Rolling Back Your Wages

While you are out shopping for the hottest deals today, Walmart employees will be striking to bring attention to their lousy wages, unsafe working conditions, excessive hours, and sexual harassment. We all know Walmart “rolls back the prices” allowing products (largely made in China and/or sweatshops) to be sold at significantly cheaper prices than competitors. What most people do not know, or choose to ignore, is the manner in which Walmart employees are treated. 

Largely sparked by Black Friday sales, employees are outraged at not having one day off to celebrate Thanksgiving. Many stores required employees to work on Thanksgiving in order to prepare for Black Friday. Of course this is happening in many stores around the country, Best Buy and Target for example, but Walmart employees have decided to come together and make a cry out to Walmart shoppers. For some reason, I doubt Walmart shoppers will understand. One employee stated “...my guess is the people who shop at Walmart might not be as motivated about these sorts of issues as other people.” 

In a letter posted on Huffington Post, one Walmart employee, Toussaint Charbentier, explained that the strikes were not just a result having to work on Thanksgiving, but largely because of the 80% of employees that “rely on the government to survive.” According to Charbentier, the amount of money he makes in a year is close to what CEO, Michael Duke, makes in one hour. This disparity between wages becomes quite apparent when you look at the 80% of Walmart employees that rely on the government through food stamps, public housing, Medicare and Medicaid. A third of employees work less than 28 hours each week, excluding them from receiving company benefits. 

Some credit this low pay to a lack of unions, Robert Reich claims employees have not had the means to fight low wages. By striking these employees are calling attention to the problem but this will not solve the problem. Walmart has filed claims with the National Labor Relations Board to pan the strikes, claiming the striking employees are working to gain “recognition for the United Food & Commercial Workers union.” 

In our current economic state, many Walmart employees have no other option in terms of finding jobs. In many towns Walmart is one of the only options when it comes to employment. But, this goes farther than choosing to work at Walmart. Walmart has put many small retail business out of business, put their own suppliers into bankruptcy to “lower prices” and closed down stores where employees have attempted to organize unions. We should not be standing by encouraging this because we want to pay a few dollars less for something.

6 billion, million, fafillion, shabolubalu million illion yillion...dollars

What would you do with 6 billion dollars? Spend it on an election, of course! This past election cost candidates and Super PACs more than 6 billion dollars. (Thats 700 million more than in 2008.)  SIX... BILLION... DOLLARS... - sorry channeling my inner Dr. Evil. More money than most people could even dream about. 

It is easy to say that the money was well spent if the outcome of the election was what you wanted. It’s just as easy to say the money was a complete waste if you were not so happy with the outcome. But why aren’t more people saying, “This is a ridiculous amount of money!!”

With six billion dollars we could have put 32,000 students through USC, bought 800 million six-packs of Budweiser, paid half of FEMA’s budget for the year, or spent it on something other than commercials. 

Why have campaigns become so expensive? One cause came in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that private interests groups are no longer restricted by spending limits. Groups are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money. So they do.   

Most of this happens in the form of super PACs. Money is raised from corporations, unions, individuals and associations. This money is then spent in support or opposition of a candidate. Super PACs spent 631 million dollars doing just that. 

The Sunlight Foundation calculated the returns on investments for the super PACs spending the most amount of money in this election. Lets break down the numbers from one of the least successful groups and one of the most successful groups. 

American Crossroads, spent over $104 million, with a 1.29% return. Supporting Republicans, American Crossroads was one of the least successful outside groups of the election. They spent $84 million in advertisements against President Obama alone! 

Planned Parenthood Action Fund Inc., spent $7 million with a 97.82% return. Most of the money spent opposed candidates that lost. Three-quarters of their money was spent in opposition of Romney, through online advertisements, phone calls and radio advertisements. 

Most of the money spent during this was on commercials, negative in tone. Former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell claims Republican led super PACs lost because they did not spend their money well. Most of their money was spent on TV ads, which Rendell states, “Were so pervasive, people stopped listening.” Not to mention with DVR and online streaming it is easier to bypass all of those annoying commercials. 

