|
Kamala Harris’ Opportunity Economy
A synopsis of an article by Egbert Willies published in Medium, Aug. 18, 2024 A direct challenge to the status quo, which has favored corporate profits over the welfare of everyday Americans. Harris would try to reduce the high cost of living in the US. One way is by targeting corporate price gouging. She would also eliminate taxes on tips and raise the child tax credit by $6000. Corporations have been raising prices beyond inflationary pressures, to insure high profits. Asking the federal government to use its power to regulate corporations is reasonable—industry has not been inclined to self-regulate. Corporate self-regulation has generally occurred only when the consumer base is at a breaking point. Things are bad—why wait for ordinary Americans to struggle even more? If our response to cheating by overseas trading partners is to impose a tariff on their products, why not use the same approach with corporate greed on our shores: tax them. Harris has a strong focus on middle-class housing, a current crisis. Harris has stated a goal of building 3 billion new homes in the next four years and to provide $25,000. in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. Creating more housing supply is aimed at corporations which have purchased homes as rental investments, keeping them off the market. Harris’s plans have been derided as economic populism, an election gimmick. However, the proposed policies address real needs of most Americans. The status quo needs to be challenged. Media outlets that tend to defend the status quo should not be trusted in their assessment of Harris’ plans. And from MSN, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kamala-harris-reveals-plan-for-opportunity-economy/ar-AA1p0PNF Kamala Harris Reveals Plan for ‘Opportunity Economy' Story by Kate Nishimura "I believe competition is the life blood of our economy, more competition means lower prices for you and your families," she said. Without deviating into a discussion on trade, Harris called out her opponent's controversial "All Tariff Policy," instead focusing on the impact that a universal tariff system could have on prices at retail. "He wants to impose what is, in effect, a national sales tax on everyday products and basic necessities that we import from other countries that will devastate Americans," she said, noting that it could raise prices on almost everything voters buy in stores. "A Trump tax on gas, a Trump tax on food, a Trump tax on clothing, a Trump tax on over-the-counter medication," she said. "And, you know, economists have done the math. Donald Trump's plan would cost a typical family $3,900 a year. At this moment when everyday prices are too high, he will make them even higher."
0 Comments
For Erath County Voters, here are down-ballot candidates who may not receive adequate media attention
From official websites and/or Ballotpedia U.S. Senate, Texas Colin Allred JD in Law from UC Berkeley, Former professional football player Served in Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Obama Administration. Worked in a law office specialized in voters’ rights. Elected to the US House of Representatives, 2018, representing TX District 32. Texas Supreme Court, Place 6 Bonnie Lee Goldstein Judge Lee serves presently in the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas, Dallas area. Previously worked in Dallas area law practices, as a city attorney, prosecutor in municipal court, and as a municipal judge. Texas Supreme Court Place 4 Christine Weems Currently Judge in the Civil District Court of Harris County Certified in Civil Trial Law and Personal Injury Trial Law Experience with anti-trust cases and corporate tort cases. She is licensed to practice law in Texas, California, New York and before the US Supreme Court Texas Supreme Court Place 2 DaSean Jones Currently District Judge, Texas District 180 Decorated veteran with 22 years service, continuing as an Army Reserve Officer. Judge Jones stands for fairness and impartiality. Court of Criminal Appeals, Presiding Judge Holly Taylor Currently Assistant Director, Civil Rights…of Travis County District Attorney Served as staff attorney and Rules Attorney for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals She has a Masters Degree in Public Affairs from the LBJ School of Public Affairs in addition to a J.D. in Law from UT Proud of work to investigate claims of wrongful conviction. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 8 Chika Anyiam Currently presides over Texas Criminal District Court #7, Dallas She has 20 years of legal experience in criminal law and has tried thousands of cases. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 7 Nancy Mulder Currently Judge in the Criminal District Court #6, Dallas Previously criminal defense attorney and Assistant District Attorney for Dallas County She worked as a prosecutor for 12 years and then switched… Judge Muller believes in fairness, Preparation for timely function, and treating people before the bench and attorneys with respect. Texas Railroad Commission Katherine Culbert Chemical Engineer with a 20-yr career in Process Safety (chemical plants and oil and gas). Knows the industry the RRC regulates. Three big issues: Protect the environment, corporate accountability, transparency. Passionate about environmental Justice: worked in the Houston area on a project Texas House of Representatives District 59 Hannah Bohm Lives in Granbury Bachelor’s Degree Northern Arizona University Community Activist Three Big issues: Public Education, Reproductive rights / Women’s Rights, Rural Healthcare Erath County Tax Assessor-Collector Marycruz Serrano Life-long resident of Stephenville. Long experience in bookkeeping. Works at the Tax Office as a Motor Vehicle Deputy Clerk, 4 ½ years of experience. Helped train many of the past, current, and new motor vehicle deputy clerks. Motivated to run to correct discrimination at the local office level. Joe Biden thoughts. Briefly, edited excerpts from an article by George Dillard Medium July 6/7
Our convention is a month away, so anything could happen, but in today’s context, this: You’ll be voting for “Joe Biden,” not Joe Biden. “Joe Biden” is a team. The American president is a remarkably important figure. The Trump years showed that the quirks and personality traits of the president can matter quite a bit. But it’s useful to remember that you’re not really voting for one person when you elect a president, you’re voting for the team of people that the president will hire. Joe Biden does not run the government all by himself. Biden is the face of an organization that’s made up of thousands of individuals who help guide decision-making. For sure Biden knows a fair amount about most issues that cross his desk, from his five decades of public service. But even a president as experienced as Biden is utterly reliant on his aides to tell him what he needs to know. When it’s time to discuss tariff policy or NATO expansion or student loan cancellation, Biden is briefed by a team of experts who provide him with a range of options. He can and probably does push back against these options from time to time, but he’s generally going to choose from the menu with which he has been presented. And we are familiar with many in the top tier of the Biden team, as we hear them from one platform or another. I think most people would rate these people more than equal to people Trump has surrounded himself with and who could form a Trump team. Trump’s likely team would consist of people who are, in democratic speak “deplorables”. If it were 1884 rather than 2024, Biden’s stage performance wouldn’t matter at all. Newspaper readers would receive one set of second or third-hand reports or another. Progress: now we all can see and hear. The medium beats the mortals, in many respects. Over the course of the 20th century, the presidency moved more and more into the public eye—an entertainment product, largely due to the evolution of radio and television. The media evolved to cover it as such. It’s easier and safer for the media to do theater criticism around the campaign than to wade into the issues. We have always contrasted the different parties on issues. How are issues doing vs spectacle today? Anyway, remember it’s the whole team. What does “woke” actually mean to people in today’s political context. It seems to be used just as a shorthand for various things the MAGA right does not like. If so, it doesn’t make much sense to get into definitions and semantics. Except that it does make sense to try to get people—at least some people—to confront the difference between their actual values and the implications of using the “woke” term.
