LGBT Rights & Equality

I'm gay (apparently, I’ve never really liked labels) and that makes me the other.  And, gosh how I hate being the other.  I suppose if being the other was this hip, cool thing, maybe it would be okay.  But, it's not.

So, yeah, I'm the other.  When you are the other, it is impossible not to question your worth.  I have endured political and religious debate about my worth for the duration of my life.  I anticipate that that will never end.  The Republican party believes that my marriage should be overturned, my son should not exist as a part of my family because he is more likely to become drug addicted or otherwise damaged, I should not be allowed to adopt, and that businesses should have the right to refuse service to me.  It is a part of their official platform.  Fellow followers of Christ teach that I am an abomination, a sinner that needs to repent, and that my marriage is not blessed by God.  Is it really any wonder that the rate of suicide attempts is 4 times greater for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth?

I had to spend months listening to my state debate about my worth to marry my wife in 2012 and then again in 2013.  I read every editorial in an effort to understand.  It was brutal.  Have you ever endured the majority debating your worth or your right to something?  It’s degrading and unbearable.

I know what it is like to have people spread lies about me and have others believe them, putting me on the eternal defensive.  I am always on guard.  Only recently have I been able to own who I am because I know who I am.  I know the horrible things that are said about me aren’t true and I don’t have to believe them.  It took years of speaking up, having someone try to silence me, and then realizing I was okay.  It took me thirty five years to get to this point and it is a work in progress.

But, here's what being the other has taught me.  I'm not the other.  I am you.  There is no other.  It's a fabrication.  One that people believe and put so much wasted time and energy into.  There are politicians whose entire platform stands on separating people into us and them, who can and who shouldn't, whether it be due to what you look like, where you born, who you love, who you worship, or how much money you do or do not have.

But, when you can look on the face of the other and see yourself, those walls disappear.  If we could all just look at the other and see ourselves, how would this world change?  I am committed to stopping those who insist on separating us into groups and then vilify and dehumanize the other.

This election (like every election) is very personal for me.  If you can look at this project and say, “I would never speak about politics like this…”  If you can vote for Donald Trump or not vote, or vote third party, I envy that privilege.  I'm privileged in many ways, but that is not one of them. I have to speak up, so that someday, I'm no longer an other.

Here is what a vote for each candidate means.

Clinton:  Clinton will work with Congress to pass the Equality Act that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  She will continue Obama’s executive orders that extend protections against discrimination in hiring for  LGBT people.  She will put an end to the incredibly damaging and demeaning conversion therapy.  She will ensure adequate funding for safe, welcoming shelters for LGBT homeless youth (which accounts for 40% of the homeless youth population while only 7% of the general youth population.  About 80% of them were forced out of their homes.)  She will end discrimination against LGBT parents wishing to adopt and protect LGBT elders from discrimination.

Clinton supports the Pentagon’s decision to allow transgender individuals to serve openly and will upgrade the service records of LGBT veterans dismissed for their sexual orientation.  She will work to protect transgender individuals from violence, make it easier for them to change their gender on official documents.

Clinton will also work to support LGBT rights around the world including increasing investment into the Global Equality Fund to advance human rights.

I think it’s important to point out that, like many Americans, Clinton’s stance on LGBT rights has evolved over the years.  I’ve noticed many pointing to her stances as first lady as some sort of evidence that she is not truly an ally to the LGBT community.  However, she has truly evolved and has an admirable track record since then.  

As a Senator, she championed legislation to address hate crimes, fought for LGBT protections in the workplace, and advocated for end to LGBT adoption restrictions.  As Secretary of State, she advance LGBT rights abroad, enforced stronger anti-discrimination regulations within the State Department like those that denied same-sex couples and their families equal rights, launched the Global Equity Fund, and most famously declared on the global stage that, “gay rights are human rights.”

Trump:  Trump opposes marriage equality.  He doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision granting marriage equality and has said he would “strongly consider” appointing judges committed to overturning the ruling.  He does not support the Equality Act, but does support the First Amendment Defense Act that enables people like Kim Davis who work for the federal government to deny rights to LGBT individuals.  He supports North Carolina’s HB2 “bathroom bill” which discriminates against and perpetuates unwarranted fear of transgender individuals.  Perhaps, most telling of all, was his selection of Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, who famously signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which originally protected discrimination against LGBT people under the guise of religious freedom.

