Welcome to the Op-Ed Corner:

The November 2013 Elections – Good News!

By Robert Sulzer

November 10, 2013

The November 5, 2013 elections were both very good for Democrats and also very good for progressive politics.

In these elections, my hometown, New York City set the stage for a national shift to the center-left. Democrat Bill de Blasio defeated GOP opponent Joe Lhoto, in the biggest landslide ever in a New York City mayoral race—becoming the first Democrat to hold that office in 20 years. Previously the position of mayor was held for two terms by Republican Rudolph Guiliani followed for three terms by independent billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who is the 7th richest person in United States. Those two mayors acted strongly in favor of the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor. Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio promises to create more income equality with higher taxes on the very rich and support for programs to help build a strong middle class, such as more money for pre-kindergarten education and implementation in New York of the Affordable Care Act. He also promises to create more fairness by ending the police practice of stop-and-frisk—a practice which leads to racial profiling. Hopefully, De Blasio will be successful and set the stage nationwide for a movement embracing progressive values.

The governor race in Virginia was supposed to be an easy win for the Republicans, but instead it was a close race with Democrat Terry McAuliffe, a veteran Democratic fundraiser and good friend of Bill Clinton, nosed out far right-wing GOP`er Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, who is extremely anti-woman’s rights and anti-immigration in his positions. McAuliffe won this close victory by both exposing, his opponent`s unpopular and extreme positions and also by McAuliffe running a brilliant grass roots campaign inspired by President Obama`s successful election campaigns. In his campaign, unlike the current governor, McAuliffe promised to implement the Affordable Care Act for Virginians.

In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie won an expected landslide victory–because his competition was very weak. But “New Jerseyans” also voted in favor of a ballot measure for a state constitutional amendment, increasing the minimum wage by $1 to $8.25 and having it automatically rise with inflation in the future—a measure strongly opposed by Gov. Christie.

In Coralville, a small conservative Iowa town, the mayoral and City Council candidates most closely tied to the message promoted by Americans for Prosperity, a Koch Brothers backed group, were soundly defeated—because the residents there understood and resented interference by outside groups in their elections.

In Colorado, voters approved a heavy tax on recreational marijuana, which was legalized last year in that state. Voters in three Michigan cities approved ballot measures legalizing the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana on private property. Voters in Portland, Maine passed an ordinance legalizing the possession of up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana by adults over 21—which according to advocates is the first East Coast city to pass such a law.

An aggressive campaign by business interests was not enough to defeat a $15 an hour living wage ordinance for the SeaTac workers supporting Seattle`s airport. (Update: Vote recount scheduled for 11/12/13.)

Three out of four Colorado cities with anti-fracking ordinances on the ballot, passed them.

In other mayoral races, left-leaning candidates won in Charlotte, N.C. and Dayton, Ohio.   Houston, Texas reelected its first openly gay woman mayor.

The 2013 elections were good for Democrats and for liberals, in general—because our country is in a more center-left mood The Seminole DEC activists can feel encouraged by this in their upcoming battles for the elections in 2014 and 2016.

Gov. Scott Roadblocks to the ACA

By Robert Sulzer

September 28, 2013

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), due to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, is the Law of the Land!  But, Florida has been among the most resistant of the GOP-controlled states to implement the ACA. Governor Scott`s latest move is to block health care Navigators from providing information regarding the ACA to uninsured Floridians by disallowing the Navigators from operating on county health department grounds.

This move by Governor Scott is cruel and unconscionable. His political agenda, to see the ACA fail, punishes the most vulnerable Floridians. According to the U.S. Census, there are 3.8 million uninsured people in Florida. These millions of uninsured people need guidance to help understand the ACA, identify the best plan available to them in the health care Marketplace, and to navigate the process to select the most advantageous plan for themselves and their families under the Affordable Care Act. It is the job of the Navigator to provide this assistance and to help the Americans understand their rights under the ACA.

Under Gov. Scott`s plan, the local health departments will be allowed to provide materials about available insurance plans only if a client asks for it. Personnel working at the local health department facilities will not be allowed to voluntarily offer a client written information, such as bulletins, describing the available heath care plans. Most importantly, those highly trained Navigators will not be able to provide information and support from local health department facilities.

Navigators face a tough time in Florida, even without these new restrictions by Gov. Scott. These Navigators are hired and trained and they must pass an exam and then go through state required criminal background checks. These workers have been getting ready for October 1, when the federally operated online Marketplace in Florida is scheduled to open. The purpose of the Marketplace is to provide comparison shopping and arrange for subsidized coverage for those uninsured Americans who qualify. Health care coverage for these Americans will go into effect on January 1, 2014.  Many of the benefits of the ACA are already in effect and millions of Americans have coverage that they otherwise would not have.

Many Republicans who oppose the Affordable Care Act falsely, knowingly, argue that the Obama administration wants to amass a huge database of Americans` health information, for nefarious purposes, or that the Navigators on their own might steal personal information. Those claims have been refuted by U.S. Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters who said, “Contrary to Gov. Scott`s statements, consumers will never be asked to provide their personal information to the Marketplace whether through a Navigator or not.” She added, “There is no such database of Americans` health information, and multiple fact checkers have debunked this claim.  Once again, the GOP can’t win on policy so they resort to false claims and scare tactics.

Democrats, such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Alan Grayson, Alcee Hastings, Ted Deutch and Corrine Brown have been strongly critical of Gov. Scott`s devious plan against the Affordable Care Act being successful. We must support them and express our opposition to this plan—to our neighbors, newspapers and to our lawmakers.

Do We Trust Russia?

By Robert Sulzer

September 14, 2013

While there are many injustices throughout the world, Syria is today the country by far with the greatest human suffering. The rate of killing is accelerating. In 2011, there were fewer than 5,000 deaths. As of July 2012, there were around 10,000 deaths—and since then the number has risen tenfold. A year ago, by United Nations calculations, there were 230,000 Syrian refugees and now there are two million.

It is critical that the United States prepare to act against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad`s recent use of poison gas against his own people.  This one action killed more than 1400 people including more than 400 children.

Syria and Chemical Weapons

By Robert Sulzer

September 4, 2013

Recently, in violation of international law, which considers any use of chemical weapons as illegal, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used sarin, a poison gas, in an attack on those he perceives as enemies, in his own country, killing more than 1400 people including more than 400 children. This is a crime against humanity, and it is of utmost importance that the world at large condemns such behavior and take meaningful action to make Assad pay a price for that crime. President Obama announced that he plans, in the very near future, to order a military attack strategically aimed at places involved in Assad`s use of chemical warfare, to make it more difficult for him to employ these capabilities again.

Understandably, most Americans, including myself, feel uneasy about any military operations that may lead us into another long lasting war. The George W. Bush administration led us into a long war in Iraq based on a bunch of lies: weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which the international community could not find, an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden which in actuality did not exist, etc. Our country has also been involved in a war in Afghanistan which has lasted for more than a decade. The American people are wary of war.

That does not mean that United States should not take limited military action against despots who commit barbaric crimes against their own people in violation of international law. President Obama stated that any military action he takes against Assad will not be open-ended. It will be limited in scope with no boots on the ground. Doing nothing about Assad`s atrocities is dangerous and a threat to our national security. President Obama has been accused by some of waiting too long to act but we saw that President Bill Clinton successfully used limited military action against Milosevic in Serbia.

The impact of the response by the United States and by the world to Assad`s use of chemical warfare goes well beyond Syria`s borders. Doing nothing gives the rulers of Iran the impression that Iran can go on with their program to create nuclear weapons, or North Korea to proliferate nuclear weapons technology to terrorist groups—and presume that the rest of the world will not take any action against it. Doing nothing would also convince, Hezbollah and Hamas that they can get away with even larger terrorist acts against Israel or her allies in the west.

In light of the British parliament going against Prime Minister David Cameron`s decision to support President Obama`s planned military operation in Syria, and in light of most Americans seemingly lukewarm about taking any military operations—-President Obama has announced that he will bring the matter up to Congress when they are scheduled to go into session on September 9th. I feel that decision is a very wise one. It gives members of both houses of Congress more time to get the facts about Assad`s attacks on Syrians with poison gas. And I think that when push comes to shove, both the Democratic controlled Senate and the GOP controlled House will vote to support the president`s plan for limited military action. This time will give other countries, after they review all the facts, a chance to support the United States. President Obama is already backed by the Arab League, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and France. There is even a small possibility that if enough facts come out, that the British Parliament will reconsider and call a special session and back Cameron`s original plan. Our president has taken a gamble with congress and I bet that it will generate the right results. It is a gutsy decision, but I feel a very wise one.

50th Anniversary March — What Next?

By Robert Sulzer

August 26, 2013

Fifty years ago on August 28, 1963 was the famous March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, organized by civil rights, labor and religious leaders for the purpose of achieving the dream of a more perfect America with freedom, social justice and economic justice for all. There were many speakers at this march, highlighted by the Reverend Martin Luther King`s “I HAVE A DREAM” speech.  This march led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (outlawing major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, nationality, and religious minorities, and women—and ended unequal voting registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and at general public facilities). This march also led a year later to the important Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits states and local governments from imposing any voting qualifications and prerequisites to voting, or procedure to deny or abridge the right of any U.S. citizen to vote based on account of race or color.

Yesterday, August 24 2013, was a 50th Anniversary March in Washington,featuring speakers such as Attorney General Eric Holder, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Dr. King`s daughter – the Reverend Bernice King, Treyvon Martin`s mother – Sybrina Fulton, and other notable people. Rosa Parks was also at the event. On Wednesday, August 28, the actual 50th anniversary, President Obama is scheduled to speak. The events this week in Washington D.C. are very moving and meaningful, but where do we go from here?

Since 1963, our country has made great strides in civil rights and social and economic justice, with an African-American President and an African-American Attorney General are just two indicators of the change that has taken place. However, one need not look far to see the efforts underway right now to undermine and roll back the advances in civil rights and voting rights achieved 50 years ago. America still has a long way to go to achieve the dream of a more perfect union. We need to force Congress to pass legislation that counters the Supreme Court`s recent weakening of the Voting Rights Act. We also need meaningful court actions against states practicing voter repression such as we have seen most recently in Texas and North Carolina and we must be on guard against voter repression in Florida. We also need legislation that provides for a fair minimum “living” wage, for strengthening workers` rights and policies to help working families. We also need stronger laws against gun violence (including universal background checks) and to repeal the “STAND YOUR GROUND” law. For the American dream to truly be achieved we need to improve public education for all Americans, stop the oppression of women with laws that impact their rights to make health decisions, grant the GLBT community equal rights in all of these United States, and pass meaningful immigration reform.  We must not tolerate those who advocate going back to the bad old days.

We can achieve all of these things that are necessary to further the dream of a more perfect union—but it requires registering all eligible Americans to VOTE and then organizing people to get out the vote.  Democracy works best when everyone exercises their right to vote!  These goals can only be achieved when everyone is engaged and everyone participates to implement the grassroots organizing tools practiced diligently by your Seminole County Democratic Party.

Eric Holder and the Voting Rights Act

By Robert Sulzer

August 13, 2013

An important battle is going on between the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of voting rights for all citizens, and the several GOP controlled states trying to suppress the votes of minorities, young people and senior citizens – groups who tend to vote for Democrats.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which determined those states that must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court before they make changes to voting procedures, is unconstitutional.  Section 5 of the Voting rights Act sets out this preclearance requirement and was extended by Congress in 2006 for 25 years—but without Section 4, Section 5 is insignificant.

Shortly after the Supreme court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, several states with Republican governors and Republican controlled state legislatures, such as Texas and North Carolina, pushed through draconian voter suppression laws, such as: requiring ID cards which are difficult for the elderly, minorities and poor people to acquire; reducing hours for early voting; restricting same day registration; and redistricting in a way to favor the election of GOP`ers.

