Hillary Clinton

Why I don’t buy into Bernie’s tuition-free plan

“College tuition.” It’s a nightmare phrase for any parent. I don’t have children, but I have plenty of close family and friends who do, and I’ve been with them when the ones on the lower end of the economic spectrum say “We just don’t know how we will pay for it,” and when the ones on the higher end say “We can make it happen but good lord! It’s so much money!” The cost of tuition has skyrocketed. According to the College Board, the average cost today for undergraduate students attending a four-year college or university in their home state is $18,943 with out-of-state students averaging $32,762.

To pay for these exorbitant prices, students (and their parents) take out Student Loans. Compounding the problem, interest rates on these larger loans have also shot up in recent years, ranging now from a little more than 4% to almost 7%, depending on the type of loan, according to the US Department of Education.

Do you know who sets the interest rates for Student Loans? Congress. The place where Bernie Sanders has worked for the past 30 years.

So I’m glad that Bernie Sanders (and Hillary Clinton) are making this an issue today, but where has he been? I hear people chanting about a Sanders/Warren ticket — that would be terrible!  Elizabeth Warren gets it — she understand the power she has in her Senate seat and she is working to change the rates on students loans from the place where it will happen. In Congress.

Back to Part 1: Tuition.  Comparing public colleges and universities in the US with those in Europe is apples and oranges. Just like when we compare test scores of US k-12 to those of Europe. The reason being, we don’t fund them nationally – we primarily fund education at the state level, unlike the European nations we like to hold up as models of success. “No Child Left Behind” failed because while it was nice to say that every child in America – from Maryland to Mississippi – will read at the same level, those children rely mostly on state funding of their schools, which is not the same in Mississippi as it is Maryland.

Full disclosure here: I work for a public university. And the cost of tuition at my school is ridiculously high and keeps increasing. Where does all this tuition go? Well, for one thing we are a Big10 school, and the football coach’s salary is about $2 million per year. The men’s basketball coach earns about the same. The women’s basketball coach makes just under $1 million. Then there’s the Stadium. And separate practice facilities. And cable sports contracts. College sports is a big money game,  (and we’re not even very good!) and until we shine the spotlight on that fact, this fantasy of “tuition free” public college and university will never become a reality.  Bernie Sanders’ plan, according to his website, puts the cost of making tuition free at public colleges and universities is $75 billion. I can’t imagine $75 billion would even come close to covering what the total of tuition at public colleges and universities across the US does today.

And lastly, here’s a point that I haven’t heard anyone make yet, and it bothers me. Let’s say that in some miracle, public colleges and universities in the US become tuition free.  Do we then have a society where you have the “public school” and “private school”? Without any attention to the reasons behind the increase in tuition – at all colleges and and universities – and without a change in the student loan rates, the rich will always be able to go to private schools and the 99% will always be restricted to public schools.

Another disclosure: both my undergraduate and my graduate degrees are from small private colleges.  My parents helped me pay for my undergraduate, along with student loans, and I paid for my graduate school – along with student loans that I am still paying off. There is a lot of benefit to going to a small private college or university, and it should be an option for everyone in the United States. Everyone.  Sanders’ wife Jane is the former president of Burlington College and provost of Goddard College, two small private colleges. Sadly, neither of these schools would become any more available to students under the “tuition free” plan. Burlington College would still cost $23,546 per year, and Goddard $17,640.

Making tuition affordable is a realistic goal. Promising to make it “free” is just a campaign slogan – it grabs the attention of those who are currently burdened with tuition-related debt, but fails to address the real issues that have caused that debt to exist in the first place.

The only thing I’m feeling is #heartburn


photo credit: Washington Post

So on the plus side, I’ve been having wonderful Facebook discussions with my nephew (who shall henceforth be known as Unnamed Nephew, or U.N.).  He’s a smart guy, who, like many his age, support Bernie Sanders’ message of bringing about a political revolution in this country. I get it. U.N. has grown up in a country of income inequality and of sky rocketing healthcare costs. In our Facebook back-and-forths, he makes well-reasoned arguments and backs them up with facts, keeps me honest by expecting the same from me. It’s a refreshing conversation in this current climate of name-calling and hyperbole.

But, I still think he’s supporting the wrong candidate. And I do sometimes feel like an awfully old fart for saying it. But the reasons I choose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders is because she is stronger on these issues that I care most about:

  • gun control
  • women’s health
  • foreign policy
  • economic policy

In fact, though, Clinton and Sanders have voted the same way about 93% of the time. So they are not so different as you might imagine.

And you know what? Yes. Yes I DO want a woman in the White House, and don’t you DARE make me feel bad for saying that. You dudes have ruled the roost since Day One, and you have no idea what that feels like. To imply that this is the ONLY reason I would vote for Hillary Clinton is of course insulting and I wont imagine you will say that. But someone will. Because I wouldn’t differentiate between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, between Elizabeth Warren and Carly Fiorina. As if.

Look, I used to like Bernie. But as the campaign progresses, I see the politician in him come out more and more. Because let’s face it, he is a politician. He’s in been in Washington for 25 years, and he’s been heavily involved in state politics since the early 1970’s when he came in off the commune.  He has been a politician longer than Hillary, yet he’s selling this image of being an “outsider” just like Donald Trump is doing. Sanders is using the political “establishment” infrastructure just like every other candidate on the Democratic and Republican side. He’s using Democratic consultants and powerful Democratic campaign staff.  Why not run as an Independent? Because he needs the infratsructure of the establishment in order to get elected.

Lastly, Sanders started this campaign saying he wouldn’t make personal attacks on Clinton, that it will all be about substance. But eventually he says thing like “well, maybe the inevitable Democratic candidate realizes she is no long inevitable.”

He said it again just the other day.

I’m sorry. WHAT?  Only a tone deaf man would think that anyone who lived through what Hillary Clinton lived through in the 2008 election would in any shape or form believe their nomination was inevitable.  When I heard him say that, I took it as a personal insult, because I, too, felt the wrath of 2008 as a Clinton supporter – insults and misogyny. Nasty, nasty stuff. Primarily from Obama supporters.  No one who went through that thought this was going to be a coronation and I just cannot believe Bernie Sanders would stoop to this now.

The revolution will not be televised. It will not be at the Iowa Caucuses, the  presidential debates, or the Democratic National Convention. It WILL be at the City Council, the Mayor’s office, and the Governor’s mansion. You want a revolution? Start at the local level and make some real change. You want Americans to get scared on Election Day and vote in a Republican?  Support the guy with Socialist tags all over him instead of the woman who has worked to bring us the massively improved health care system we have today.

I am so tired.

I am so tired for Hillary Clinton. Here is this incredibly smart and capable woman, and no matter what she does it is never enough.  She has spent her entire life working toward the goal of making the world a better place. She was focused. She had goals. She had ambition. She achieved. But now – just like 8 years ago – America’s Democrats have collectively said, “Oooh! Look! Shiny object!”

Before I go on, let me state that I have been an admirer of Bernie Sanders for many years. I appreciate that he has been a voice for progressive ideas in politics for a long time, and when he was elected to the Senate I was overjoyed. We need his voice in the Senate.  But Commander in Chief? Uh, no.

Can we take a moment to compare the resumes of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton? Without delving into books written and classes taught (they’ve both done several of each), my quick googly research came up with this:

Screen Shot 2016-01-17 at 10.09.00 AM

So, Bernie has a BA in Political Science, and so does Hillary. (Actually, I do, too!) But Hillary goes one step further and gets a Law degree. From Yale.

After graduating from Law School, Hillary works her way up as a Congressional staffer, then co-founds a nonprofit, is appointed to the LSC by President Carter, and becomes a Partner at a Law Firm.

After graduating with his B.A., Bernie goes to live on a kibbutz for a while, and then moves to Vermont and … well it’s unclear. Everything I can find says things like, “Bernie worked in various jobs as a carpenter and filmmaker.”

To be fair, after I graduated with my B.A., I also puttered around for a while without a lot of direction for a while. But you know what? I’M NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!

So, here’s where Bernie supporters are going to get mad at me, and correctly point out that I have left a lot off of the chart above. It’s true, Bernie was very active in Vermont politics the 60’s and 70’s. If you look at his own website, it seems the 1970’s was pretty much occupied with running for political office, and the 60’s, well, nothing even mentioned after he graduated from college.

So first of all, I maintain that Hillary Clinton is the better qualified of the two to be President of the United States. That does not mean that I dislike Bernie. This is not about “liking” at all. It’s about who is better qualified to handle foreign policy, to stop the militarization of this country, and yes, to work with the other side of the aisle. If you think a President Sanders is going to get anything through a Republican Congress, I believe you are greatly mistaken. Sure the Republicans like to attack Hillary Clinton now, because she is a familiar name and recognizable to their base. But Bernie Sanders is the Tea Party equivalent, and every policy he tries to put forth will get overridden. On the other hand, we have Hillary Clinton who has sat across the table with world leaders as Secretary of State, has built alliances, and has negotiated with the toughest.

Secondly, even if Bernie gets the Democratic nomination, he won’t get elected. Look, I understand the appeal of the outsider, the Mr Smith Goes to Washington persona. But that attitude is what gets us people like Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, etc., etc. I get that you want to elect someone you feel is free from the corrupting powers of politics, and Bernie seems like a down-to-earth, honest guy. And he is the  progressive’s progressive. But you know what’s going to kill his chances? His proposal to increase the payroll tax. No matter how great the payoff sounds, when middle America goes to the voting booth and is faced with “the guy who said he will raise taxes” versus “the guy who said he won’t raise taxes,” guess who gets elected?

This post isn’t intended to be a deep look at the policies of the two candidates. There will be another debate tonight, and hopefully both candidates will release more specific information on all of their proposals in the days leading up to the Iowa caucuses.

Look at the two resumes above. It’s only for leader of the free world.  Go ahead. Pick the mediocre white guy.

This is a Man’s World — Still

AP DEM 2016 CLINTON A ELN USA IASo I haven’t really written much about Hillary Clinton running for President in 2016 yet, but I have certainly been following the news. If you’ve been following this blog since 2007, I’m sure you’ve been reading the news too. But that was a very trying time and before I put myself out there for all the abuse that seems to come with supporting Hillary Clinton, I just wanted to make sure I’m ready.

I’m ready.

Here’s the thing. Hillary Clinton did not have a platform that I agreed with 100% in 2008. Neither did Barack Obama. The only candidate who did was Dennis Kucinich and you know how long he lasted in the race. My opinions are pretty progressive, and I think it’s pretty unlikely that I’m going to completely agree with a a national candidate on every issue. Some people call that holding your nose and pulling the lever. I call it choosing from the available candidates. You vote for the candidates you have, not the ones you want.

Yes, I’m rambling a bit here but my point, and I do have one, is that I think Hillary Clinton 2016 might in fact be a better candidate than the one we had with Hillary Clinton 2008. Although her announcement video was met with much derision and criticism, (hey — at least you remember the logo, right?) she said a lot of things in the video that I can agree with. And in the days since, she’s come out very vocally in a much more progressive, populist way than she did in 2008.

Maybe this is the real Hillary Clinton? Her campaign is saying she’s “the most famous person you don’t really know,” and I wonder if that might just be right? No one would disagree that Hillary Clinton is smart and capable — whether you agree with her stands on issues or not. But what if, during all these years when she was trying to make it in A Man’s World, she was not being true to herself but being the person she thought she needed to be in order to be successful?

We look at Hillary Clinton as this accomplished woman, and we forget that women her age did not have a lot of opportunities. She has said that she wrote to NASA when she was 13 and was told “we don’t have women astronauts.” Of course they didn’t.  See, there’s always been this story in America, that “anyone can be President!” but for me and for every female of course this has not true. And to say that anyone can be anything they work hard enough to be — of course for many reasons that is also not true. But here is a woman who has worked her entire life — going to law school, working for a nonprofit Children’s Defense Fund, partner in a law firm, First Lady like no First Lady ever before, Senator, Secretary of State — and always she has been in a Man’s World. Her laugh — it’s described as a “cackle.” Her age — she’s a crone. There are jokes about her thighs, her breasts, her hair. Mad Men’s got nothing on what she must have lived through.

No, nothing Hillary Clinton has accomplished has ever been viewed in the public eye without mentioning her gender.

So here’s my point (yes, finally). What if she has finally said “Enough!” What if the Hilary who stated today that equal marriage should be a constitutional right, the one who in her meetings yesterday said that the campaign finance system needs overhauling, what if THIS is the real Hillary? The one who finally said, “Enough!”

I am really curious to see what else Hillary Clinton tells us in the coming months. If nothing else, give her credit for what she has accomplished, in a Man’s World. Let’s see what she does next.

NeoCon Heads Are Exploding

Who recently said:

“I want Hillary to win. Even though I admire two of the current potential Republican nominees, I have no interest in seeing either of them lead this country.”

If you guess Nancy Reagan, you win! Hahahahaha. What does this mean for those who worship at the altar of Saint Ronnie? Oh, I hope this gets lots of press coverage. Please, let’s make it so.

The whole quote from The National Report:

Last week, during a promotional press conference for The History Channel’s upcoming series “First Ladies in Their Own Words,” series’ host Ron Reagan shared clips of his interviews with all living former First Ladies of the United States. In a brief video clip with his mother Nancy Reagan, she offered her endorsement of Hillary Clinton as President saying, “The time for a woman to serve as our President has come – really, now is the time – and I think the idea of having a former First Lady as the leader of the free world is really quite a marvelous notion. I want Hillary to win. Even though I admire two of the current potential Republican nominees, I have no interest in seeing either of them lead this country.”

But wait — it gets even better!