Labor & Worker's Rights: Unions & Minimum Wage

What is the American Dream, anyway?  The phrase “American Dream” is widely attributed to Pulitzer Prize winning author, James Truslow Adams.  It first showed up in his 1931 book, The Epic of America.  He stated that, “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.”  It’s the idea that freedom isn’t just about doing whatever you want, but that when you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead.  Those are the ideals at the foundation of America.  In order for those ideals to prevail, there has to be a strong and well-protected workforce.

I’ve already researched and reported about some aspects of the workforce including clean energy, jobs, infrastructure, and profit-sharing for workers.  In future posts, I will address equal pay for women, manufacturing, paid family leave, small businesses, social security and retirement benefits, technology, trade, and workforce skill building.  This post will focus primarily on two aspect central to protecting the workforce and pursuing the American Dream: labor unions and the minimum wage.

Labor Unions

Unions provide a voice to a group of workers.  Labor unions organizing and negotiating over the years have brought about numerous worker protections including the 40 hour work week, paid leave, overtime pay, child labor laws, workers comp, unemployment insurance, pensions, safety standards and regulations, employer health care insurance, raises, sexual harassment laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and holiday pay, among many other protections.  Unions use collective bargaining to negotiate wages and other conditions of employment using the concept that they are stronger and more powerful together as one voice instead of separate individuals.

Collective bargaining gives the little guy a big voice.  And, there are a lot of people who don’t like that.  Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker, made quite the name for himself in 2011 when he pushed to end collective bargaining rights for public workers.  Coincidentally, Wisconsin was the first state to offer collective bargaining rights 50 years prior.  He claimed that it was for the purpose of cutting costs and shrinking budget deficits.  It was an odd claim at the time given that 4 of the 5 states that had already outlawed collective bargaining (Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, & Virginia) had worse budget deficits than Wisconsin.  The fifth, Georgia, still had a deficit of $1.7 billion dollars.  So, no state that had ended collective bargaining rights had managed to balance their budgets.  Overall, the argument that ending collective bargaining was needed for budget reasons didn’t make a lot of sense.  Nevertheless, he was successful and the 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 became law on June 29, 2011 affecting collective bargaining, compensation, retirement, health insurance (it doubled health care premiums for state employees), and sick leave for public employees.  Firefighters and most law enforcement workers were exempted from the law.  

Why?  Well, in the wake of Walker’s success, other states tried to push through similar legislation including Mike Pence’s predecessor, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana.  He implied that public union workers are overpaid as a result of collective bargaining even though it has been proven that public union workers are paid less than their private sector counterparts.  Collective bargaining does not lead to excessive pay of public workers.

So, why really?  Unions form part of the backbone of the Democratic party.  We all do better when we all do better.  We are stronger together.  Give the little guy a voice.  Everything about unions scream Democrat.  Defund the unions and you defund the democratic party.  No Republican has won the union vote since Richard Nixon in 1972.  It has nothing to do with balancing budgets or overpaid teachers (ha!).  This was a clear effort to limit the power of the working people.

Another movement to weaken unions are “Right to Work” laws where workers can opt out of union dues, but still benefit from the collective bargaining power, significantly weakening the union’s funding and power.  26 states have adopted “Right to Work” laws (the green states in the graphic to the left.

Minimum Wage

Current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.  Due to inflation, today’s minimum wage is worth less than when its value peaked in 1968.  Currently, 29 states have minimum wages above the federal level including Minnesota with a minimum wage of $9.00 per hour.  This year California passed a law that increases the minimum wage to $15/hr by January 1, 2022.  New York followed suit passing a law to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr by the end of 2018.  Washington, D.C. passed legislation to do so by July 1, 2020.

So, how many people actually earn the minimum wage?  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “In 2015, 78.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.5 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 870,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 2.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.”

Typically, who are minimum wage workers?  About half of them are under the age of 25 with almost a third being teenagers. Two thirds of minimum wage workers are in the service profession either in food prep or serving.   A PBS Newshour article from January 1, 2015 said that 62% of minimum wage workers are women and 77% are white.  64% are part-timers.