Just two hours after the Supreme Court ruling, Texas began to advance a voter ID law and redistricting map which were blocked last year because of their discriminatory tendencies against Latinos and Blacks. North Carolina GOP`ers, feeling freed by the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, announced plans to push a voter ID law, eliminate early voting days and restrict same-day registration.  Advocates of voting rights have alleged that voter ID laws and restrictions on early voting disproportionately hurt minorities, the elderly and college students who vote largely for Democrats.

Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department have a new strategy. They are applying Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court did not rule unconstitutional. Section 3 contains a “bail-in” process by which jurisdictions outside the formula of Section 4 that violate other provisions of the Voting Rights Act  may be subject to preclearance under a federal court order. Eric Holder recently announced that the Justice department will ask a federal court in Texas to subject the State of Texas to preclearance requirements similar to those in Section 5 of the Act.  His decision is based on the evidence of intentional racial discrimination that was presented last year in the redistricting case, Texas vs. Holder in addition to other examples of racial discrimination in Texas.

It is of utmost importance that Eric Holder is successful in his pursuit of voting justice in Texas. If he is successful, the Justice Department can continue its battle for voting fairness in other states which are practicing discrimination in the voting process. Not only Texas, but any state should be required to go through a preclearance process when changes to its voting laws reflect the potential for voter-related discrimination against minorities or the disadvantaged. We know that Governor Rick Scott and Florida`s GOP-controlled legislature will use the recent Supreme Court ruling to implement voter suppression laws and attempt to purge legal voters from the rolls, as they instituted in 2012. So we must be alert and on guard and do what we can to prevent that from happening.

Raise The Minimum Wage Now!

By Robert Sulzer

August 2, 2013

Low-wage workers, consisting largely of women and minorities, are long overdue for an increase in the minimum wage.  The very slow recovery from the Great Recession has impacted none more than the low-wage worker.  A significant increase in the minimum wage at this critical time in the economic recovery will both increase the spending power of the worker and further stimulate the economy which drives the creation of jobs.  Let us not forget that there is a moral aspect of this as well.  Every hard working American deserves a “living wage” that they can be proud of; one that enables them to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

President Obama, in his State of the Union message for 2013, proposed raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9 an hour.  This increase would not be enough to completely keep up with inflation, but it would both help the low-wage worker and is an amount that may get the bipartisan support necessary to pass through this congress.  In the same speech, the President proposed something even more meaningful—indexing the minimum wage so that it increases each year as the cost of living slowly rises. I think that is a great idea.

Keep in mind that most minimum wage workers are adults, not teenagers.

Besides stimulating the economy, a minimum wage hike to $9 an hour would lift millions of Americans out of poverty.  Women make up two-thirds of the minimum wage earners, so this hike would also help close the gender wage gap, in which on the average women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.  A hike to $10.10 an hour, which is what truly is needed, would also create more racial justice, because people of color are much more likely to work minimum wage jobs and it would lift millions of them out of poverty.

If the federal government does not increase the minimum wage, then we taxpayers will have to pay more for low-paid workers, such as those who work for Wal-Mart and McDonald’s and still qualify for government benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid. In other words, our taxes are subsidizing giant corporations, such as Wal-Mart, who pay their workers wages which are much too low to subsist on.  Therefore, we are paying for their food stamps and other benefits.

A number of states have already increased the minimum wage. A recent poll shows that 80 percent of Americans support an increase to $10.10 an hour, including 90 percent of Democrats and even 2/3 of Republicans. Let us do what the majority of Americans want and is also good economic policy – raise the minimum wage to a “living wage.”

To put a finer point on this, the chart below comes from a McDonald’s handbook for its workers.  This chart is intended to help the workers understand how to create a budget that will enable them to manage their resources based on the income from a job at McDonald’s.  We can all see flaws in the expected costs of various items listed on this chart and we can all see that items such as “food” are not even listed.  But I want to bring your attention to the top two items.  In addition to the full time job at McDonald’s they are expecting their employees to have a second job as well.  I think that says it all!

After Trayvon – Where Do We Go From Here?

By Robert Sulzer

July 26, 2013

Many Americans, like me, are upset at the verdict of “not guilty” for George Zimmerman, and we feel that it was a travesty of justice. Based on their history and experiences, many African Americans feel strongly that the system is rigged against them.  They have recently seen the conservative U.S. Supreme Court turn back several decades of progress in voting rights for people of color.  Our country has made great progress in eradicating overt racism but the progress is much slower in fighting implicit racism (associations about race based on stereotypes and myths but which reflect racist feelings which many white folks feel deeply in their gut) but our country still has a long way to go in that area.

Where do we go from here?

First, we must work to repeal laws, such as Florida`s “Stand Your Ground Law,” which encourages armed responses and result in tragedies like the killing of Trayvon Martin. Many have demonstrated this week in front of Governor Scott`s office in Tallahassee to repeal “Stand your Ground”, but they also need to demonstrate in front of Florida`s state legislature. When Florida elects a Democratic governor in 2014 there is a much better chance we can repeal this stupid law.  With a Democratic governor working with a Democratic dominated state legislature, it is guaranteed that “Stand Your Ground” will be repealed.

Second, we need better training for our police officers and community policing programs that gets the police out of their cars and back to walking the streets of our neighborhoods – so they can learn about and play a more supportive role in our communities.

Third, we need to provide better educational opportunities for children in poor communities, more aid in general to public education and more programs to encourage kids in tough neighborhoods to engage in productive activities after school.

These are all steps which can help improve race relations and community relations.  But, to achieve these objectives, we must get Democrats elected in 2014.  Like our fights to: protect a woman’s reproductive rights, stop the efforts to destroy public education, protect our environment, and enact meaningful gun control, these necessary moves to help improve race relations also depend on electing Democrats in 2014.  The wonderful grass roots work which the dedicated DEC members, Clubs, and Caucuses persistently engage in—-such as voter registration drives, vote by mail drives, phone banking, and door-to-door canvassing can make this happen. It is more difficult to get people energized and out to vote in a non-presidential election year, but it is absolutely necessary in 2014.  We must get all Democrats: whites, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Young People, etc. to the polls to vote for what is in their best interest, to vote for this community’s best interest – to VOTE Democratic. We can do it!!!

The  GOP War On Women Continues

By Robert Sulzer

July 12, 2013

For years, the Republican Party has been waging its WAR ON WOMEN—-which includes pushing draconian laws restricting women’s reproductive rights, including contraception and safe-legal abortion services. The GOP campaign against women also includes legislation against equal pay in the workplace, legislative efforts to fight the Violence Against Women Act, and policies that eliminate or reduce public funding for women’s health organizations, such as Planned Parenthood.

This year, many states that have both GOP governors and a GOP-controlled state legislature have passed severe laws against women’s reproductive rights, including the forced closing of health clinics that provide abortion services, mandated ultrasounds for women seeking abortions, and personhood laws stating that embryos and fetuses have legal rights from conception until birth.

In the last few months, the Republican WAR ON WOMEN has dramatically intensified in GOP controlled states—especially Texas (we all know about Wendy Davis’ 13-hour filibuster against Gov. Rick Perry’s draconian abortion law), North Carolina (where these provisions were added to an Anti-Sharia Law at the last minute without debate) and Ohio (where draconian provisions were added to the state budget law where they cannot be overturned by popular vote of the electorate). Let’s not forget Virginia where their Board of Health recently passed rules requiring abortion clinics to meet stricter hospital-style standards. These rules will force many clinics to close as these rules require major changes to the structure of these facilities.

On women’s issues, while the Democrats are focused on extending the positive progress, the GOP controlled by its far right, is working hard to move rapidly far into the past.

As residents of Florida, with our ultra-right wing GOP Gov. Rick Scott and a heavily Republican controlled state legislature—we must be especially vigilant and on guard for anti-women bills that could arise from both houses of our legislature in.

Voting Rights Act Decision

By Robert Sulzer

June 25,2013

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed almost fifty years of progress in civil rights with a very disappointing ruling on the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  By a 5-4 ruling, it struck down Section 4 of the landmark Voting Rights Act . Section 4 determines which areas of the United States cannot make changes to their voting laws unless cleared by the federal government or by a federal court.  The Voting Rights Act has been used to block a voter ID law in Texas and to delay the implementation of another such law in North Carolina. Due to this Supreme Court decision, both of those states are no longer subject to the pre clearance requirement and can move forward to implement these laws intended suppress the vote.

The Supreme Court did not rule on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the pre clearance requirement itself, which requires those affected states to have changes in their voting laws cleared by the Justice Department or by a federal court in Washington D.C. before they go into effect. Rather, the Supreme Court ruled that the current formula that determines which states are covered in Section 5, is unconstitutional, for practical purposes, this eliminates Section 5 enforcement, at least for now.

The majority opinion expressed by Chief Justice Roberts, states that due to great progress in voting rights over the last several years—proactive enforcement of voting rights is not that necessary. That is untrue, as articulated by Justice Ruth Ginsberg representing the minority opinion. She pointed to violations of the voting rights act in many states using such examples as racial gerrymandering in many of those states.

We should remember that the 15th Amendment to our Constitution, passed during the Reconstruction Era, bars racial discrimination in voting and authorizes Congress to enforce it.

For the 2012 election, many states passed voter suppression laws against minorities and poor people leading to voters standing in lines, for up to eight hours, at the polls on Election Day—this demonstrates that we need to strengthen regulations intended to expand voting rights—not diminish them.

The Court took a giant step backwards against democracy—but the fight is not over. We Democrats, must work even harder on voter registration drives, on absentee voting, on pressing our legislators for more laws protecting voting rights, and to write articles to newspapers pushing for fair voting opportunities for all eligible citizens.

U.S. District Court Vacancies

By: Robert Sulzer

June 14, 2013

Despite its importance, three of the eleven seats on remain vacant today and have been vacant a long time. This week, President Obama  set about fixing that.  He simultaneously nominated three highly qualified  noncontroversial individuals to fill those three empty seats:  Patricia Millet with more than a decade of experience in the U.S. Solicitor General`s office, Camelia “Nina” Pillard who is a law professor at Georgetown University  and U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins of Washington D.C.

If the Senate confirms to the D.C. Circuit Court,  the president`s  three nominees, fine.   If the Senate GOP`ers on the other hand, reject those nominees , it is urgent that the senate democrats go nuclear—and change the requirement for confirmation of the president`s nominees from 60 to a mere majority of 51 —either for all the president`s nominees or at least for judicial nominees.  This action by the democrats is important, also because it highly likely that at least one member of the Supreme Court will retire leaving a vacancy for President Obama to fill.   He should be able to get his choice for the Supreme Court confirmed with a simple majority of senators.  That is only right.

President Obama’s Courageous Speech on Terrorism

By: Robert Sulzer

May 3, 2013

Last Thursday, President Obama gave a courageous speech laying out the framework for U.S. counter terrorism strategy in the future.  As the war in Afghanistan winds down, in this speech he called for an end to perpetual war. The President also laid out his vision for the practical use of drone warfare, the possibility of more limited presidential powers with respect to national security matters and a more measured approach to dealing with terrorist threats. Once again he made the case for closing down the prisons at Guantanamo. The President‘s speech was especially gutsy in light of the recent death of our Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi and the recent Boston bombings.

In his call for an end to perpetual war, President Obama cited James Madison`s warning that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” We must get away from George W. Bush`s simple minded rhetoric on the ‘war on terror’, and deal intelligently with terrorism in its new evolved forms in this more complex world. Fear can no longer be the primary driving factor in dealing with terrorist threats.

The President made a strong case for the judicious use of drone warfare, a position opposed by some progressives who feel that the use of drones is categorically, ideologically incorrect. But drone warfare has been going on for a long time, and in the long run, well-planned drone warfare causes less death of innocent civilians than ‘boots on the ground’. It is a fact of life that “war is hell’ and that all warfare leads to the death of some civilians.  President Obama wants more oversight of these drone-based targeted killings, including Congressional oversight.

Last Thursday, President Obama, in his thoughtful proposals for dealing with terrorism, opened a new page in American history. It is very refreshing in light of all the hateful rhetoric by the neo-cons, who are looking for any excuse to engage in a new war. The President is truly a profile in courage.

GOP Benghazi Obsession

By: Robert Sulzer

May 17, 2013

The tragic attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya led to four  people killed, including U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens , and ten others injured. Since then, the Republicans have done what they can to make political hay out of the tragedy.  So far, there have been nine hearings or investigations on Benghazi from five committees—Oversight, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign affairs and Judiciary. They are doing what they can to smear President Obama and Hillary Clinton.  The Republican lawmakers keep talking about President  Obama and his administration deliberately covering up facts— but in all this time and with all these investigative committees, the GOP has failed to come up with any hard evidence of a cover up or wrong doing by the administration. These hearings on Benghazi are a big waste of taxpayer money and distracts from the issues which Americans care the most about—jobs, economic growth, healthcare ,education and police protection.

On gun safety…where do we go from here???

By: Robert Sulzer

May 3, 2013

The recent failure of the U.S. Senate to get a super majority of 60  to support expanded background checks was a big disappointment for gun control advocates—but the fight is not over, it is only beginning.  There are significant actions on several levels that we must pursue in our push for more safety for the public from gun violence.

On the federal level, we must see to it that the senators who voted no on background checks—-not only the many GOP senators such as Marco Rubio who voted in the negative but also the four Democratic senators who voted no—-get punished for that action when they run for reelection . We must also make them pay the price if those senators choose to run for other offices. We must also work to get new people elected the House of Representatives who support strong gun control reform—-not only universal background checks, but also assault weapon bans, limiting the size of magazines and preventing straw sales of any kind of gun.And we must work to end the filibuster rule in the Senate requiring a super majority of 60 votes  rather than a simple majority of 51 votes to pass legislation. The senate got a simple majority of 56 votes  on background checks, but  4 short of a 60 vote super majority. The Senate went against the wishes of 90 % of Americans and against a majority of senators. 

These steps  on the federal level are necessary but not sufficient. We must also act on the state and local levels. With the mounting casualties in United states of gun violence and with the brutal Newtown  Connecticut massacre that left many children dead—several states have recently implemented much stronger gun controls. A perfect example is New York State. Recently, New York increased the types of assault weapons banned by that state,and also limited the size of ammunition magazines that may be sold. New York State also created new provisions for identifying mentally ill people who seek to purchase guns. and also required the recertifying of gun  licenses. Elsewhere, Connecticut and Colorado, both who experienced  recent mass shootings, have reacted by legislating stronger restrictions on guns.

 It is to our advantage to taking the struggle to the state and local level. It forces the National Rile Association and the gun manufacturers who support the NRA to fight back in multiple jurisdictions, spreading out its financial resources rather than concentrating solely on the lawmakers in Washington D.C. Also  it encourages states , counties and cities to create gun control reform that is tailored to their populations and their politics.

 It might also help if we framed our discussion in terms of ‘gun safety’ rather than ‘gun control’. That might make many law-abiding citizens feel more secure that the government is not out to confiscate their guns. But we must continue the fight on national level—but combine it with working also on the state and local levels.

Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013 — DON’T LET THE TITLE FOOL YOU!

By: Robert Sulzer

April 19, 2013

This week House Republicans will introduce the misleadingly titled “Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.”  Presented by GOP`ers as a new comp time initiative that will give hourly-paid workers flexibility to meet family responsibilities. It is neither new nor is it about giving these workers much needed time off to care for their families. The bill screws workers because in actuality, it would let the employer and not the employee decide under when and under what circumstances you can take comp time —-meaning employees who work overtime hours in a given week might not receive any comp time or pay for that work until more than a year later.  Therefore workers in essence give their overtime pay to the employer in the hopes of getting it back some time in the future as paid time off.  This bill is not new but rehashes legislation House Republicans passed in the House in 1997—16 years ago. At that time, Nancy Pelosi said the bill is a cruel hoax on working workers—likely increasing overtime hours for those who don`t want them and cutting pay for those who do. This is why house republicans are trying to pass this bill.

This proposed legislation undermines the 40-hour work week that workers fought hard for to give them time to spend with their families. This comp time bill would have employees working unpaid overtime hours beyond the 40-hour work week and as many as 160 hours of compensatory time. A low-paid worker making $10 an hour who accrued that much comp time in lieu of overtime pay would effectively give his employer an interest-free loan of $1600—-equal to a month`s pay

In this economy, with unemployment still at recession levels, the employer holds all the cards.  Workers who refuse to go along with an employer`s request for comp time instead of wages knows they are vulnerable to have their hours cut or to be fired. Very few workers can risk that.

With a strong need in the economy for more jobs, this bill would do the opposite.  Instead of encouraging employers to increase hiring when business picks up and help create a more robust recovery, it gives them a strong incentive to increase the overtime hours of current employees instead.

Working people need more flexibility to take time off if a family member gets sick and to meet with a child`s teacher or attend a parent-teacher-association meeting. But this bill does not achieve that flexibility for workers. There are better alternatives to achieve that flexibility.

One alternative would be the Healthy Family Act, which was introduced by  which was introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-LA) and Representative Rosa DeLauro  (D-Ct).  It would set a national paid sick day standard. It would allow workers in a company with more than 15 employees to earn up to seven job-protected sick days each year — to recover from their own illnesses, access to preventative care or provide care to a sick family member.  It would also allow workers who are victims of domestic violence to use paid sick days to help them recover from it or get assistance. The Healthy Family act would reduce epidemics and would be cost effective.  This approach has been tried on state and local levels, but it needs to be done on a national level.

Another alternative would be a small necessity bill, which would provide workers with up to 24 hours a year unpaid time to attend parent-teacher meetings or meet other family needs.

These alternatives make much more sense than the GOP sponsored Working Families Flexibility Act.

REJECT CHAIN – CPI

By: Robert Sulzer

April 5, 2013

Beware of GOP Sugar Coated Talk

By: Robert Sulzer
March 22,2013

After losing the 2012 elections very badly,  Republicans have pretended to be  more moderate—but their politics are harsher and more destructive than ever. GOP elites have been talking about reforms that would make the party less repulsive to Latinos, women, gays and African Americans. For instance, Marco Rubio is pressing conservatives to back an amnesty for undocumented immigrants, without discussing improving health care and education and job opportunities for Latinos living here. John Huntsman and several other GOP`ers  have renounced their opposition to gay marriage A group of Republicans seeks to brand the GOP as “colorblind”.

Don`t  be fooled by the Republican pretense to be more moderate. In the GOP led Congress, in GOP dominated state houses and even before the U.S. Supreme Court, the reactionary impulses of the Republican Party appear unchanged. The GOP`s severely conservative agenda—which seeks to impose job-killing austerity, to roll back voting rights and reproductive rights, to impose more restrictions on women`s health care, to deprive the poor and middle class of health care, to destroy agencies that protect  the environment from industry and consumers from predatory banks…is moving forward with full steam. In actuality, the Republican Party is more dangerous now than ever.

Looking toward the 2014 and 2016 elections, we as Democrat activists have a big, big challenge ahead of us. We must in our grass roots work, make the electorate aware that any sugar coated talk by Republicans is a disguise for who they really are—-Robin Hoods in reverse stealing from the poor and middle class to make the very wealthy elite even wealthier. We must make as many voters as possible aware that voting for Democrats truly represents their interests and not doing so goes against their basic interests.

Voting Rights Act

By: Robert Sulzer
March 8, 2013

The Voter Rights Act of 1965, passed by both houses of congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson, was enacted to abolish Jim Crow laws of Southern states (laws designed to make it very difficult for African Americans to vote, with gimmicks such as poll taxes and literacy tests).A key provision in this act, Section 5, requires nine states, mostly in the South, including Alabama and Florida, to submit voting changes for federal approval. Those nine states have had consistently bad records on ensuring voting rights for black people.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently taking up a case, brought by Shelby County Alabama, challenging Section 5 of the 1965 Voter Rights Act, claiming that Alabama has made sufficient progress in voting by African Americans to allow Alabama to be excused from Section 5.  If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Alabama and Shelby County, not only will Section 5 be jeopardized, but the whole 1965 Voter Rights law will be in deep trouble.

Which means that many of the civil rights gained for black citizens through much bloodshed, would be undone—because the nine states under question would be free change to change voting procedures  without getting permission from voting officials. We saw what happened in the last presidential election, when states which voted for Obama four years before but had GOP governors and GOP state legislatures made many laws to suppress the votes of racial minorities, poor people and elderly people—because people in those groups vote largely Democratic.

Four of the nine justices of the Supreme Court (Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas) act as if they are from the Stone Age. Those four reactionary judges are ready to weaken the Voter Rights Law, and completely delete it out of existence if they could. Scalia`s arguments are particularly offensive, claiming that laws protecting voting rights of African Americans lead to ‘racial entitlement’. Contrary to what Scalia says, the right to vote is a right of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution, not a privilege or an entitlement.

Scalia`s comment is also racially insensitive. Two of the four liberal justices,  Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan each tore into the Scalia and the other right wing justices. They pointed out that Alabama`s record on voting rights is as bad as ever and that Shelby County Alabama is still the epitome of the injustices leading up to the 1965 Voter rights Act.

I live in Florida, one of the nine states which section 5 refers to. Florida under GOP Governor Rick Scott and a heavily GOP state legislature have been enacting many many laws to suppress the votes of racial minorities, poor people and elderly people—-because those groups vote heavily Democratic. They reduced early voting hours (which help poor people and minorities, insisting on voters carrying certain ID cards (which are difficult for poor people and minorities to obtain), making it harder for ex felons to vote , complicated wordy ballots that most poor people and middle class people don`t have time to read and other voter suppression tactics. These oppressive laws by Rick Scott and his GOP allies forced many Floridians to stand on line for g four hours, six hours, even eight hours—just to show the powers that be that no one will take away their right to cast their vote.

The Voter Rights Law must b protected , strengthened and broadened to include every state and every area of United States. The right to vote is an essential aspect of democracy—and we must always do what we can to preserve it.

President Obamas Pre-K Plan

By: Robert Sulzer
February 22, 2013

In his State of the Union Address for 2013, President Obama advocated universal pre-k education. The basic ingredients of his proposal are: 1)A state –federal partnership to guarantee pre-K to all 4year-olds in families at or below 200 percent of the poverty line, to be provided by school districts and other local partners, and to use instructors at the same level of education and training as K-12 programs, and 2)A massively expanded Early Head Start program, building on the exiting program, which provides early education, parental education —teaching parents to be better parents–  and health services to vulnerable children ages 0-3.

It turns out that the most effective time to reach small children with both cognitive and non-cognitive skills are often the years prior to kindergarten.

Many studies have shown that pre-K education has greatly   helped children from disadvantaged backgrounds to get good grades in grades k-12 in reading , math and spelling.  It also helps those vulnerable kids to learn healthy attitudes, such as patience, persistence, and has shown that these benefits of pre-K to vulnerable children, pays off years later in increased productivity, reduced crime , and reduced teenage pregnancy.  Each dollar spent on pre-K for children of disadvantaged backgrounds, pays  up to $7 in future benefits.

Two states which have particularly good results from pre-K education are Oklahoma and Georgia—two states with Republican governor which routinely vote for Republican presidential candidates. This demonstrates that pre-K is a nonpartisan issue.

United States trails behind most developed countries in pre-K education. For our nation to invest money in pre-K is a no-brainer. It pays off in the long run with very handsome dividends. It will make us more competitive with other countries.

“Chuck Hagel Hearings”

By: Robert Sulzer
February 8, 2013

The Senate hearings on the confirmation of ex-Republican  Nebraska U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel to become President Obama`s Secretary of Defense have been conducted in a highly uncivilized manner.  Republicans in committee had been grilling Hagel viciously, as if it were the Salem witch trials or the purge trials under Joseph Stalin. For instance Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsay Graham questioned Hagel on past statements he made about Iraq, Israel, Syria and Iran without giving him a chance to give a proper reply to those questions. These GOP inquisitors insisted on Yes or No answers to questions which are too involved to merit a Yes or No answer. They were using Joseph McCarthy tactics in a confirmation hearing for a cabinet pick of the president—-something which I have never seen before.

Chuck Hagel is a Republican who is fiscally conservative but not hawkish on foreign policy matters. He is not a dove either, but a thoughtful pragmatist who tries to see questions on international relations from many aspects—and the criteria for his positions is what is best for the national interest of United States and what overall is best for the welfare of our men and women in uniform.

If confirmed, Hagel will be the first enlistee in military combat to rise to Secretary of Defense. He served in the infantry during the Vietnam War, in which he won two Purple Hearts plus received several other military medals of honor.  He has witnessed the horrors of war in its many aspects, which would be a great asset for Secretary of Defense.

The former Nebraska senator is currently a professor at Georgetown university on foreign affairs, chairman of the Atlantic Council—a think tank on foreign affairs and chairman of the president`s Intelligence Advisory board. He has an outstanding resume for Defense Secretary.

Critics of Chuck Hagel have charged him with being anti-Israel and anti-semitic, which is far, far from the truth. He is against Netanyahu`s settlement policies, but he has expressed the necessity of a strong Israel with secure borders. As a senator, he has requested several times for additional U.S. aid to Israel. He feels that all options for handling Iran`s nuclear threat should be on the table, including the military option—but feels strongly that the non-military options should be pursued first , and be given a fair chance. At the beginning he questioned the wisdom of George W. Bush`s preemptive action against Iraq—and history has proven him correct.

The GOP`ers such as John McCain and Lindsay Graham, who grilled Hagel on Iraq, Israel, Syria and Iran with ‘I got you’ tactics are  hawks who are neocons who support war at any opportunity (many of them are backed by weapons manufacturers).

Hagel is likely to be confirmed, but these hearings cast a dark mark on the U.S. senate, and on democracy. Chuck Hagel would make an excellent Secretary of defense and it is of utmost importance that he be confirmed. Together with Secretary of State John Kerry, Hagel would be a very valuable member of President Obama`s team.

———-

Act Against Gun Violence

By: Robert Sulzer

January 25, 2013

Now is the time to push our lawmakers for stronger meaningful gun control measures. For most Americans, the memory of the tragedy of the Sandy Hook Elementary School gun massacre, is still very fresh, with 27 deaths, including 20 innocent children, many who were at the tender ages between five and ten years old. This tragedy also brought to mind other recent episodes of mass gun killings, such as the July shootings in a movie theater in Aurora Colorado that left 12 dead and January 2011 near Tucson Arizona which victimized Gabrielle Giffords and also left 12 dead. Since the repeal in 2004 of the assault weapons ban was instated ten years earlier, our country has experienced an accelerating rate of gun massacres caused by assault weapons.

We  Democratic activists and concerned Americans must do whatever we can to get Congress to pass President Obama`s  common sense proposals for gun control, including requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004, limiting ammunition magazines to ten rounds and providing financing for improving mental health services. We can do this by writing to our representatives in both houses of Congress, writing letters to newspapers and boycotting companies such as Walmart which sells many assault weapons.

Our lawmakers must be reminded that most Americans right now are for stricter gun control. They must also be reminded that the NRA is not nearly as strong as it once was They must be reminded that in contrast to the NRA leaders, most of the rank and file of the NRA are for stronger gun control laws. Most ordinary members feel that assault weapons are not necessary for self defense and not necessary for hunting animals such as deer and ducks.

The fact that something may be difficult to pass is no excuse whatsoever for our lawmakers not to push for something as important as stronger gun control laws—especially if they want to get reelected.

Owning a gun, like driving a automobile is a privilege rather than a right. Therefore, I propose required periodic checks for gun owners to retain their license similar those of automobile drivers—including their vision, their mental soundness and their refrain from criminal activity.

Let us grab the moment and push our lawmakers to take strong meaningful action to reduce the gun insanity leading to the deaths and wounding of many innocent people.

A Victory for We The People

By Robert Sulzer           November 10, 2012

The voters in Florida and the voters in United States have spoken!   They said emphatically that they want to move forward, not backward. They want fairness in sharing the tax burden, with the millionaires and billionaires doing their part so that the whole burden does not fall on the middle class, the working class and the poor. The people want more empathy for women, for seniors, for veterans, for children of illegal immigrants, for our youth and for racial and ethnic minorities. The wealthy elite, including the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and Sheldon Adelson outspent the Democrats by a very very wide margin. But despite that, Barack Obama won both an electoral landslide over Mitt Romney and also won the popular vote, and the Democrats added two seats to their U.S. Senate majority and made gains in the U.S. House of Representatives, in state governorships and in state legislators. Throughout the country progressive ballot measures won, such as on gay marriage and medical marijuana.  All this happened despite big money from millionaires such as the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove. I am delighted that Chris Dorworth lost and I am delighted that Barack Obama carried Florida with its 29 electoral votes.

We still have a lot of work to do for preserving democracy, such as abolishing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and ending voter suppression which occurred in many states with GOP governors and GOP legislatures, such as Florida.

I greatly thank the hard workers in the Seminole DEC, with their phone banking, canvassing, voter registration drives, with all their commitment. The volunteer activists of our DEC are truly soldiers of democracy – they both preserve democracy and create more democracy for our children and grandchildren. I also commend the volunteers for Obama for America for their hard work. I am greatly thankful to the Floridians who stood in lines to vote for five, six, even seven hours to be sure that their precious right to vote is not taken away from them. And it is those voters who are instrumental in preserving democracy. I enjoyed working with the wonderful activists in Obama for America, and I have never been prouder to be a member of the Seminole DEC. The dedicated activists of the DEC make me feel more hopeful than ever for the future and prouder than ever to be a Democrat.

I Am Dropping the Orlando Sentinel

By Robert Sulzer           October 25, 2012

I have subscribed to the Orlando Sentinel for years, even though the editorial board strongly leans Republican, because I like to keep up with what is going on locally. My current subscription is expiring, and I plan to discontinue it because of the newspaper’s endorsement of Mitt Romney.  Romney is an out-and-out liar, and will say anything on any issue which is convenient to him at the present moment. From now on, I refuse to give the Sentinel even a  penny of support, while they endorse a chronic liar without any moral convictions to lead our nation and to lead the free world.

In its editorial endorsing Romney for president, the Sentinel was very unfair to the president. It blamed Obama for anemic job growth, but there has been steady job growth.  Barack Obama inherited both the worst economy since the Great Depression and also two expensive wars. If not for certain measures of President Obama, such as saving  America’s auto industry, we would have faced a depression comparable to the one in the 1930’s.

The Sentinel blamed the President for our giant deficit, which was created by all the years of GOP rule.   And if the economy is very depressed, then it is the wrong time to worry about reducing the deficit. The big concern should be about jobs, and the job numbers have steadily improved under President Obama, even though we would like the improvement to be faster.

The Orlando Sentinel, in its endorsement, presented Mitt Romney as a great job creator, which is misleading. He bought out failed companies, fired many of their employees, and outsourced many of the jobs to not only Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, but also to countries such as India and China. We need a president who tries to save American jobs, such as Barack Obama.  The Sentinel does not seem to care whatsoever that President Obama’s Affordable Care Act already has saved many American lives.

I absolutely refuse to resubscribe to a newspaper whose editorial board endorses Mitt Romney.

Election 2012

By Robert Sulzer           October 11, 2012

The 2012 election is the most important election of our lifetime. It is a battle to preserve democracy.  The stakes are very high for us, our children and our grandchildren. It is a crucial fight between the  ‘haves’ vs. the  ‘have nots’, the  multimillionaires and billionaires vs. the rest of us. At stake is preserving the middle class.  Governor Romney represents the upper income elite while President Obama represents all Americans = the poor, the middle class and the very rich.  In this years state and local elections, also, the Republicans are representing the super rich while the Democrats are representing the middle class and labor.

Overall, the President is building a forward-looking economy centered on a strong middle class while the Massachusetts governor is defending trickle-down economics which got us into trouble in the first place. President Obama wants to invest in clean energy technologies  while Governor Romney is indebted to fossil fuel industries. Barack Obama is for extending tax cuts for working families and making permanent the tax credit for college tuition, while Mitt Romney’s tax plan gives an average tax cut of $250,000 to every multimillionaire paid for by raising taxes on middle class families with kids by an average of $2,000. The President is for investment in education to help our young people build a 21st century economy including making college more affordable by doubling Pell Grant funding to help four million students pay for college while the Massachusetts governor would cut Pell Grant funding for nearly 10 million hardworking students. President Obama will preserve Medicare as we know it for today’s seniors and future generations while Governor Romney plans to make Medicare for future seniors a voucher program, which would end guaranteed benefits and severely increase out-of pocket costs, forcing seniors to negotiate with insurance companies. Also I trust Barack Obama much more than Mitt Romney to protect Social Security. It is of utmost importance that the voters are not swayed by Romney’s recent flip flops, in which he is pretending to be a centrist, while for over a year he has truly lived up to his own description of himself as a ‘severe conservative’.

It is urgent that we both reelect President Obama and also preserve a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate – especially in terms of future appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court – but also for future appointments to the other federal courts and future appointments to federal departments by the President.

We must do what we can to get the voters to retain the three justices on the Florida Supreme Court: Justice R. Fred Lewis, Justice Barbara J. Pariente  and Justice Peggy A. Quince, whom the Florida GOP is trying to replace for political reasons based on previous judicial decisions they made. We must keep the judicial branch of government independent from the legislative branch. Big money from billionaires is being spent to try to replace these three justices, and we must not allow that to happen.

Let us show the super wealthy like the Koch brothers that money cannot buy everything and Democrats will continue their efforts to electing candidates with progressive values. With our persistent hard work through Election Day, we can balance the reactionary values of the GOP and the super rich with our progressive values, which the majority of Americans support.

Big Opportunities for Democrats

By Robert Sulzer           September 11, 2012

The 2012 Republican Convention in Tampa was very ugly in its constant Obama-bashing, its consistent tone of hate its steady barrage of appeals to fear. The speakers at their convention spouted one lie after another. The tone of the GOP convention was extremely anti-women, anti gay, anti-immigrants – and statements with racist overtones. Two important things that the GOP’ers were short on was HOPE and POLICY. Especially Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, who in their acceptance speeches, offered ZERO HOPE and no policy suggestions for the next four years. This gives an excellent opening for the Democrats in the upcoming election campaign and to President Obama’s reelection campaign.

In contrast to the dismal performance of the GOP in Tampa, the 2012 Democratic Convention in Charlotte was full of energy and expressing GREAT HOPE for the future. The convention in Charlotte emphasized traditional positive values of Democrats: fairness, empathy, working together where everybody does his or her part to the best of his or her ability and shares in the benefits of their hard work. These positive Democratic values are shared by the vast majority of Americans. According to major public opinion polls, most Americans feel that millionaires and billionaires should pay a bigger portion of their wealth rather than get more tax breaks and that middle class people should not pay more than their share of taxes. Most Americans agree with the President that more money should be spent on infrastructure (building roads repairing bridges etc.), more money improve education, the specifics of Obama’s Affordable Care Act, more green energy and a healthier environment.

Most people in United States disagree with the war cries of Republicans such as McCain, Romney and Ryan and appreciate the President’s reduction of military involvements overseas.

This year’s two presidential conventions highlight vividly the differences in the two political parties’stand on major class issues. The GOP is for more breaks for the super wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor while the Democrats and the President are for everybody including millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share for a better society for all Americans. The Republicans are strongly for policies that hurt women, while the Democrats are for policies which benefit women. Wonderful speeches by Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Michelle Obama and other prominent Democrats set the stage for President Obama’s excellent acceptance speech. Because of that glaring fact, the 2012 election is probably the most important one in our lifetime for us, our children and grandchildren. If we play it correctly with hard work and dedication, we have a good shot not only at reelecting Barack Obama, but also at making gains for Democrats in both houses of Congress, in governorships, in state legislatures and in local races. As Obama said four years ago,

YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

Paul Ryan – Romney’s Pick for Vice President

By Robert Sulzer           August 14, 2012

Mitt Romney picked the most extreme candidate possible for the number two spot on his ticket – Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan.  Ryan is as rigid a far right ideologue as one can be.

Paul Ryan is most famous for his  plan to end Medicare as we know it and replace it with vouchers to purchase insurance, putting seniors at the mercy of private insurance companies. But he supports many other things and ideas which are horrible for United States.

Ryan supports so many ideas and things that are horrible for the American people, that it is much too many to go through in this article. But I will cite some key things he supports that should frighten the voters.

• His economic plan would cost America 1 million jobs the first year and would kill more than 4 million jobs by the end of 2014. Besides ending Medicare as we know it, he would do the same for Medicaid, which poor and disabled Americans need. He supported Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. He pickpockets the middle class and poor to line the pockets of the super rich.  His tax plan is Robin Hood in reverse.
• Not only would he kill Medicare but make drastic cuts in Medicaid and food stamps.
• Ryan’s positions on women’s  issues are very backward.  He sponsored a bill that would deny women abortions even if their lives were at stake. He is one of the major sponsors of the “personhood amendment”, which would give embryos the rights of all citizens while abolishing all abortions. He is for turning back the clock decades on women’s access to health care.
• Ryan is a strong opponent of gay rights and he supports a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and opposes the repeal of DON’T ASK DON’T TELL.
• The Koch Brothers are one of Paul Ryan’s biggest contributors, and to please them Ryan supports ending research on climate change and pushes the lie that global warming is a myth. To please the Koch brothers, he is for giving $40 billion in subsidies to big oil, while cutting billions of dollars from investments to develop alternative fuels and clean energy technologies.
• Ryan would also eliminate Pell grants for more than 1 million low-income students.
• Ryan is a true believer of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of selfishness as a positive value and helping people in need as a very negative value.

It is greatly important that the voters learn what Paul Ryan truly stands for and why he is a true compliment to Mitt Romney’s negative values. Romney’s pick of Ryan for the vice-presidential spot makes the case vividly that not only is it urgent that we elect President Obama to a second term, but  that we must work hard for the whole Democratic ticket. We must show our constituents the need to come out and vote, and vote for all Democrats on the ticket. We must push GOP’ers on their position on the Ryan budget and hold them to it. If we work hard and play it smart, we have a great chance for Democrats to do very well in the 2012 election.

Mitt Romney’s War on Women

By Robert Sulzer           August 8, 2012

Mitt Romney has been waging his war against women going back his days as Massachusetts Governor. In 2005, Governor Romney vetoed a bill requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims. He justified that decision by falsely claiming that the morning after pill is a form of abortion. The liberal Massachusetts legislature fortunately overrode Romney’s veto. But rape victims in the Red States of the Bible Belt would not be so lucky.

Also, as Massachusetts Governor, Romney withdrew his previous support for legal abortion, embryonic stem cell research, comprehensive sex education and gay civil rights.

“Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade?  YES I DO.”, Romney said during one debate.  He called that 1973 decision “one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history.”

Romney has asserted that he ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTS state and federal amendments defining life as beginning with conception, a position that puts him to the right of the Mormon Church.

Earlier this year, Romney had endorsed the Blunt-Rubio Amendment, which would have allowed any employer to claim a “moral objection” and exclude millions of women from getting birth control under their insurance coverage.

In February 2012, Romney attacked the portion of the Affordable Care Act which mandates insurers cover birth control with no co-pay, because he claims that this mandate is an attack on religious liberty.

Earlier this year, Mitt Romney said that he plans to get rid of Planned Parenthood if he becomes president. That statement is absurd, because the federal government has no authority to get rid of it. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading reproductive health care provider, offering preventive care including lifesaving breast and cervical cancer screenings to many women who could not afford those services. Ninety percent of the care it provides is preventive.

To top it off Romney is non-committal on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a Senate bill that would require employees to demonstrate that any salary difference between men and women is not gender-related. Unfortunately the Senate GOP blocked this bill from getting the necessary 60 votes to advance to the full Senate. Mitt Romney has also been non-committed on whether he supports the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which not only ensures that women receive equal pay for equal work, but also guarantees women the ability to take their bosses to court to receive the same pay as their male coworkers. Unlike Romney, President Obama keeps pushing for equal pay for equal work regardless of gender.

Anyone who wants to be President of the United States should not have to think about whether they support equal for equal work, regardless of gender. That principle is an essential aspect of democracy.

For More Gun Control

By Robert Sulzer           August 1, 2012

I have always been a strong believer in gun control. I  feel that law abiding citizens should have a right to own guns either for hunting or for self-protection – but not assault weapons like the AR-15 used for the mass killing in Aurora, Colorado.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Modern assault weapons did not exist at that time  the Constitution was written.  The main weapons at that time were muskets, cannons, primitive pistols and knives. It is questionable if our forefathers intended in the right to keep and bear arms any weapon whatsoever. Would the writers of the Constitution have approved of citizens today carrying nuclear weapons in their homes for self-protection?

Every time there is a mass killing like the Columbine High School shooting, the Tucson Arizona shooting with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords as a victim, the recent Aurora shooting, or a president is either assasinated or is a target of an assassination attempt, there is a loud public outcry for more gun control, but before long the all is forgotten and the cry for more gun control dies down. But the major reason we need more gun control is not because of these incidents that shock our nation.  No, the major reason we need tighter gun control is because of  the murders each day in the United States involving firearms, which do not get much coverage from the news media. The victims’ families in these unpublicized murders suffer just as much as the victims’ families of the highly publicized mass killings.

From 1994 to 2004, there was a ban on the civilian use of so called  “assault weapons” in United States, and for good reason. Some assault rifles can fire 50 to 60 bullets a minute without cessation. This ban on assault weapons was unfortunately repealed in 2004, due to the influence of the National Rifle Association. One of the principle weapons in the Aurora massacre was an AR-15 assault rifle which features a magazine that holds 100 rounds of bullets with a trigger capable of firing 50 to 60 rounds per minute.

Is there hope for a saner gun policy in our country for the future? Strangely, if there is such a hope, it lies with the most conservative justice on the United States Supreme Court – Justice Antonin Scalia. On Constitutional questions, Scalia is a strict constructionist. Interestingly, Scalia, recently on “Fox News Sunday” said that the Second Amendment leaves open the question of gun control legislation. Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really harmful weapon just to scare people like a head axe or something.” Scalia said the Second Amendment does not apply to weapons that cannot be hand-carried such as cannons. His attepressed attitude is that we will have to wait and see if future cases come before the Supreme Court involving gun rights.

In the meanwhile a good starting point for a sane gun policy would be to reinstare a stronger version of the federal ban on assault weapons know as THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT.   Also we should pressure our senators and Congress members to reinstate the Assault Rifle Ban today which existed from 1994 to 2004.  Again, the most important reason for us to act for tighter gun control is the unpublicized murders with firearms which occur in United States each day.

The Real Job Creators

By Robert Sulzer           July 11, 2012

The far right tells us that the very wealthiest are the biggest job creators, and that all you have to increase employment is to give the very richest people more breaks – lower taxes for them and less regulations. According to this theory, the more the wealth is concentrated among a few opulent people, the more jobs that will be created. Mitt Romney on FACE THE NATION added his voice to the chorus of those saying that economic recovery would follow if only we relieved the terrible burden the government has placed on the job creators: big business. According to Romney, if taxes and regulations were relaxed, this would reduce costs sufficiently to big corporations for them to produce more jobs.

The evidence shows that this theory by conservatives is false. The evidence shows that it is the ordinary people rather than the super rich who are the real job creators.  It is the ordinary worker, the nurse, the grocer, the teacher, the policeman, the accountant, the construction worker, who are the biggest creators of wealth and jobs. It is their consumer demand at the marketplace. In contrast, when more and more money is funneled into the hands of the rich, they tend to save and invest in financial assets rather than in job creating businesses.

Also, ironically, small businesses play a bigger role in an economic recovery than giant corporations.   President Obama shows his understanding of this by pushing for more help to small businesses. He is also pushing for more money spent on infrastructure to try to create more jobs. And also help the middle class.

Mitt Romney unfortunately subscribes to the false idea that it is not ordinary people but rather the super rich who are the true job creators. He promotes this simplistic line of thought by promoting programs which would give tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% and concentrate wealth in their hands. Romney, who promotes himself as a job creator, recently announced a plan that calls for preserving  the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, lowering the corporate rate and repealing the estate tax. Romney’s trickle-down economics have been proven to be fallacious over and over and over.

Again, the greatest job creators are not the super rich, but rather ordinary people, like you and me. It is people like us who are the engines for economic growth and job creation.

Medicare a Good Historical Example

By Steve Barnes           Published in the Seminole Chronicle July 5, 2012

“We are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program. … The consequences for our children would be dire: We will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” That quote might sound like it came from an opponent of Obamacare, but in fact, the words were uttered by then-future President Ronald Reagan in 1961.

The legislation he was criticizing – and which he called “socialism” and “state-ism,” – became law in 1965. It’s now known simply as Medicare, and it enjoys widespread support from both political parties. Why? Because Americans have had the opportunity to move past the hysterical attacks put forward by their opponents and to see for themselves how well the program works.

The Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” which was upheld by the Supreme Court last week, also expands access to affordable healthcare to millions of Americans. In that sense, the programs are similar. But there are dramatic differences in the way they are implemented.

Medicare is a true form of “socialized medicine” in that everyone is required to pay into a single-payer, government-managed system. Many Democrats wanted President Barack Obama to simply expand that program to cover all Americans. Instead, Obama adopted a market-based solution that incorporated ideas from both parties. The individual mandate, for instance, was a key component of the healthcare law Mitt Romney signed as governor of Massachusetts. Romney supported it as a way to keep “free riders” from simply waiting until they became ill to purchase insurance.

Unlike Medicare, the new law is primarily focused on improving the private insurance industry. For instance, it requires insurance companies to allow young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, prohibits them from rejecting customers due to pre-existing conditions and requires them to cover preventative care like breast cancer screenings without charging a co-pay or deductible. It also removes the lifetime cap on coverage, protecting Americans from losing everything in the event of a serious illness.

The law also provides funding to states that expand Medicaid coverage to those who work but cannot afford private insurance, provides tax incentives to small businesses that offer private insurance to their employees and closes the “donut hole” on prescription drugs for seniors.

Beginning in 2014, small businesses and individuals will be able to purchase private insurance through a “pool” that will allow them to get better prices. The law also saves money for those who currently have insurance by reducing the number of uninsured people who use emergency rooms for basic care.

Finally, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the law will lower the deficit by about $124 billion dollars over the next 10 years.

Certainly no law is perfect, and hopefully, Congress will set aside partisan bickering and work together to improve it. But neither is the Affordable Care Act “the last step into a thousand years of darkness” that some would have us believe. The next time someone tells you that it is, just smile and remember that they said the same things about Medicare.

For more information about how the law can benefit your family, visit http://www.healthcare.gov/.

Health Care Victory

By Robert Sulzer           July 4, 2012

The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature bill, is a huge victory for progress in our country. It is a first step toward a single payer system in United States – Medicare For All. The Affordable Care Act does not go far enough, because millions of Americans will not benefit from it, yet. However, millions of Americans have already benefited from important provisions of this act. Many have benefited already from the provision that insurance companies cannot deny people because of  preexisting conditions. Many Americans have also benefited already from the provision that parents can keep their children up to age 26 on their insurance plans.

There are many theories about why conservative Chief Justice Roberts joined the four liberal justices in  ruling that the mandate in President Obama’s legislation is constitutional. I do not care if a penalty for a healthy person not choosing to be in an insurance plan is called a penalty or a tax. For the Affordable Care Act to work for sick people, healthy people must participate and those who can pay cannot be allowed to be “free riders”.

In practically every other developed country, universal healthcare exists, in which everybody is covered.  The state of Vermont  is going ahead with its own single payer healthcare system. I look forward to when the whole country follows Vermont’s example, and there is Medicare for All – single payer healthcare in which every American citizen is covered.

President Obama’s Winning Plan

By Robert Sulzer           July 3, 2012

President Obama has followed bad advice from news columnists and Washington gurus to push for bipartisanship and compromise. Bipartisanship has shown repeatedly not to work because the GOP which is manipulated by the Tea Party is not interested in creating jobs, helping the economy, or helping the country, but only to prevent the President from being reelected in the 2012 election. Bipartisanship and compromise is impossible with politicos who are interested only in destroying President Obama.  The Tea Party people who control the GOP have very ruthless values. They boo a gay soldier who is risking his life for his country because he admits that he is gay. They cheer for Rick Perry when he announces that he executed more people than any other governor. They cheer Republican politicians who refuse to give disaster aid to hard-hit states, unless this aid is balanced by cuts in social programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These disgusting values are counter to the positive values which made America great. Compromise is impossible with these GOP buffons.

The President therefore is embracing a new strategy. He is coming out with his boxing gloves, and attacking the GOP head on. He is presenting a comprehensive jobs plan to Congress and traveling from state to state, to push for his jobs plan. He is pushing every day for more infrastructure.  President Obama in his addresses to the American people is chiding specific obstructionist GOP lawmakers, such as  Ohio Congressman and House Speaker John Boehner and Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell. The President’s message is resonating loud and strong with the American people.

In this period from now till November 2012, if President Omama flinches from his winning plan, he is sure to be only a one-term president. But, if he sticks to this winning plan, he is highly likely to emulate incumbent President Harry Truman in his 1948 upset victory over Thomas E. Dewey. I truly believe that if Obama sticks to his present strategy, next year he will pull a Harry Truman.

Montana Versus Citizens United

By Robert Sulzer           June 27, 2012

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down almost all of Arizona’s draconian immigration law, which clearly was a victory for the President and a defeat for Arizona’s GOP Governor Brewer. But on the other hand, the Court refused to revisit the damage caused by its 2010 Citizens United case. The Court’s conservative majority refused to allow Montana or any other state to impose limits on corporate election spending and would not even consider arguments on the subject.

The Montana case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, aggressively defended the state’s law going back to 1912, that attempted to curb the immense influence copper companies had on Montana’s elections at that time. The state Supreme Court sided with Montana. Several other states had also sided with Montana in its challenge to Citizens United.

This decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a big blow to democracy.  Congress should require disclosures of secret donations to election campaigns. The Internal Revenue Service should seriously crack down on political organizations that pose as tax-exempt organizations to avoid present disclosure  laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court is showing that it is open to the highest bidder and big money can buy off S.C. judges in robes.

Mr. Romney’s Own “Moral Failure”

By Vic Ogilvie           Published in the Orlando Sentinel, June 26, 2012

Mitt Romney has used the term “moral failure” to describe some of his policy disagreements with President Obama, but let’s look at this term from the perspective of military service. Most veterans I have known are proud of their military service and, despite the hardships and trauma of combat, would serve their country in uniform again.

Before the all-volunteer force began in 1973, we had a long and costly war in Vietnam, and conscription was a reality. Young men of a certain age were expected to voluntarily serve in the military or be subject to the draft. President Obama was 12 years old when the draft ended, so he was not subject to mandatory military service.

Mitt Romney, now 65, was of draft age during Vietnam but did not serve. Many others volunteered for the draft, and Romney could have, too. He received several draft deferments and spent several years in France.

Moral courage is doing the right thing when it’s not popular, difficult or personally inconvenient. It’s about answering the call of your country, even when there are other things you’d rather be doing.

Say what you will about the Vietnam War, but Romney chose to put his personal needs over those of his country. That is a perfect example of moral failure and not what we need in a commander in chief.

Study the Constitutional Amendments Before Election Day

By Ernie Langdon           Published in the Orlando Sentinel, June 11, 2012

The President’s Immigration Announcement and the Hispanic Vote

By Robert Sulzer           June 20, 2012

In the 2008 and 2010 elections, Latins have represented an increasingly large percentage of the total population, but many of these Latins do not turn out to vote or register to vote. This is especially significant for Florida, a key swing state with a large Hispanic population. Much of this low turnout has to do  with how young the Latino population is – very young. And young voters are notorious for staying home, unmotivated. In other words, there is a huge untapped resource out there both for President Obama and for the Democrats in their other elections.

President Obama’s executive order to extend temporary relief to an estimated 800,000 young illegal immigrants is both smart politically and also the morally correct thing to do. Five key battleground states, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and Arizona, all have a significant portion of Latino voters, and in polls of these five states, 49 percent say his announcement makes them more enthusiastic about him compared 14 percent who say it makes them less enthusiastic about him. So Obama’s executive order seems to have done him some good, but it must be combined by a super effort by Democratic activists to both get more of them to register to vote and to get more Hispanics to vote on Election Day (and to vote absentee in the election). If we can carry Florida, with its heavy Hispanic population for Obama this year, it is highly likely that he will be a two-term president. While the short term impact of President Obama’s immigration announcement combined with our grass roots efforts to follow up on it seems very positive, it is pale in comparison to the long-term effect of Hispanics becoming a solidly Democratic bloc in a way that African Americans have become. This is a challenge well worth our efforts.

Dilemma for Democrats in 2012

By Robert Sulzer           June 13, 2012

The failed attempt to recall Wisconsin GOP Governor Scott Walker was due to the influence of big money floating in to support the Governor by billionaires such as the Koch Brothers, a consequence of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, which gives unlimited power to giant corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money to influence elections through “super” Political Action Committees (Super PACS). The ability of big corporate money to prevent the recall of Walker poses a dire warning to Democrats for the elections in November 2012. Can big corporate money prevent President Obama from being elected, or prevent Democrats from getting elected to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, governorships of states, and state legislatures? On top of this problem for Democrats, GOP governors such as Rick Scott in Florida have passed laws making it harder for minorities, young people and senior citizens (groups who voted mostly Democratic in 2008) to vote, such as not allowing ex felons to vote, reducing early voting and making voter registration by groups such as the League for Women Voters much more difficult. We Democratic activists have a greater challenge than ever.

All is not lost. There are very positive steps that we can take to overcome these obstacles. For instance, the Seminole County DEC does a wonderful job of phone banking to try to register voters. The DEC has also conducted voter registration drives within Florida’s restrictive laws. We scan also write letters to newspapers in support of our candidates. And in opposition to Governor Scott’s restrictive election laws.

We have to work on another front also, to try to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision, or to at least weaken it. We could work to create a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Or we could at least work for a Disclosure Act, which would be an important step in behalf of transparency in politics, because it would insure that voters understand who is paying for the ads they see and hear.

With dedicated Democrats such as the activists in the Seminole DEC, we can overcome the obstacles of big corporate money and oppressive voting laws, but it will take hard work. We can do it for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren with hope and dedication.

Florida Voting Purges

By Robert Sulzer           June 5, 2012

Bill Internicola, 91 years old, was born in Brooklyn and now resides in Broward County, Florida. He is a World War Two veteran, and earned a bronze star for his part in the Battle of the Bulge. Last month he received a letter from the Broward County Supervisor of Elections questioning whether he is a United States citizen, and that if he does not show proof of his citizenship in 30 days, he will be removed from the voter rolls and ineligible to vote. He complied by showing his discharge papers and a copy of his Tour of Duty in the ETO (European Theater of Operations), but he felt very insulted. Unlike Internicola, many citizens would get discouraged by such intimidation, and decide not to bother voting.

Internicola was one of more than 180,000 names, Florida’s Secretary of State identified from motor vehicle records as noncitizens. Florida GOP Governor Scott has ordered a speedy purge of the state’s voter rolls using secret criteria to target 180,000 Floridians and requiring them to prove their citizenship in 30 days, or lose their right to vote.

Prior to this voter purge, Governor Scott had done three things that suppressed  thousands of votes: 1) disenfranchising ex-felons, 2) making registration drives much more difficult (such as requiring photo IDs) and 3) cutting back on early voting. In 2008, twice as many Hispanic and African-American voters registered through voter registration drives conducted by groups such as the League of Women Voters. African-Americans accounted for 54 percent of early voting in 2008.

It is no coincidence what the GOP is doing. They looked very carefully how Obama won in 2008, who voted for him and the tactics the Democrats used. Voter registration drives drives and early voting were key to Barack Obama’s victory. In terms of photo IDs, 11 percent of Americans do not have them, and 25 percent of African-Americans and 20 percent of young voters do not have them.  These tactics by Governor Scott has also been used by GOP governors in many other states to suppress potential Democratic votes.

This latest step of Governor Scott, his voter purge, violates the 1965 Voting Right Act according to the United States Department of Justice.  DOJ gave the state until Wednesday to stop the purge. But a spokesman for Florida’s Department of State says that Florida plans to disregard the federal order and continue the purge.

If Scott gets away with this voter purge, the 2012 elections will be a repeat of 2000 elections, in which George W. Bush stole the election from Al Gore, by voter purges and suppression tactics in the swing state of Florida. Governor Scott’s repressive tactics re voting takes us back to the Jim Crow Era, with measures such as poll taxes.

The issue of voter purges affects not only Democrats but all Americans. For democracy to survive, we must do all we can to encourage as many legal voters to come out to the polls and vote – and not to do things which intimidate citizens from voting. We must telephone call and/or mail letters to Governor Scott expressing our strong opposition to his illegal voter purge and for him cease it immediately.

Mitt Romney’s Record as Governor

By Robert Sulzer           May 28, 2012

As a presidential candidate, Mitt Romney claims that his experience as a CEO of Bain Capital will make him a successful president at handling the U.S. economy and creating jobs. When he previously ran for governor of Massachusetts, he similarly claimed that his experience at Bain Capital would make him successful at handling the state’s economy and creating jobs for the state. Unlike almost all governors who run for president, Mitt runs away from his record as Massachusetts governor. Usually, previous governors who ran as candidates for the White House boasted about their record running their state, but not Mitt Romney. Why is that the case? The answer is obvious, once his record as governor is seriously scrutinized: his failures as a job creator and at running the Massachusetts economy would be exposed.

Mitt Romney’s one positive achievement as governor was his healthcare plan, which he now runs away from – because President Obama used it as the model for his Affordable Care Act.   Other than that achievement, his record as governor of Massachusetts is dark and dismal.

During Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor, the state rank in job creation went from 37th in the nation to 47th.  His state was 47th in job creation only behind Louisiana, which had been devastated by hurricane Katrina, and Ohio and Michigan, both of which were ravaged in the manufacturing meltdown. Romney’s state even trailed Alabama and Mississippi in job growth.

Romney’s recipe for helping Massachusetts was to severely cut education, higher fees on the middle class and protecting the rich from tax hikes – a formula which did not work for Massachusetts and it is the same formula he is advocating for the nation if he becomes president.

As Governor, he reduced the budget on everything from college students to mortgages, and cut funds for job training  (MITT ROMNEY THE GREAT JOB CREATOR, LOL)

While the President and the Democrats are correct in scrutinizing Mitt Romney’s record at Bain as a campaign issue, it is equally important that they use Romney’s  failed record as governor of Massachusetts as a big campaign issue. If as president, Mitt does for the nation what he did for Massachusetts, we are all in very deep trouble. It is super important that we reelect Barack Obama as President.

President Obama’s Support of Gay Marriage

By Robert Sulzer           May 15, 2012

The President’s recent announcement that he supports gay marriage is of great historic significance. It was very gutsy considering that it is unclear whether this announcement will help or hurt Obama’s reelection chances. And it was the morally correct thing to do, because our country is based on equal rights for all Americans. It is the right thing to support equal treatment of all Americans under legal contracts, including marriage.  Obama may have been evolving in his thinking, while United States as a whole has similarly evolved in her thinking. Not long ago, almost all Americans opposed gay marriage. Now, according to polls, the country is evenly split on this issue.

Barack Obama grew up with exposure to multiple diverse cultures, which has strongly encouraged him to judge all human beings on their own merits. His mother was an anthropologist who studied different cultures, making him open to cultural diversity. He has also demonstrated a strong need to be on the correct side of history – as in giving moral support to Arab spring, in pushing for universal health care with the Affordable Healthcare Act, and now with his announcement of his support for gay marriage.

Obviously, the President will campaign mainly on issues such as jobs, the economy, education foreign affairs etc. But he felt it necessary to make it clear that he supports equality for all Americans, which is what our country is supposed to be all about. A few gay people have publicly stated that President Obama have made them feel like full human beings for the first time in their lives.

I feel that President Obama is truly a profile in courage in his support of gay marriage.

Similarities Between European and American Economic Crises

By Robert Sulzer           May 8, 2012

Both France and Greece held elections on Sunday, May 6. The French elected the Socialist Francois Hollande over conservative incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy, which is a big blow to the severe austerity measures  imposed on the European Union by Sarkozy of France and Angela Merkel of Germany – thus earning the combined sobriquet of “Merkozy”. It is also a warning to Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom, with his stringent austerity measures. The Greeks also rose up in their elections, by giving leftists big gains over conservatives who are forcing strong austerity in Greece. Like the United States, Europe is suffering a deep recession, and is getting worse because of all this austerity.

Way back, the liberal economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out that the worst thing to do for a depressed economy is cuts in government spending. Keynes’ remedy was for increased government spending to encourage more jobs and more economic growth. The European Union for the last couple of years has made the mistake of forced cuts in government spending, which has made their recession much much worse. The French and the Greeks are rebelling and giving serious warnings to the rest of Europe and to the United States.

Our country needs to learn from the European crisis. The Republican lawmakers have been pushing for much austerity here, including the Ryan budget, which calls for big spending cuts in programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Health Care Act, Food Stamps, education, and many programs which help children and the elderly. In fact, Mitt Romney calls the Ryan Budget WONDERFUL

If we follow in the disastrous path of Europe and let ourselves be guided by GOP remedies for the recession, we will end up in a great depression, like in the 1930’s and we will become completely uncompetitive with the rest of the world. On the other hand, if we elect Obama and Biden with both houses of Congress controlled by Democrats, and more Democratic governors and state legislatures we will continue to be a nation of hope and progress.

In Memory of two Valuable Seminole Democrats

By Robert Sulzer           May 2, 2012

In April 2012, two steady active members of the Seminole DEC died: Dr. William (“Bill”) F.E. Long on April 10 and Major General Enoch Williams on April 24.  They will both be sorely missed but remain warmly and vividly in our memories. They will both remembered for their patriotism, their honorable military service in protecting our freedoms, their commitment to the Democratic Party, their devotion to their wives and their family, their intelligence, their kindness, compassion and unassuming nature.

I was fortunate to have met both Bill and Enoch. I cannot do full justice to these wonderful human beings, because I did not know them long enough. I will miss Bill’s sense of humor and his joy of life. I will miss my political discussions with Enoch very much. I lived most of my life in Brooklyn and Enoch was a City Councilman from Brooklyn for many years, and I enjoyed comparing notes with him on New York City politicians we each knew.

Bill served in the Army in World War II in the North African campaign, was wounded in Tunisia, and received a Purple Heart. Later on, amongst many other things, with his doctorate degree in economics, he was an economist, taught economics, finance and business administration courses, and was the author of many articles on economics and politics for university bulletins. He was Parliamentarian for the Seminole County Democrats.

Enoch served as an enlisted man in World War II, rising from the ranks of second Lieutenant to Colonel. He eventually became a Major General. Enoch was the first black man to command one of the four active units of the New York state militia. General Enoch Williams earned these military decorations:  The Legion of Merit, Army Commendation Medal, and both the Bronze and Silver Service Meritorious service medals. In civilian life, Enoch served five terms as a NewYork City Councilman for 19 years. As a councilman, he was a principal force that behind the law that in 1994 banned smoking in restaurants, offices and many outdoor locations. He was a member of the NAACP and the Urban League. In 2008, as an active member of the Seminole DEC, Enoch was one of the 27 presidential electors in Florida. He was a member of several caucuses of the DEC: the Disability Caucus, the Veterans Caucus, and Affirmative Action Co-chair of the DEC. He was also a member of the Central Florida Democratic Club.

Dr. Bill Long and Major General Enoch Williams steady commitment and devotion to their country and the Democratic Party, with their warmth and kindness and compassion will move us to constantly push hard for our Democratic ideals, in humbleness but strength.

Two Opposing Visions of the Future of America

By Robert Sulzer           April 11, 2012

One vision for America’s future is based on rugged individualism. It assumes that each person grows up learning certain rules from his or her dominating parent on how to play the game of being successful. The ones who obey those rules are the successful people, and the only people who deserve to be successful. They are the HAVES. The rest of society are presumed to not have learned how to be obedient to their dominating father or mother, hence do not follow the rules of being successful, and therefore do not deserve any help from the rest of society. THIS IS THE REPUBLICAN VISION OF AMERICA’S FUTURE. It is exemplified by the FY 2013 Ryan budget, which passed in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. This budget proposes draconian cuts in programs and services helping the middle class and the poor, while also proposing more tax cuts for the big corporations and the very wealthy. This budget makes significant cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and education, but at the same time increases military spending (the GROWING MILITARY-INDUSRIAL COMPLEX which Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us of).  This vision for our country’s future is a form of  SOCIAL DARWINISM, based on THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. The ideas implicit in this dream for America have been expressed vividly by Rick Santorum, and by other Republicans including Mitt Romney. In fact, Romney has enthusiastically supported the Ryan Budget, and calls it MARVELOUS. Romney is truly symbolic of the TOP 1%  WHO ARE COMPLETELY INDIFFERENT TO THE NEEDS OF THE OTHER 99%. He truly exhibits no feelings whatsoever for the plight of the middle class and the poor.

Fortunately, there is another vision for America’s future, based on more positive values. This dream for America in which everyone nourishes every other member of society like a nurturing family. This is President Obama’s vision for America, and the Democratic Party’s vision of America. It is based on traditional Democratic values such as fairness, compassion, empathy and cooperation. President Obama has strongly pushed these values in his push for the BUFFET RULE, in which wealthy people must be taxed at a rate at least as high as the taxes of ordinary people, in the name of FAIRNESS and empathy for the less fortunate. The Obama Jobs Act is also a good example of fairness and compassion.

We Democratic activists, in dealing with the voters, must frame our arguments in terms of traditional Democratic Party values, such as fairness, cooperation and empathy. We must contrast our positive vision for America’s future with the GOP vision based on negative values. We must apply this to local, state and national elections. If we do, 2012 can be a successful year for us in the November elections.

The Affordable Care Act – Talking Points

By Robert Sulzer           April 4, 2012

The Affordable Care Act has given a few million young people and tens of thousands of adults with pre-existing conditions health care which they would not have had without the law. Parents don’t have to worry about their children being unable to receive health care because of a pre-existing condition – because that is part of the law.  Because of this law, millions of senior citizens are paying less for prescription drugs.

The most publicized aspect of the Affordable Care Act is the Individual Mandate which requires  all uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax toward the heath care system. The Individual Mandate is a Republican idea developed by the GOP led Heritage Foundation. The GOP lawmakers in Congress refused to allow SINGLE PAYER or the PUBLIC OPTION, so President Obama and the Democrats had to settle for the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. Ironically, the Supreme Court is taking up a suit by over twenty Republican governors, and questioning the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate – and if they strike it down, whether they should strike down the rest of the law.

What the GOP is against is the health care act itself, which regulates insurance companies and requires them to insure for pre-existing conditions, and the Individual Mandate is a smokescreen to dismantle the whole Affordable Care Act. If American workers are required to pay a Social Security tax, then American citizens can be mandated to purchase health insurance.

These are important benefits of the Affordable Care Act:
1) Provides coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions,
2) Most young adults can stay on their family plan, until they turn 26,
3) Protects your choice of doctors,
4) Ends lifetime limits on coverage,
5) Ends arbitrary withdrawal of insurance coverage,because you made you made an honest mistake,
6) Reviews premium increases,
7) Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care, not administrative costs,
8) Covers preventive care at no cost to you, such as mammograms, colonoscopies and flu shots,
9) Guarantees your right to appeal,
AND OTHER BENEFITS

If the Supreme Court struct down the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans who have already benefited from the act would suffer greatly and be vulnerable. This would be very very inhumane. The effect on the economy would be disastrous. United States would become less competitive with the rest of the world.

It is urgent that the Affordable Care Act be preserved. My attitude has always been that health care is a natural right, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Repeal Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law

By Robert Sulzer           March 30, 2012

The tragic death of Trayvon Martin, an African-American teenager by armed vigilante George Zimmerman, probably would have been avoided if not for Zimmerman’s interpretation of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law. This law gives a blank check for armed vigilantes to shoot anyone they deem as a threat, with no further attempt to remove themselves from a dangerous situation. At least twenty other states have such laws.

In 2005, Governor Jeb Bush and the state legislature enacted  the Stand Your Ground Law for Florida. This was largely due to the efforts of National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Legislative Executive Committee(ALEC). ALEC is a semi-secretive organization, partially funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, which promotes far right causes. ALEC together with the NRA pressure state legislatures to enact not only more tax breaks for the very wealthy, but also voter repression laws, Stand Your Ground laws and other legislation directed against the middle class and the poor. Florida’s law is the model for such laws passed in other states by the influence of ALEC and the NRA.

The Florida law states that a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity, and who is attacked not only in their home or vehicle but any other place, has no duty to retreat, and has the right to stand his ground, and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Seven years ago opponents of  the Stand Your Ground laws accurately predicted that it could lead to racially motivated killing. Critics say that such laws could promote deadly escalations of arguments.

New York Senator Charles E. Schumer, in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, requested that the Justice Department investigate the Stand Your Ground laws. He said, “These  laws seem to be encouraging vigilantism by allowing individuals to use deadly force as a first resort.” Schumer cited statistics in Florida showing that before the law was approved, the State averaged 12 justified homicides per year In comparison, the average subsequent to the law’s enactment was 33.

As a consequence of Trayvon Martin’s tragic death, DNC chairwoman, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is calling for REPEAL of the Stand Your Ground laws. She said, ” The failure of the Sanford police to further investigate this crime as a result of their interpretation of this law is an injustice to Trayvon’s family and to all Floridians”.

We Democrats and all concerned citizens should pressure our legislators to repeal this oppressive law.

Is the President to Blame for High Gas Prices?

By Robert Sulzer           March 21, 2012

The Republicans feel that they have a hot campaign issue with rising gasoline prices. THE OFFICIAL GOP PARTY LINE:

President Obama is to blame for driving up oil prices by denying the industry access to oil and gas deposits and imposing environmental rules.  Barack Obama should be held completely responsible for the high prices Americans are paying at the pump.

