RSS Newsletter Articles

Note to Self: Be Sure to Attend the Power Lunch Again Next Year!

By Rosemary Heilemann

powerlunch 1

On Monday, May 18, the International Ballroom at the Chicago Hilton was packed from corner to corner at Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky’s 14th Annual Ultimate Women’s Power Lunch.  Even more than the numbers, the enthusiasm and energy of more than 2,000 strong women and the men who admire them, including dozens of Tenth Dems, threatened to burst the very walls.

Co-hosts Josina Morita, former candidate for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, and Hon. Stephanie D. Neely, former treasurer of the City of Chicago, welcomed the crowd warmly and read a moving letter of encouragement from Hillary Clinton.  Then, after acknowledging candidates and elected officials, our host delivered her prepared remarks.

Rep. Schakowsky talked about growing up in Rogers Park.  She described a time when ordinary working people could live comfortably, without worrying about putting food on the table, reasonably expecting that their children would live a better life than theirs.  She contrasted that time with ours, a time when, in the words of AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, “most families come home to a full plate of worry.”  Yet, Rep. Schakowsky said, the United States has never been wealthier.  Since 1980, GDP has grown by 77 percent and worker productivity has increased by 75 percent.

The bad news?  Despite our national prosperity, 80 percent of workers have seen no improvement in their standard of living.  The excess money from all this productivity has mostly gone to the top one percent of earners.  At the same time, this year’s federal budget has cut 40 percent from health and welfare programs, including SNAP (food stamps), that will hurt one million people.  These policies are bad for the people and bad for the economy.  When working people get paid, they spend most of their income, which stimulates the economy.  It is estimated that the $1.3 trillion in excess earnings of the highest paid individuals would create 10 million jobs if that money were actually spent.

But Rep. Schakowsky followed this dismal picture with good news.  Federal tax laws and changes in government regulations over many years have created our lopsided economy, and loopholes and policies that created economic inequality can be undone.  The Democratic Women’s Congressional Caucus, adopting the theme “When Women Succeed, America Succeeds,” is writing bills to address economic inequality, bills calling for increases in social security benefits; government-supported child care, pre-school, and elder care; support for women entrepreneurs; and reduction of college debt.

There is a renewed progressive mood in the country, Schakowsky said.  Studies have shown that progressive ideas such as closing corporate loopholes, increasing capital gains taxes, increasing the minimum wage, providing true pensions, reforming immigration, and imposing higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires are popular.  Women are tending to vote Democratic because they are looking for candidates who understand their issues.

Elections really matter, and the key is to engage the electorate.  Only one-third of eligible voters turned out for the 2014 election.  “We are smart enough, strong enough, and determined enough to make changes in 2016,” Schakowsky said.

Rep. Schakowsky yielded the floor to Saru Jayaraman, co-founder of ROC United, a group fighting for improved conditions for restaurant workers.  Ms. Jayaraman told us that one-twelfth of American workers are restaurant workers, the lowest paid of all occupations.  Because of exceptions successfully lobbied for by the restaurant industry, the minimum wage for such tipped workers is well below that legislated for other workers—$2.13 per hour under federal law and $4.95 in Illinois.  In her allotted five minutes, this dynamic young woman made the case for eliminating this discrepancy, explaining that by designating workers as “tipped,” restaurant owners relieve themselves of the obligation to pay a living wage.

In the wake of these dynamic introductory speakers, keynote speaker Sister Simone Campbell came to the podium.  Well-known since 2012 for her “Nuns on the Bus” national tour, Sister Simone spoke calmly and softly, with the confidence of one who has been a registered lobbyist, speaker, educator, and activist since 1978.  Her message was that every one of us can accomplish something if we engage with others.  Change, she said, requires that we build relationships, learn people’s stories, and then tell those stories—in short, open our hearts and then “gossip.”   People are hungering to belong to something, which is why they sometimes get attached to leaders who do not serve their best interests.  Sister Simone encouraged us to build a sense of community with people we encounter, to ask questions about their lives, and to learn and share their stories.

Sister Simone’s remarks invoked a palpable sense of community in the ballroom, and her quiet confidence inspired optimism.  Such group experiences strengthen our determination to continue to work for the changes that will benefit our country and its people.  This was my first Ultimate Women’s Power Lunch, and it surely will not be my last.

powerlunch2

State Senator Daniel Biss, a Pragmatic Advocate for Democratic Values

Biss

This session Daniel Biss, State Senator from Evanston, whose 9th District includes communities in the 10th Congressional District, is sponsoring Senate Bill 1564 to amend the Health Care Right of Conscience Act. The changes Biss’s bill proposes would ensure that healthcare providers give medically accurate information to their patients, regardless of their own personal religious beliefs.