So, should we raise the minimum wage?  Economists are actually pretty split on this.  The 2014 Congressional Budget Report took a look at the proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10. It predicted a loss of 500,000 jobs by the second half of 2016 by forcing low skilled workers like teenagers out of the labor market since theoretically businesses would cut employees and are more likely to keep the more highly skilled employees.  On the other hand, the Economic Policy Institute predicted that the same increase would create 85,000 jobs over a three year phase-in period and inject 22.1 billion into the economy based on the concept that the more money people have, the more they spend.

The Congressional Budget Report also predicted that raising the wage to $10.10 would raise 900,000 people out of poverty (in 2014, 45 million people in the U.S. lived in poverty).  It would also reduce government welfare spending.  The Economic Policy Institute predicted that 1.7 million people would no longer be dependent on government assistance programs which would shave 7.6 billion off of government spending including reducing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP-formerly known as food stamps) by 6% or 4.6 million dollars.

Still, I repeatedly found a lot of evidence to support that a more effective way to help the poor would be to expand the earned income tax credit.  With this credit, the government subsidizes the wages of workers making under a certain amount and this does not lead to job losses as businesses make cuts to support employees on the new higher wage.

Here is where the candidates stand on labor and workers’ rights.

Clinton:  Clinton has plans for investments in infrastructure, manufacturing, research & technology, clean energy, and small business within her first 100 days.  Clinton will restore collective bargaining rights for unions.  She will work to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 and supports the “Fight for $15” in some states.  She supports the Obama administration’s expansion of overtime rules.  She will reward companies that participate in profit sharing with their workers and crack down on companies that move jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes.  She will fight for equal pay for women and paid leave.  She will also fight to protect retirement security.

Trump:  Some union members concerned about losing their jobs to cheaper labor abroad or illegal immigrants in the U.S. are supporting Trump.  However, his running mate, Mike Pence, has been a turn-off to union members since he has opposed unions organizing and increases in the minimum wage.  Trump himself has flip-flopped on minimum wage many times.  A year ago he opposed raising the minimum raise.  Since then, he has said that wages are both “too high” and “too low” and has changed his position numerous times in the last year.  His most recent stance is that he supports raising it to $10 at the federal level, but believes states should set the minimum appropriate for their state.

K-12 Education

I am a teacher because I believe education is the solution to every problem.  Education matters.  Education is the backbone of an enlightened and advanced society.  One of my favorite quotes comes from one of my favorite books, The Phantom Tollbooth, "[W]hatever we learn has a purpose and whatever we do affects everything and everyone else, if even in the tiniest way. Why, when a housefly flaps his wings, a breeze goes round the world; when a speck of dust falls to the ground, the entire planet weighs a little more; and when you stamp your foot, the earth moves slightly off its course. Whenever you laugh, gladness spreads like the ripples in the pond; and whenever you're sad, no one anywhere can be really happy. And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn something new, the whole world becomes that much richer.”

I love my job.  I love it because I get to live that truth every day.  I get to challenge 10 and 11 year olds to ask the questions and then find the answers themselves.  I get to teach them to think critically, to analyze, to inquire, and to operate both independently and collaboratively.  And, as a result, the whole world becomes that much richer.

Unfortunately, despite my love for my job, there is ample evidence that the U.S. education system is subpar.  Teachers are not revered as educational authorities.  Success is often predicted by geographic location, race, class, and language proficiency.  Schools are not typically set up to ensure success for anyone who differs from the neurotypical, able-bodied, well-supported-at-home child.  Students who aren’t successful in school often end up in prison.  Many schools in our nation lack the most basic facilities for even a basic education.  I could go in depth into the many problems with the American education system today, but instead, I am going to focus on a solution that has come out in the last decade: the Common Core.  I’m focusing on it because I feel like mainstream society has very little understanding of it and therefore offer up a litany of misguided criticisms.

I, myself, am an a learner at my core.  This project on learning in depth about each of the issues was born out of my deep desire to learn and understand.  My desire to learn extends into learning about learning.  As a result, I have earned my teaching license, my Master’s Degree in education, and over 60 credits beyond my Master’s Degree.  One of those post-graduate level courses was dedicated to the Common Core state standards.  For the class, I studied the Common Core standards in great depth, read the books, Pathways to the Common Core: Accelerating Student Achievement by Lucy Calkins, Mary Ehrenworth, & Christopher Lehman  and Understanding Common Core State Standards by John Kendall, and wrote over 7,000 words about the standards.  

So, what is all of this Common Core business?  If you don’t like to read, watch this 3 minute video.  The Common Core State Standards initiative is the most sweeping reform in K-12 curriculum in the history of education in the United States.  My district has adopted the English Language Arts (ELA) standards and not the math standards so I will focus on ELA.  As a teacher both before and after common core was instated, I can personally attest to the fact that they emphasize much higher-level comprehension skills than previous standards, place equal weight on reading and writing, stress the importance of complex texts, cross-curricular teaching, and the importance of every state using the same measuring stick for mastery in reading and writing.

But, why?  Why do we need them?  Our nation’s students have lost ground to their international peers.  In an effort to remedy this, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) recognized a need for consistent learning goals across the states and coordinated a state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards in 2009 comprised of teachers, school chiefs, administrators, and other experts.  As a result, the Common Core is comprised on the highest, most effective standards from states across the country and world that are research and evidence-based, clear, understandable, and consistent, aligned with college and career expectations, based on rigorous content and application knowledge through higher-order thinking skills, built upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards, and informed by other top performing countries so that students can succeed in a global economy and society.

Prior to the Common Core movement, there was a great inequality between the states and their standards.  As stated in the conservative publication National Review, “For decades, students in different states have been taught different material at different rates and held to radically different standards.” No Child Left Behind (NCLB)’s proficiency requirements on states tests meant different things in different states based on unequal standards.  Common Core creates a common bar without lowering it or raising it too high for any students.

Proper implementation of the Common Core state standards is an incredibly effective opportunity in education today in order to help us ensure that all students are held accountable to high levels of rigor and can ultimately compete globally.  Prior to these standards, there was a great inequality based on location in what was taught and we must never go back to that.  All American students should be held to an equal standard.

Much criticism of the Common Core comes from lack of understanding or buying into myths.  For more information, I encourage you to check out these myths vs. facts.  Additionally, many parents are frustrated, particularly in the area of math, because their students are not being taught in the way that they learned despite the fact that “the way they learned” did not yield true understanding and has led us to be subpar in the areas of math and science.

Here is where the candidates stand in regards to education.

Clinton:  Clinton understands the ever increasing expectations on educators.  She gets that preparing students for an ever increasing competitive economy, staying on top of new pedagogies, and filling achievement gaps while supporting low-income students, English language learners, and students with disabilities is no simple task.  Because of this, she will launch a national campaign to elevate and modernize the teaching profession by “preparing, supporting, and paying every teacher as if the future of our country is in their hands--because it is.”

Additionally, she will provide states and school districts with funding for computer science instruction to help fill the half a million open jobs that require computing skills.  She will build on the Build America Bonds by doubling the subsidy to provide cities and towns the capital they need to rebuild their crumbling schools.  She will also provide $2 billion to reform overly punitive disciplinary policies and encourage schools to implement social and emotional support interventions in order to dismantle the “school to prison” pipeline.

Clinton Accomplishments in Education:

• Fought to raise standards, increase teacher salaries, and reduce class sizes as First Lady of Arkansas as the chair of the Arkansas Educational Standards Commission.
• Chaired the first ever convention focused on improving access to educational opportunities for Hispanic children and youth as First Lady of the United States.
• Served on the Senate Health, Education, and Labor Committee as a key Senator in the shaping of No Child Left Behind Act.

Trump:  In the 51 second video on his website, Trump claims to be a tremendous believer in education.  He says that education has to be at a local level, meaning different municipalities can determine what is and isn’t important to teach.  He says, “We can not have the bureaucrats in Washington telling you how to manage your child’s education.” (Recall that Common Core was state-led and comprised of teachers, administrators, and other experts.)  Because of this, he calls Common Core (which ensures all students in America are held to a high standard) a total disaster.  He cites the United States as being rated 28th in the world and says that we spend far more per pupil than any other country in the world by far. (Both claims have been proven “Mostly False” by Politifact.)  His proposal is to end Common Core and “have education an absolute priority.”  

Jobs

As mentioned in my post on the economy, Bill Clinton was the leader in job creation averaging 242,000 jobs per month.  Most presidents create jobs regardless of party affiliation.  As of June 2016, there have been 75 straight months of private sector job growth.

Of course, any candidate for president is going to say they are going to create jobs and claim that their opponent will kill jobs.  

For example, in a 34 second video on Trump’s website, Trump claims with certainty, “I will be the greatest job-producing president that God ever created.” He calls on his experience of creating tens of thousands of jobs for our country as one of the things he is most proud of.  That is the extent of his jobs platform.

Jobs and wages are a focus of Clinton’s first 100 days plan.  She boasts the “boldest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II.”  The tenants of her plan include some things I’ve already posted about: the boldest investment in infrastructure since the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950’s and investment in clean energy.  Some tenants will be discussed in more depth in future posts such as commitment to technology and research to create the jobs of the future, a $10 billion dollar “Make it in America” plan for manufacturing, tax relief and deregulation for small businesses, and “smarter, fairer, tougher” trade policies (she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

Since both candidates claim to be job creators, I am going to rely on third party analysis for this post.

My primary source for this post is Moody’s Analytics.  Moody’s Analytics provides economic research regarding risk management.  They are completely independent of political affiliation  as they operate in the business world, not the political realm.  Still, the primary author of both the Clinton & Trump reports was Mark Zandi who served as an economic advisor to John McCain.  He now supports Hillary Clinton for reasons that will soon become apparent.

Clinton:  The 20 page in depth analysis completed by Moody’s can be found here.  It has been picked up by numerous news outlets including CNNMoney & Forbes, plus many, many others.  As it relates to jobs, Clinton’s proposals would create 10.4 million jobs under her presidency.  That is 3.2 million more than expected under current law.  Additionally, GDP growth would move from the current forecast of 2.3% to 2.7%.  In their conclusion, they write that “Secretary Clinton’s economic policies when taken together will result in stronger U.S. economy under almost any scenario.”

Why?  In short, her immigration proposal increases the number skilled workers in the country, her infrastructure investment helps business productivity, and her paid family leave proposal is predicted to bring more people into the workforce. The report reinforces again what I reported in an earlier post, “while her budget arithmetic does not completely add up, it is pretty close, and the nation’s debt load under her plan is no different than under current law.”  

In addition to running the numbers on her proposals, they also analyze a “Clinton Lite” version where she can only get some of her plans through Congress and this still produces stronger growth in GDP and jobs even though the gains aren’t as impressive.  

In a third scenario, Congress prevents her plans from being implemented and the economy’s performance is similar to what is expected under current law (continued growth, just not as strong as if Clinton’s proposals are enacted.)  This makes the case for electing Democrats to Congress.

Billionaire businessman, Warren Buffett, campaigned with Clinton in Nebraska on August 1st to show the business community’s support for Clinton.  He joins billionaires Mark Cuban (owner of the Dallas Mavericks) and Michael Bloomberg (former New York City mayor) in endorsing Clinton.

Trump:  Moody’s 15 page analysis predicts that Trump’s plans would result in an economic downturn that would last longer than the Great Recession costing 3.5 million Americans their jobs, raising unemployment to 7%, and dropping home prices. They say that the super rich would get richer, but everyone else would be worse off.  Why?  They outline three “really bad” economic policies: trade, immigration, and taxes.

On trade, Trump’s idea to put big taxes on imports from China and Mexico would hurt growth as Americans would face higher prices on goods, inflation would rise, and the U.S. would get less foreign investment.  Trump’s plan to limit immigration and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants would be costly for the government and businesses.  Finally, Trump’s massive tax cuts for individuals and businesses without touching Social Security and Medicare, would add $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

I will get to taxes in a future post, but briefly, more than ⅓ of Trump’s proposed tax cuts go to the top 1% of earners with the average taxpayer in that group receiving a $275,000 reduction in their tax bill.  Taxpayers in the bottom 99%  receive less than $2,500 in tax cuts.

They conclude in saying what I’ve been saying for months now.  “Quantifying Mr. Trump’s economic policies is complicated by their lack of specificity.”  He just doesn’t give a lot of specifics.

Moody’s isn’t the only one predicting a recession if Trump is elected.  Former Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, calls Trump the most dangerous American presidential candidate in his lifetime.  Former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, says, “His domestic policies would lead to a recession.”  HP CEO, Meg Whitman, says Trump would “sink this country into a recession.”

Despite all of this, what about the American people? Who do they trust with the economy?  Trump 53% to Clinton 43%.