WRONG:  There is very little that a president can do about oil and gas prices. The truth is that these prices are tied to the price of oil, set by world markets. The rise in worldwide oil and gas prices are due to many causes, including a global recession, last year’s Arab Spring, Middle East conflicts, fears about war with Iran, more demand by developing countries like India and China and developing  Third World countries. Another factor contributing to the high prices is Wall Street speculators betting on higher prices in the future – assuming that tensions in the Middle East will pick up as American consumers bounce back to life. Over 80% are now being satisfied by domestic supplies, a fact deliberately ignored by all of the GOP presidential candidates.

All of the Republican presidential candidates are barking up the wrong tree. Romney is demanding that  the president open up more domestic drilling  Santorum’s PAC released an  ad blasting President Obama on gas prices. The GOP is blasting the president on the Keystone XL pipeline. What really takes the cake is Newt Gingrich’s promise to reduce the cost of gasoline to $2.50 a gallon, if he becomes president. Anybody who believes that evidently also believes in the tooth fairy.

I pray that the American people will reject the Republican crap about high gasoline prices. I hope that most Americans will see that this is a complicated problem involving many factors – and that President Obama should not be blamed.

Close of the 2012 Legislative Session

By Robert Sulzer           March 14, 2012

Late last week, the dismal 2012 heavily GOP-controlled legislature in Tallahassee ended its regular business.

In these hard economic times, with high unemployment, tight money and astronomically high gasoline prices, our legislators had the nerve to provide generous taxpayer-subsidized  health-care plans to themselves, with measly $8 monthly premiums and taxpayers covering the rest.  These legislators did this despite the fact that they have been cutting funding for everything from schools to the disabled in recent years, all under the guise that in these tough times,  and insisting that the PEOPLE NEED TO MAKE THE SACRIFICES.

School prayer SB 98 was passed by the 2012 Florida legislature and sent to Governor Scott to sign, giving school boards the option of allowing students to offer “inspirational messages”, which is a euphemism for “prayer”. This violates the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Florida’s Supreme Court upheld the House’s redistricting plan but rejected the Senate maps.  The 5-2 ruling stated the Senate violated one of the two anti-gerrymandering  amendments to the Florida constitution  (which Floridians voted for by a landslide)  because it favored incumbents and majority Republicans. The lawmakers will have to return to a special session to resolve that matter.

The Senate, late last week, narrowly defeated SB 1718, which would have let parents at failing schools to”trigger” turnabout plans, including handing them over to private management, namely Charter Schools. It was pushed by Bush and California-based Parent Revolution It was opposed by the Florida Education Association and other unions, and also Florida’s PTA.

HB 277 failed. It would have imposed tough regulations on abortions.

Lawmakers agreed to HB 119, a priority of Governor Scott,  aimed at “thwarting fraud in no-fault auto insurance” , With Scott’s prodding, the Senate and House resolved their differences on overhauling the mandatory coverage PIP (Personal Injury Protection).

The 2012 legislature in Tallahassee ended the session very badly in terms of the interests of the PEOPLE.

Against Rushing to War with Iran

By Robert Sulzer           March 8, 2012

All of the GOP presidential candidates (other than Ron Paul)  are pushing for Israel and United States to immediately to attack Iran and bomb out all of her nuclear plants. Such action is unnecessary and very unwise. Iran does not have a  nuclear bomb so far.  We have time to try other methods against the Iranian regime other than a military confrontation.

Meanwhile, we with our allies do have a containment policy toward Iran, using economic pressure. This pressure has restricted Iran’s room for maneuver. There appears to be internal tensions within the regime. The sanctions against Iran are devastating her economy.

U.S. Officials say that Iran’s economy will be throttled by the crippling of her central bank. President Obama in late December made moves to stop the rest of the world from doing business with the bank, which would amount to isolating the Iranian people from world commerce.

Let us be clear. We are talking about a preventive war against a country that has not attacked United States. It is very easy to start a war. On the other hand, it is very difficult to predict how it will go and where it might end.  It could lead to other Middle Eastern countries warring against each other. In such a shaky region, it could even lead to a world war. We need to ask some hard questions before we launch missiles.

On Sunday, President Obama  delivered before AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) a very moving and thoughtful speech urging Israel to give the economic sanctions time to take its full effect. He said that he would never let Israel’s security be compromised and he will not allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb. But he said that military action would be used if necessary, and that Israel must do whatever is necessary to protect her safety, but that diplomatic and economic means should be tried before resorting to the military option.

To those Republicans trying to rush us to war with Iran, they could be making matters much worse for both Israel and United States. I support Barack Obama’s more patient, reasoned, pragmatic approach.

Respect the Will of Florida Voters on Redistricting

By Robert Sulzer           March 1, 2012

In 2002 the Florida Legislature, with Republicans at the helm, undertook a blatantly partisan redistricting process bent solely on increasing their power (Gerrymandering), and unfortunately it worked. Florida is now the most gerrymandered state in America. Florida voters in 2010 overwhelmingly approved the Fair Districts Amendments with 63% of the vote, calling for redistricting which is free from incumbent protection and partisan advantage.  GOP Governor Rick Scott together with the GOP-led Legislature are trying to maintain solid control in Tallahassee for another decade  by gerrymandering  Florida’s maps as was done in 2002, in violation of the will of the voters in 2010.  Concerned voters together with the Florida Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in state court to challenge the constitutionality of the congressional map and the state legislative maps which violate the Fair District Amendments. And the will of the Florida voters.

While the people have spoken, the GOP refuses to relent without a fight, appropriating over $30 million in taxpayer money to thwart the will of the people. Recently, Republicans introduced a bill to give current and former legislators and their staff protection from lawsuit. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to shield legislators from being forced to reveal their intent in the map process in court. This is shameful and wrong and we must decisively oppose it.

Our vote is one of the most powerful tools we have, and our side will fight tooth-and-nail to ensure that this very unwillingly GOP legislature abides by the Constitution, as demanded by Florida’s  citizens. Florida is a key swing state. So make no mistake, the stakes are very high and the far-reaching consequences will leave an impact on both the state and the national landscape for years to come. As concerned Democrats and concerned citizens, we must do what we can to maintain justice to the voters.

GOP Attacks on President Obama’s Religion

By Robert Sulzer           February 22, 2012

All of a sudden, all of the Republican presidential candidates are questioning President Obama’s religion and his theology.  A president’s religion is his own private affair and no one else’s business. This kind of probing of  Obama is disrespectful, disgraceful and disgusting. A President of the United States is not hired to be a theologian-in-chief, but to take care of the nation’s economy and foreign affairs. For the same reason, attacks on Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon are also wrong.

This also involves a the issue of separation-of church-and-state guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  ARTICLE  SIX  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  FORBIDS  A  RELIGIOUS  TEST AS  A REQUIREMENT  FOR  HOLDING A  GOVERNMENT  POSITION.

Rick Santorum recently commented on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Obama adheres to a phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible.  A “different theology”, referring to Santorum’s  disagreement with the president’s pro-environment position on global warming.

Mitt Romney has unfortunately  jumped on the bandwagon recently by charging that the Obama administration has “fought against religion” and sought to substitute a “secular” agenda for one grounded in faith. Romney said, “Unfortunately because of the people the president hangs out with, and their agenda, they have fought against religion.”

This week, evangelist Franklin Graham, son of the famous Billy Graham, also questioned Obama’s Christianity.  Franklin also strongly suggested that Obama is a Muslim, which we know is not true.  He said, “All I know is under Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems to be more interested about them than Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries”.  These remarks by the evangelist sound very racist. Many comments by GOP’ers  against President Obama also smell very strongly of racism.

After this barrage of attacks by Republicans such as Santorum against President Obama’s  religion, 14 major Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh organizations have asked the candidates to keep religion out of campaigns. I would love for that advice to be seriously heeded. Again, ARTICLE SIX OF OUR CONSTITUTION FORBIDS A RELIGIOUS TEST FOR HOLDING A GOVERNMENT POSITION.

Say No to Prison Privatization

By Robert Sulzer           February 14, 2012

Throughout his term as Governor of Florida, Rick Scott has pushed for privatization of Florida’s prisons on a profit basis. The idea of running prisons for profit is perverse and immoral.

The Florida Senate Is scheduled to vote this week on SB 2038, a bill to privatize all of Florida’s prisons, being pushed by Governor Scott and by Senate President Mike Haridopolos. We must do what we can to stop it from passing.

The plan of SB 2038 would create the largest private prison system in United States. Florida currently operates the third-largest prison system in United States. SB 2038 is opposed by the NAACP, the ACLU, the AFL-CIO and other labor groups.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out that evidence shows that locking people away for profit is an outright invitation to civil rights abuses, as we have seen in Arizona. It encourages locking up people who have outward characteristics that ‘MIGHT’ suggest that they are criminal types or terrorist types. It encourages racial profiling, and is inconsistent with our democratic ideals.

Besides being a civil rights threat, running prisons for profit is a threat to public safety. Compared to government-run prisons, privatized prisons have a lower ratio of prison guards to inmates. Evidence shows that lower staff levels in for-profit prisons may lead to an increase in violence and escapes. A nationwide study found that assaults on guards and assaults on other inmates were more frequent in private prisons than in government run prisons.

Private prisons have no incentives to rehabilitate inmates, but are focused instead on profits. It should be obvious that inmates in for-profit prisons will be treated much more inhumanely on the average than in government-run prisons.

To me, it seems that if SB 2038 became law, it would be as if we were returning to the Stone Age. It would be a serious threat to civil liberties, civil rights, democracy in general and public safety. We must say NO to privatization of prisons.

Contraception Battle

By Robert Sulzer           February 10, 2012

Recently, the Obama administration announced that employers will soon be required to cover contraception for women with no co-pay or deductible, which is good news. The new law will improve women’s health and will cut costs for millions of Americans.

The bad news is that anti-choice politicians want to take away this important win for women. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican from Nebraska, claimed that the recent requirement by the Obama administration to include contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans was a “bailout for Planned Parenthood” because birth control “is unrelated to the basic needs of health care.” This argument is very unconvincing to the 99 percent of women who will use it at some point in their lives.

Now, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio,  who is very anti-choice, has introduced legislation that is a direct attack on women who will benefit under the Obama administration law. This means that women who work for many hospitals and universities – such as nurses, janitorial staff and professors – would be denied access to thisd important benefit because their boss opposes birth control. This bill by Rubio is gaining momentum partly due to huge amounts of money from anti-choice, anti-contraception lobbying groups, including big sums from the Confrence of Catholic Bishops.

To preserve our separation of church and state and church guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights, government policies should not be influenced by the beliefs of a particular religion.

Marco Rubio’s legislation is out of touch with the American people and completely unacceptable.  We must do what we can to stop this GOP war on women.

Priebus’s Disgraceful Statement

By Robert Sulzer           February 3, 2012

The Republican Party is getting into the disgusting habit of acting very disrespectful to the President of the United States.  To top this off, RNC Chair Reince Priebus actually went on national television and equated President Obama to the captain of the cruise ship Costa Concordia charged with manslaughter for killing 33 people. Priebus said, “In a few months, this is all going to be ancient history and we’re going to talk about our own little Capt. Schmettino, which is President Obama.”

This is not only an insult to the President, but it is very insensitive to the victims of the sea disaster and to the loved ones of the missing people.

This comment by the GOP chairman is especially stupid, because it will have the opposite effect of what he intended. The only ones who would like that comment are people who are committed already to voting against Barack Obama. More of Obama’s base will be very irritated and be sure to come out and vote on Election Day rather than stay home. Many independents and some moderate Republicans will be irritated by the hateful comment, and up voting to reelect the President. Some Republicans already are demanding that Priebus apologize.