Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The Debate is Over : Trump Lost

Rick T. Wilking/Pool via AP
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton smiles as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks during the presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, Monday, September 26, 2016.
 Harold Meyerson                                                                                                          
Hillary Clinton had to do three things in last night’s debate, and she did roughly 2.8 of them very well. First, she had to actually make sounder, and more appealing policy points than Donald Trump did. On the whole, she succeeded—though she still doesn’t really have a good comeback to Trump’s criticism of the past several decades of trade policy (that’s why I only give her a 2.8 of three). Second, she had to get under his skin, so he’d feel compelled to defend himself, which is to say, defend the indefensible. Third, she had to know when to let him go, to rant, to be Donald Trump, and not step on it by interrupting or trying to refute the absurd. On points two and three, she was brilliant. Getting under his skin, she handed him the rope. Letting him rant, she let him hang himself. (So, I might add, did Lester Holt, who obviously went into the debate believing that he’d let the candidates be themselves, largely free from his own interruptions, before the largest audience they’d yet faced—journalistically, absolutely the right call.)
The three issue areas that were actually discussed—as opposed to those that fell victim to Trump’s incoherence, which worked to Clinton’s favor—were the economy, our relation to the world, and the intersection of race relations and police practices. On the last, Clinton was clearly, and I thought effectively, reaching out to young minority voters—a group whose turnout she clearly needs to encourage. Her discussion of the massive over-incarceration of the past decades, and the ongoing racial bias that affects, and in many places, dominates police practices, threaded a needle: Showing her understanding of the urgency behind Black Lives Matter while at the same time making police reform sound unthreatening to moderate white voters—at least, those moderate whites who don’t believe, as Trump would have it, that we’re in a 1968 moment when cities are going up in flames. Trump’s one-note law-n-order shtick, by contrast, doubtless played well with his base, but there’s no way it put any new votes in his column. Clinton’s move to mine her potential base for more votes, by contrast, probably did enable her to win some friends and influence fence-sitters.
The candidates’ exchange on America’s alliances, and Clinton’s insistence on preserving them, also worked to her advantage. Her strongest moment came when she pointed out that absent those alliances, our intelligence on terrorist threats would be diminished, and the CNN post-debate poll showed viewers overwhelmingly believed she’d be the stronger president on foreign policy. On the economy, however, Trump’s insistence that the trade deals enacted by administrations of both parties—by a power structure of which Clinton was a charter member—resonated with viewers. Clinton responded by noting that she opposed some deals while in the Senate (she cited the accord with Central American nations, CAFTA), but mainly by pointing out that the squeeze on the middle class is also the result of tax and other policies skewed to the 1 percent. She went on—and this should be her central message—to list the policies she’s promoted that benefit the 99 percent: higher minimum wages, paid parental and sick leave, affordable college. She also made clear that those policies that require federal spending would be paid for by higher taxes on the rich. After a period in which she’s separated Trump out from mainstream Republicanism, she came back to the arguments that always work for Democrats: Trump’s economic proposals are chiefly the latest iteration of Republican trickle-down economics, while hers are rooted in the empirically-grounded belief that the way to produce prosperity is to invest in that 99 percent. She needed to focus on that contrast even more, and surely will in the two remaining debates. That’s where she connects with the everyday lives of Americans—young Americans in particular—in a way that Trump never can.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

The Left Underestimates the Danger of Donald Trump

By Arun Gupta (September 21, 2016)
I know it’s the fifth anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, but there is little to celebrate at such a grim moment. That being the likelihood Trump may very well win.
If he does, Black Lives Matter will be declared a domestic terrorist outfit, just like the Earth Liberation Front was under Bush.
Trump and Attorney General Giuliani would relish using the National Guard to crush blockades of oil pipelines and trains, and indigenous people defending their lands. There will be no more climate justice movement or even hesitant steps toward limiting climate change.An English-only law would likely be passed, DACA be withdrawn, and sanctuary cities outlawed. White supremacists, Neo-Nazis, the Klan, and the Alt-Right would all be welcome into his administration, overtly or covertly.
There would be an all-out assault on reproductive rights and Planned Parentood
Significant gains made at the National Labor Relations Board in the last few years will be overturned.
Huge swaths of the West under federal control will be turned over to logging, ranching, mining, and oil and gas industries.
Tens of millions would go from inadequate healthcare to no healthcare.
The Alt Right will aggressively disrupt the left.
Massive voter suppression becomes the norm.
There will be organized vigilante violence, perhaps even mini-pogroms, against Muslim and Mexican communities with the state turning a blind eye.
Don’t think it can’t happen; the WWI period saw hideous pogroms against African-Americans and Chicanos with state support. Entire communities were wiped out and thousands killed.

Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President - The New York Times

Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President - The New York Times

Friday, September 23, 2016

Voodoo Palooza - Haiti Benefit

A Haiti Benefit Concert on the Lake Featuring
Island of Black & White
One Eyed Reilly
Plus… Vigilant Roots, Red Hearts Bleed & Diversity
Sunday, September 25th, 3-8pm
3025A Cambridge Rd., Cameron Park
(2 miles north of Highway 50, Cambridge Rd. Exit) 
Suggested Donation: $6
Or Large Bottle of Multi-Vitamins
No Host Bar * Voodoo Punch * Guinness * Burritos 
Please RSVP to: paulb1221@sbcglobal.net,_.___\
100% of the Proceeds from VOODOO PALOOZA III go to support our Children's Hope projects in Haiti. Thank you for your support!

antiracismdsa: The Left Under Estimates the Danger of Trump

antiracismdsa: The Left Under Estimates the Danger of Trump: By Arun Gupta (September 21, 2016) I know it’s the fifth anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, but there is little to celebrate at such...