This money game extended far past the presidential campaign this year. Five Senate races cost over $20 million and three House races cost over $10 million. In order to run, you must either have a lot of cash to spend, or be able to come up with huge amounts of money through donations. Either way, running for a political office is becoming a race between the millionaires. After this past campaign season, I can say I am not so sure we really want these millionaires leading our country. 

Alternatively, you could back yourself with a super PAC. With outside funding anyone can compete in elections. But, you often receive more than just money. Along with the PACs you have their expectations and interests. By backing a particular candidate these groups are investing in proposed legislation that satisfies them. 

Now with the election over, critics of super PACs have become abundant. While many seem to be against the PACs, they always end with the notion that the PACs will be even more important in 2016. Why are they just conceding?

How can the PACs that invested hundred of millions just to watch their opposition win be compelled to spend such vast amounts of money in four years? As David Freedlander points out “candidates can use the extra campaign funds to boost their name recognition in early primary states.” So candidates can spend less of their own money and yield similar effects. That seems like a good system!

As of today the Supreme Court has no interest in reopening Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, nor does it seem the ruling will be repealed from the legislative level. Then again, why would the people benefitting from super PAC spending repeal their unlimited budgets?

You're a Socialist?!?!

“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.” -- Earl Warren 

Living in America, the term socialism has many negative connotations. During this past election the term socialism was thrown around as though it was this terrible thing, but I am not quite sure this is the case. Socialism is often associated with communism, an ideology America has been against for decades now. Capitalism, on the other hand, is presented as the “best” system, having less flaws than socialism. 

It is difficult to understand any political ideology in totality, especially when there are so many varying genres. In understanding socialism, there are a few key ideas to make sense of.

• Socialists argue against capitalism, for it concentrates power and wealth into a small group of society that controls and exploits the system. This in turn creates social hierarchies, where individuals cannot maximize their full potentials. 
• Socialists believe the people should be motivated to help others. 
• The people collectively own the government, workers collectively own industries and services.
• Production operates to satisfy the needs of the people based on use, rather than profits

Obama in particular has been called a socialist because of the policies he has implemented or intends to implement. In 2008, McCain asserted that Obama was a socialist when he said, “When you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.” Also, Obama’s plans to tax the wealthy to create better programs for lower and middle classes are being called socialist by many of his opponents. 

Not seeing socialism as inherently bad or evil, I find these comments ridiculous. When wealth is so largely divided between rich and poor, I think that it is necessary for the government to ensure all of its people have access to live a prosperous life. By making the lives of your people better you are making your country better. I am not saying that we should adopt a socialist government, but I think that it is important to put terms aside and look at what is best for the people as a whole. We no longer care about our neighbors and instead only care about getting ahead of them and getting a larger piece of the pie. In my opinion, this is cannot be the best way to run a country. 

The Election & Zomney

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

Photo ID Required

“Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process.” -- Hillary Clinton

Come this Tuesday many voters that were eligible to vote in the 2008 presidential election will no longer have this right in an attempt to “crack down on voter fraud.” As of recent there has been an influx of states instituting voter ID laws, particularly by Republican led legislatures that claim to be protecting elections against voter fraud. 

In 2007, an investigation led by the Bush Justice Department found voter fraud to be exceedingly rare, in some states there were zero instances of fraud taking place. It cannot be a coincidence that these laws target groups that predominantly voted Democrat in the last election. 

These new laws will require voters to show a state issued ID or drivers license, which is not a problem for many of us today. Yet, for many the time and money it takes to secure the documents needed to receive an ID is impossible. A Federal Court recently struck down a Texas voter ID law determining it discriminated against poor and minorities. The court found that these many of these groups were without access to cars, making a trip to obtain an ID card burdensome, which infringed on their right to vote. 

Once you consider how rare voter fraud actually happens, it becomes apparent that Republicans are attempting to exclude many groups from voting. This hampers the rights of minorities, elderly, students and the poor. Groups that stand to gain or lose a lot in this next election. Voting is a right as a citizen in this country, to take that right away because someone does not have a state issued ID does not seem just at all. How are citizens supposed to get to a DMV when they do not drive and work 9 to 5 jobs? Making the voting process such a burden does not seem to be the right way to engage the people in politics. 

Not only would these laws prevent many from voting, it could generate lower voter turnout and increase wait times at polling places. Proving you are who you claim to be should not require a state issued ID, it seems that there are many other options we could adopt that would not discriminate against voters.  