And another road bump: as an Anglo, and with limited experience with the lives of black people, who am I to weigh in on this. Where I live, surely this is an issue removed, an issue for discussion in communities more diverse, like in the metroplex. The problem, even here, is this any term of derision that can be brought forward against democratic candidates, even our local ones, …any term will be used. We need some basis to mount a rebuttal or at least to lessen any impact of that attack. So, as churches play and have played such an important role in speaking about and living values, what do we see from churches? There is a recent book by Eric Mason, “Woke Church: An Urgent Call for Christians in America to Confront Racism and Injustice”. See: https://denverjournal.denverseminary.edu/the-denver-journal-article/woke-church-an-urgent-call-for-christians-in-america-to-confront-racism-and-injustice/ https://founders.org/reviews/you-dont-need-to-be-woke-to-be-biblical-a-review-of-eric-masons-woke-church/ Through points of good critique, an exploration of the difference various segments of society have in understanding the term. https://www.centerforbiblicalunity.com/post/5-signs-your-church-may-be-going-woke The troubling use of the term “woke” by those accepting Critical Race Theory. The post mainly highlights troubling acceptance of terms associated with Black Lives Matter and CRT from the pulpit. https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2024/02/is-your-church-woke/ Another troubling stand So, you try to wake your friend up to the conflict between religious teachings and disrespect of woke…and you get a blank stare. He isn’t moved. Remind him of the “First they came for the Socialists…. scenario. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...). Maybe he plays the “You say these black people deserve special consideration, but not us. You call us ignorant rednecks for supporting Trump. You diss me when you raise these others”. A reply: we fail if we disrespect you, but you don’t need to put others down to raise yourself (like Trump does). So if we see you trying to hold blacks back, we bring blacks forward in our work. But we are trying to raise wages for everybody, to provide for education for everybody, to help everybody get good health care. I am imagining a confrontation with someone you want to correct or someone who wants to correct you. Some people are just parroting what they’ve heard on air or in posts and may not really understand the facets to the issue. Perhaps the best approach is to just ask “What would be the opposite of woke?” or somesuch to have them decide this is not their real issue. Some people may key on the racial basis, and that may be their touchstone. You can’t expect to make headway against ingrained racism, but…. An imagined response to a racist who objects to your/our Wokeness: We hope you outgrow your racial bias, but until then remember: You share the needs of black/brown/other people. The same political/social group that is pressing for their uplift also works for your rise. There is enough at the end of the rainbow for all to share. DAB Let Charities Take Care of It
The argument is that we don’t want a “big government” spending tax money to help with this health care/social issue/environmental/housing/etc. problem—there are charities. Let people donate their money to spend on problems important to them without stretching the US deficit. I don’t know if this is an explicit argument on the public table—since I don’t expose myself to the full range of news and views—but I feel this is a stance that people take. People who have some care about the problems others face may tell themselves that church or other charities are taking care of this. Charities are at least in principle a potent agency. But if people feel this way, maybe they are inclined to let small-government, low tax arguers win them over. You know “Fermi’s Paradox” paradox applied to the question of alien intelligence in other worlds: A popular way this is stated…..If they are out there, why aren’t they here? The same response can be given to this problem—the role of charities versus the role of government in addressing societal needs. If there are sufficient charities to tackle these problems, why are there these problems still naggingly with us? (Of course there is the flip side: if there is sufficient government spending to tackle the problems, why do we have charities?—see below) There are major charities and there are major big-money donors supporting some of these charities. And yet? Donor A: I give my money to solving cancer. Others are spending on other problems. Donor B: I give to save the whales and ocean ecosystems. Donor C: I’m using my meager discretionary million to fight hunger in Africa. Donor D: I can see supporting these various charities in Dallas. I can’t afford to just scatter money to these other places. Donor E: I’ll be leaving some money in my will. Also: Can’t—paying alimony in five states. And: First Mars. Let’s ask Elon a favor, to support our initiative to address homelessness in Texas. The problems are still out there, despite the efforts of good-hearted titans of capitalism giving back, and despite the good-hearted parishioners giving weekly in their church, all over the country. The problems, the needs, are still there and big. And I am not saying that government spending should or is able to take the place of all charities. But some needs do not attract many charitable donations. And some needs do not seem to many to be valid or worthy. You have seen that media attention can bring out a spurt of public interest and giving—for a family who or a community that suffered a tragedy. That often does not last. And there are so many stories of tragedy untold. There is also the root cause problem. As a people working through our legislature, we can address root causes that have led to problems. And of course, that is another aspect of government that is scary to some who know their guilt. The flip side? Why are there charities if government could handle things? Really, charities came first, probably because governments have long neglected the poor and classes of people deemed too low to care about. |
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly