible, and policies that support a living wage and a reduction in poverty.  All of which reduce the number of abortions.

Why do those things reduce abortions?  Because, the majority of women having abortions are doing so because they cannot manage the financial burden of having a child.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, 49% of women having an abortion in 2014 had incomes less than 100% of the poverty level ($11,670 a year) and 26% had incomes between 100% and 199% of the poverty level.  Three-fourths of women cited one of three reasons for having an abortion: “concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents.”

For me, being pro-life, means being pro-all-life, before and after birth.  And, that is one of my primary issues with the GOP.  They tout their pro-life stance and anti-abortion laws (which don’t reduce abortions) as the moral standard, but enact policies that are certainly not “pro-life.”  Additionally, pro-life voters continue to vote for them under the guise that they will ultimately outlaw abortion (which won’t reduce the number of abortions) despite the fact that we’ve had numerous Republican-led administrations since 1973, and none of them have effectively outlawed abortion.

And, the biggest dissonance for me comes in the pro-life voters who are voting for Donald Trump.   A man who shows no regard for the ways his mass deportation plan would rip apart families (and cost the U.S. $4.7 trillion), or who has insulted and mocked Latinos, Muslims, the disabled, African Americans, Asians, and women, is not pro-life.  A man whose son compares human lives to Skittles is not pro-life. A man who supports torture (which doesn’t work) is not pro-life.  Yet, 78% of white evangelicals are expected to vote for Donald Trump.

Evangelical author, Rachel Held Evans, explained this dissonance best in a recent blog post:

“If these numbers hold, and on election night a reporter looks into a camera and says evangelical Christians proved Trump’s most faithful supporters, the reputation of the evangelical movement will be tied to Trump for years to come.  This will put evangelicals in the difficult position of having to explain…

-    how you can claim God’s love for kids with special needs while supporting a man who openly mocks people with disabilities,

-    how you can oppose sexual immorality while shrugging off the transgressions of a strip club owner who brags about his sexual exploits and extramarital affairs and who publicly sexualized both of his daughters,

-    how you can make grand announcements about your efforts to move toward racial reconciliation while working to elect as president a man people in his own party acknowledge is racist, and who is widely supported by white supremacist groups,

-    how you can appeal to “religious liberty” to justify denying wedding cakes to gay and lesbian couples without challenging a candidate who wants  to increase surveillance of Muslim neighborhoods, create a database of Muslim citizens, and ban Muslims from visiting the U.S., which would suggest the only “religious liberty” you want to protect is your own,

-    how you can claim your conservative views on women’s roles aren’t anti-woman while supporting a misogynist who says he likes to have a “young and beautiful piece of ass” on his arm, calls women “bimbos” and “fat pigs,” and distributed unflattering pictures of a political opponent’s wife as a campaign tactic,

-    how you can claim it’s unfair to characterize evangelicals as anti-intellectual while following a man who believes conspiracy theories from the National Enquirer, thinks climate change is a hoax,  says vaccines cause autism, and displays such breathtaking ignorance regarding the state of the world and foreign policy that no former presidents will endorse him and multiple generals, foreign policy experts, editorial boards, and heads of state have denounced him as dangerously uninformed,

-    how you can quote Bible verses about “welcoming the stranger” while supporting a candidate who wants to turn away desperate refugee families,  

-    how you can call yourself “family values” voters while supporting Trump’s mass deportation, which would orphan or displace 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens but who have at least one parent who is an undocumented immigrant,

-    how you can claim it’s a “morally good choice” to elect a president who wants to bring back waterboarding and other forms of torture, who wants to target the families of terrorists because “that’s what they do to us,” and who admires the tactics of Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein?”

For me, being pro-life means working towards income equality, paid family leave, and early childhood education.  It means capping childcare expenses, reforming the foster care system, encouraging adoption.  It means fighting campus sexual assault and racial injustice.  It means funding medical research on Alzheimer’s, HIV & AIDS, and working towards mental health reform and disability rights.  It means supporting LGBT rights and quality education.  It means reducing deaths associated with gun violence, and insuring more families through the Affordable Care Act.  These things honor the integrity of human life and the value of family life.  And, many of these things reduce the number of abortions.  And, if you have been following my posts, these are the things the Hillary Clinton is fighting for.

I am pro-all-life.  I want to reduce the number of abortions.  And, I want to value the integrity of human life throughout its life.  This is why I am voting for Hillary Clinton.  Instead of voting for laws that don't reduce abortions, I'm voting for policies that do, because I am pro-life.