Voting is free. It is a right granted to the people. Identification cards are not free. In California an ID card cost 26 dollars. In Kansas, where photo ID is required to vote in this election, cards costs 22 dollars. It seems illogical to make a law requiring one to buy something to use a right granted to them by the government. What’s next, I’ll have to spend money to exercise my right to free speech? Maybe this seems like a huge leap, but as we begin to give away our rights the government does not hesitate to dissuade us, they continue to take them away. 

Of the many issues these laws bring into play, maintaing the status quo is one of the most important. By implementing these laws Republicans are increasing their odds of winning elections. Lets face it, the people most affected by these laws are minorities, elderly, youth, and the poor. Of voters between the ages of 18 and 24, 68% voted for Obama in 2008. 96% of African Americans, 67% of Latinos, and 63% of Asian voters voted democrat. Those numbers can make a huge difference in ANY election. 

Republicans are finally using their brains, creating laws that affect the groups that do not want to see them succeed. Not only do I have a problem with these laws, I am troubled that more people are not aware of the negative affect that will take place after the laws are widely implemented. Republicans argue they are fighting against fraud and non-citizens in the voting booth, but what about all the non-fraudulent citizens that are being denied a vote? We are losing the opinions of large groups of citizens, no matter their party stance, and this is not how a democracy runs, at least not a successful democracy. 

There has to be a middle ground we can reach to prevent fraud but also lessen the burden photo identification can place on people. The Brennan Center for Justice has compiled a list of possible alternatives, some of the suggestions include voter registration databases, requiring each voter to verify the last four digits of their social security number or ID number, or increasing punishment for committing fraud. The current option discriminates against too many voters, making the need for an alternative quite important. 

Funding Creativity

"Politicians don't bring people together. Artists do." -- Richard Daley (former Mayor of Chicago)

The Americans for the Arts Action Fund issued a report card grading representatives based on their support of the arts. It shows that most Democrats support the continuation of funding for the arts while Republicans oppose this funding. Romney has stated in an effort to cut the budget by $9.6 trillion in non-defense cuts, he intends on cutting funding to art programs, including PBS. The problem with this is not that he would be cutting funding, but that the amount of money spent on the arts and PBS is so minimal it would not even make a dent in our deficit. Suzy Khimm explains that getting rid of Amtrak, PBS, and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities funding “would have saved the government about $2 billion this year -- chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.” The amount of funding PBS receives in one year is equal to 6 hours of the defense budget. I am not arguing that the defense budget is unnecessary, maybe somewhat excessive, what I am arguing is that cutting the arts is not the way to reign in overspending. 

Arts in elementary schools have been shown to help develop cognitive and creative skills along with children’s imaginations. Edutopia, the George Lucas Educational Foundation, claims, “Years of research show that [art is] closely linked to almost everything that we as a nation say we want for our children and demand from our schools: academic achievement, social and emotional development, civic engagement, and equitable opportunity.” Art helps children excel in math, reading, critical thinking and verbal skills. In “Why Art Education Matters,” Lynda Resnick argues, “Studies show that art-centered schools outscore non-art-centered schools in academic achievement scores.” In 2009, Michelle Obama hosted a concert to bring attention to the importance of the arts, in her speech she explained,

“We believe strongly that the arts aren’t somehow an ‘extra’ part of our national life, but instead we feel that the arts are at the heart of our national life. It is through our music, our literature, our art, drama and dance that we tell the story of our past and we express our hopes for the future. Our artists challenge our assumptions in ways that many cannot and do not. They expand our understandings, and push us to view our world in new and very unexpected ways...”

Art is such an important aspect of childhood, even with government funding many schools are unable to provide children access to museums or art programs. Groups like Inner-City Arts offer children a creative and safe space to learn about visual and performing arts, their programs are “designed to strengthen language development, develop critical thinking skills, promote literacy and improve learning outcomes overall.” In the Los Angeles region alone, creative industries made up the second largest business sector in 2011, generating nearly one million jobs, according to the Otis Creative Economy Report. Studying art is often seen as pointless and a waste of time, but creative industries have become one of the top industries today. Engaging children in art from a young age will only help them throughout the rest of their lives and lead to furthering our creative economy.