Sen. Biss explains why such legislation is needed.  “Across the country, we’re watching state legislatures enact heavy-handed legislation that aims at limiting a woman’s right to choose,” he says. “Right-wing Republicans have tried those same tricks here in Illinois, but fortunately we’ve been able to defeat these proposals, allowing women to make the choices that are right for them and their families.”

According to Biss, Senate Bill 1564 represents an important opportunity not just to stop awful legislation, but also to affirmatively expand women’s rights. The bill would protect not only family-planning decisions, but also such other important, intimate healthcare decisions as end-of-life care directions. Biss believes that everyone “should be free to make those decisions based on medically accurate and comprehensive information,” guided by their “own beliefs and not those of doctors or hospital systems.”

An Evening with Alan Grayson

by Adrienne Kirshbaum

Grayson

On the evening of April 8 at the Northbrook Pinstripes, a capacity crowd was treated to the wit and wisdom of U.S. Representative Alan Grayson.   The event was sponsored by The Coalition to Restore Democracy, a nonpartisan association of 25 member groups, each dedicated to improving government.  The driving force behind the gathering was that indefatigable activist Sharon Sanders of Northbrook.

Tenth Dems, a member of the Coalition, participated in the event.  Our founding chair, Lauren Beth Gash, was called to the podium to introduce Rep. Grayson.  In her remarks, she mentioned the several Harvard degrees that the congressman had earned, and the various successful careers he had forged in the private sector before becoming the U.S. Representative from Orlando, Florida.

We all know how broken our government is, and Rep. Grayson didn’t try to soften the facts.  But he leavened his remarks with humor that made the bitter news easier to swallow.  He spoke about the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and how that unfortunate action has affected the political landscape.  He told of how he took finance reform into his own hands and raised a prodigious amount of money by appealing to small donors giving $200 or less.  He urged his audience to get involved and fight to return our country to a place where everyone has a voice.  He declared that “money can’t vote,” and led the audience in an enthusiastic chant of that important truth.

Unlike many political events, “An Evening with Alan Grayson” featured really good food!  An impressive small-plates buffet included an array of delicious choices, from crudités to gourmet pizza.  At the evening’s end, those liberal icons Ben and Jerry provided ice cream cups in some of their most popular flavors so attendees could go home with a good taste in their mouths.

You can take a look at the speech on YouTube

Ted Cruz Believes He’s the New Galileo

by Steven Gan

 

Cruz

I’ll be honest with you. I was a little shocked when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) announced in March that he was throwing his hat into the ring for the presidency. I mean, come on now….  Here’s a person who loves to be so outrageously provocative in everything he says and does that outside of his large cadre of radical followers he’s often viewed as a carnival barker, a wacko bird, and completely off the wall, even by some of the more rational members of his own party.  I thought perhaps he might have said to himself, “Do I really have a chance to pull off a national campaign?”

I guess I was wrong.  When you’re completely out of touch with the rest of America, as I believe Cruz is, right or wrong, you do what you want to do without flinching.  There were two things that Cruz recently said that made me want to just shake my head until it rolled off my shoulders.

On March 24th, in an interview with The Texas Tribune, Cruz compared what he termed “global warming alarmists” to flat-Earthers, analogizing himself to Galileo Galilei, one of the fathers of modern science.  “Those who believe the Earth’s climate is changing as a result of human activity are comparable to those who once believed the planet was flat,” Cruz said.

I can’t begin to wrap my head around Cruz’s analogy. Galileo was persecuted for asserting his rational conclusion, based upon scientific observations, that the planets revolve around the sun (and not the Earth as the Church taught).  And Cruz asserts that as one of the minority who do not accept that human activities are impacting climate change, he is being “persecuted” for his “beliefs”?

First of all, science is not a matter of beliefs; it is a body of knowledge.  Except for a very few fringe individuals, scientists worldwide have clearly stated that today’s endless burning of fossil fuels and the spewing of pollution into our atmosphere has, at a minimum, contributed to climate change. Yet, despite today’s rapidly melting glaciers and polar regions, warming sea temperatures, increased droughts, and more intense hurricanes, poor Senator Cruz insists that these climatic phenomena have nothing to do with us humans.