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Defeat Trump- Defeat Racism Campaign in Sacramento

Sacramento Activists register voters and advance the Defeat Trump: Defeat Racism campaign.
American River College.  Sept. 22, 2016.  Duane and Dolores Campbell.
Progressive Alliance members are invited to join us.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

5th Annual "Half 4 Haiti" Solidarity Run -- Sun, Oct. 2nd

VOODOO PALOOZA III! -- Haiti Benefit Concert, Sunday, 9/25, 3-8pm

Haiti Benefit Concert on Cameron Park Lake
Island of Black & White
One Eyed Reilly
Plus Vigilant Roots, Red Hearts Bleed & Diversity
Sunday, Sept. 25th, 3-8pm
Suggested Donation: $6
No Host Bar * Voodoo Punch * Guinness * Food
3025A Cambridge Rd., Cameron Park
Please RSVP to paulb1221@sbcglobal.net

Trump's Latest Birther Lie

Thursday, September 15, 2016

antiracismdsa: Dolores Huerta: A Legacy

antiracismdsa: Dolores Huerta: A Legacy: Ken Burt,  For Hispanic Heritage Month. See video link at the end.  Seventy-seven years ago, in March 1939, Juan Fabian Fernandez of N...

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Defeat Trump campaign

Sacramento Progressive Alliance
Defeat Trump: Defeat Racism.
Yes on Proposition 55
Sac State Library Quad.  Voter Registration.
11: 30 AM-  1: 30 PM
Wed. Sept. 14, 2016.
Get your literature, bumper stickers, buttons.

Monday, September 12, 2016

The Media Has Been Pointing Out Trump's 'Basket Of Deplorables' For Over A Year | Huffington Post

The Media Has Been Pointing Out Trump's 'Basket Of Deplorables' For Over A Year | Huffington Post

CTA Public Education Forum - Sacramento

The Sacramento City Unified School District has a once in a lifetime opportunity to create the public education system our students deserve. Because it is in the best financial position in its history, with the right vision Sac City can become THE Destination District in California.

We can take one huge step forward to creating that vision in our upcoming contract negotiations with the District which will begin next month. To help us inform our proposals and to provide a voice for educators, parents, students and the broader community, we are holding a public education forum. A flyer for the event can be found by clicking here.

Join Mayor-Elect Darrell Steinberg, Educators, Parents and Community Leaders! Tuesday, September 20th
Fruitridge Elementary
4625 44th Street
Sacramento 95820
6:30 to 8 p.m.

And the District's ability to continue to make progress relies on adequate funding. That's why we support:
Yes on Prop 55

Proposition 55 is on the November ballot. This statewide ballot initiative extends the tax on millionaires that was part of 2012's Proposition 30 that helped to restore funding to schools. This increased revenue is a major reason why Sac City is in the best financial position it has been in its history. A fact sheet on Prop 55 can be found here.

We look forward to seeing you on September 20th. In the meantime, you can stay informed by visiting our website at www.sacteachers.org.

Nikki Milevsky David Fisher
President, SCTA First Vice-President, SCTA
Tell your friends.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Impact of Prop 30: and Why Proposition 55 is essential

New Report Shows the Significant Impact of Proposition 30

Nearly four years since California voters approved Proposition 30, a new Issue Brief from the California Budget & Policy Center looks at what Prop. 30 has meant for the state’s fiscal picture and investment in key public services. This brief highlights how Prop. 30’s boost to state revenues has helped California reinvest in schools and community colleges and other systems while also increasing the state’s capacity to build its budget reserve and pay down debt.

Passed in November 2012, Prop. 30 raised the personal income tax rates for very-high-income Californians (single filers with taxable incomes above $250,000 and joint filers with incomes above $500,000) through 2018 and raised the state sales tax rate by a quarter-cent through 2016.

Overall, tax rate changes in Prop. 30 have boosted state revenues by $7 billion to $8 billion annually. The effects of Prop. 30 revenues, which predominantly come from California’s wealthiest residents, include the following:
Prop. 30 has helped California reinvest in preschool, K-12 schools, and community colleges. Prop. 30 and a growing state economy together boosted Prop. 98 spending (dollars provided through the state’s minimum funding guarantee for preschool, K-12 education, and community colleges) by more than half (52 percent). Prop. 98 spending has increased from $47.2 billion in 2011-12 to $71.9 billion in 2016-17. Due in part to this boost in spending:
Prop. 98 K-12 spending per student has gone up from $9,168 in 2012-13 to $10,493 in 2016-17 (inflation-adjusted), an increase of more than 14 percent.

Friday, September 2, 2016

Fact Checking Trump's Immigration Speech

Donald Trump gave his long-awaited speech on immigration in Phoenix on Aug. 31. Here’s a roundup of some of the more interesting claims he made in the lengthy address; we expect we will dig deeper into some of his other statistics in the coming days. As is our practice, we do not award Pinocchios in speech roundups.

“Illegal immigration costs our country more than $113 billion a year. And this is what we get. For the money we are going to spend on illegal immigration over the next 10 years, we could provide 1 million at-risk students with a school voucher.”

Trump states this $113 billion figure as an undisputed fact, but it comes from a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to dramatically reduce legal immigration. So you immediately have to look at the numbers with skepticism.

Digging into the numbers, you see that burden on the federal budget is estimated to be just $29 billion, whereas $84 billion is supposedly borne by state and local governments. Why is that? The group counts the cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants, even if they are born in the United States and, thus, are U.S. citizens. “The birth of these children and their subsequent medical care represent a large share of the estimated Medicaid and Child Health Insurance Program expenditures associated with illegal aliens,” the report says.