In any event, I see no evidence to support Cruz’s claim that, like Galileo, he is being “persecuted” for his contrarian beliefs.  To be persecuted is to be ostracized from society, emotionally (and even physically) abused, perhaps imprisoned, and maybe even made to pay with one’s life. Then there’s Ted Cruz, a United States Senator and declared candidate for President of the United States.  So just how is he being persecuted for not “believing” that man’s activities are contributing to climate change?

Really. How pathetic that Cruz has to depict himself as a victim in order to appeal to the ignorant who blindly follow and support his irrational thinking on climate change and other issues.

Turning to just one of these other issues, on April 9th without missing a beat, Cruz doubled down on his support for the so-called “religious freedom” laws passed by Republican legislatures in Indiana and Arkansas.  By that time, potential GOP nominees Jeb Bush and Rand Paul (who subsequently declared his candidacy) had already attempted to backpedal from supporting such laws, in light of overwhelming public opposition.  Unconcerned that such laws are widely seen as sanctioning discrimination, particularly against LGBT individuals, Cruz claimed that such laws are needed because the gay community has launched a “jihad” against Christians.

Yes, “jihad” is the word Cruz used.  Accompanied by former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (who may run again, and who, in my opinion, uses his religious belief system to cloak his animus toward the LGBT community), Cruz told a crowd of homeschooling activists to beware of “the jihad that is being waged right now in Indiana and Arkansas, going after people of faith who respect the biblical teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”  By using that loaded word “jihad,” Cruz attempted to depict LGBT Americans as the “other” – terrorists who are trying to take over America and defeat people of faith.

What worries me most about Ted Cruz is that, no matter what outlandish and provocative things he says, he seems to be quite good at pushing all the emotional buttons of the religious right.  Persecution by people who understand science?  Jihad by people who insist on tolerance?  Could this self-proclaimed victim actually end up being a viable candidate for President of the United States?

Why Our Restrictive Immigration Policy is Just Plain Wrong

immigration

by Barbara Altman

My strong opposition to the American policy that radically limits immigration has always been based on a combination of historical fact and my view of right and wrong.  After all, unless we’re full-blooded members of an indigenous tribe, every one of us can trace our ancestry to a land outside the borders of the United States. With the exception of those whose ancestors came here involuntarily as part of the slave trade, we can all find someone in our family tree who came to America looking for a better life.  Given these historical facts, who are we to tell the current crop of foreigners looking for a better life that they can’t come to “our country”?  It may strike you as naïve, but I long for us to live by the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and “lift the lamp beside the golden door.”

Generally, when I try to support these views with policy arguments, I can come up with only anecdotal evidence.  Look at all the immigrants who contributed to the ascendancy of this nation in the 20th century, I say – Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi. Madeleine Albright, I.M. Pei, George Balanchine – the list is endless. And why, I’ve always asked, do we bring foreign students to the United States to study at our colleges and universities, only to make it impossible for them to remain in this country and apply that education to improving our nation?  Finally, I reason that, excepting those with nefarious intent, immigrants tend to be the cream of the society they’ve fled.  That is, it’s the very people who have the courage and the grit to risk everything to leave the familiar and travel to a foreign land where they may not even understand the language who have the most to offer their adopted country.

So imagine my delight to read the economic argument that supports my open-border bias in The New York Times Magazine for March 29.

According to economist Adam Davidson, writing in his weekly “On Money” column, those who oppose open borders in the belief that immigrants take jobs that otherwise would go to workers already in the United States have got it not just wrong, but actually backwards.  Jobs, Davidson explains, are not a “lump,” and employment is not a zero sum game.  Every new worker in the United States, just by being employed, stimulates the creation of additional jobs—jobs for the people who rent her an apartment, who check him out at the grocery store, who sell her a car and gas to run it, who teach his children…well, you get the idea.  Davidson says that it’s a fact that population growth stimulates economic growth and that, therefore, whether the population grows because birthrates increase or because of immigration, the result is essentially the same. Certainly, it stands to reason that if one of those foreign students we allow to remain in the United States starts the next technically innovative business, she will create innumerable new jobs for those of us already residing in this country.

Also, according to Davidson, an influx of workers at the low end of the wage scale makes the economy work more efficiently.  He gives examples using the construction industry, arguing that everyone is better off if the skilled craftsmen on the job aren’t also the workers hauling and sweeping.  Haulers and sweepers can be paid less per hour than skilled workers, and employing them will free up the higher-earning skilled workers to focus on the tasks that demand their skills.

So my wish is that we stop expending political energy on thinking of ways to stop immigration and start focusing on the best way to open up our country to immigrants—while weeding out criminals and anyone else intending us harm, of course.  It turns out that not only would such a policy constitute a return to fundamental American ideals, but it would also be good economics.