Asked about his mother’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton, [Ron] Reagan thought it showed how little America actually knew about the woman behind the Republican icon. “She wants people to know that the First Ladies are tight. They get together once a year to support each other. In fact, Hillary had no interest in running until both Laura and Barbara Bush cornered her at their get-together in May 2013 and talked her into at least thinking about it! So, in a sense, if Mrs. Clinton does run and win, you can blame the Bush family.”

Have a great weekend, JelloHeads!

There’s Too Much To Write About, People!

When I decided to start writing at this blog again I was a little worried that I would be able to find enough topics to write about. What was I thinking?! Rand Paul is running for President, guys! And so is Ted Cruz! The material will be endless! I mean, just look at some of the information already out there:

From ThinkProgress:

To Rand Paul, Abortion Access for Rape Victims Isn’t Worth Talking About

And the man mansplains how to interview here (silly woman!):

And Ted Cruz, well, just go to http://www.tedcruz.com/ to see how his well-oiled political machine is making out these days.

Jeb Bush? Do you really want someone running the country who is unable to correctly fill out a voter registration form?

No, it’s going to be a very interesting run up to the Presidential election in 2016. The Republican side has a dozen candidates (or more) whose beliefs are all over the place. The Democrats seem to only have Hillary Clinton, but personally I think she would be better off if there was a challenger.  The worst thing for her is to be pegged as “the anointed one” from the Democratic party (although given the way she was treated by many in the Dem party in 2008 that title is a little hard to swallow).

Yes, there will be lots to write about leading up to November 2016. And I haven’t even started on telling you about my City Councilman who has only shown up for 55% of the votes!

Imagine that!

The Huffington Post has never had any love for Hillary Clinton, as a Clinton supporter in the primaries I can vouch for that. So I really wouldn’t expect them to report on Clinton’s Vogue interview without some titillating “angle.” But still:

And the feature, which appears in the magazine’s December issue, makes the secretary of state sound like a whole lot of fun.

See, it’s surprising because powerful women are usually not fun at all! (Unless you’re talking about Arianna, I’m sure.)

Among other tidbits HuffPo finds worthy of a highlight — from a very lengthy article:

[Clinton] does her own makeup (“holding a compact, Clinton puts on mascara, lipstick, blush, and a little powder”).


President Obama: The Shine (and the Thrill) is Gone

obamachangeLast year when I was supporting Hillary Clinton’s run for the Democratic nomination, many of my friends and family were ardent supporters of Barack Obama. I had many impassioned discussions with them. I posted many times, and heard from many of you who supported Obama. I said then what I still believe: He is too inexperienced in  the world of politics, and (1) I am afraid he will depend on his advisors too much, and (2) he has not been on the national scene long enough for us to know if he truly believes the things he says.

At the time, many of us Clinton supporters were accused of being jaded, of not being able to recognize a “new” politician. (Some even called Obama “progressive”! And to them I say, where were you when Dennis Kucinich was in the race?)  How is the “new” and “progressive” president Obama treating gay Americans? By refusing to honor his campaign pledge to overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and now, by supporting the Defense of Marriage Act as some sort of fiscally responsilbe thing to do. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has instituted equal benefits for gay State Department employees, extending benefits to their same sex partners. Clinton has done more the LGBT community that so loyally supported Barack Obama than Obama has done as President.

In February 2008 things were getting hot between the Clinton and the Obama supporters. In June 2009, I find myself saying the same things about Barack Obama, and I’m tired of writing the same things over and over again. So indulge me while I repeat  this post which I wrote on February 20, 2008:

I don’t know when it happened, but apparently I’ve turned into one of “them.” You know, the party poopers. The grownups. The ones who tell you not to sit too close to the t.v. The ones who correct your grammar. The ones who tell your child to stop running in the store. The ones who say “Someone’s going to put an eye out.”

Now don’t get me wrong, when I was younger, I was a complete idealist — as I’m sure Hillary Clinton was, too. I grew up “inside the beltway” and have been fascinated with politics my entire life. I campaigned at my elementary school for George McGovern when I was eleven. My first presidential election I voted for John Anderson (yeah, remember him?!). I’ve been to peace rallies, no nukes rallies; I’ve ridden on a bus for 15 hours to march on Washington.

When I was seven years old I was in the car with my mom when we heard on the radio that Martin Luther King Jr. had been shot. I will never ever forget how upset she was at that news.

I tell you all of this because I want you to understand: I want to have a better world. I want peace. These are core values of mine. The thing is, I have learned in my years of involvement in all of these causes and issues that there are some realities in how things get done.

Yes, there’s the adult speaking again. The party pooper raining on the Obama parade. But here’s the reality, folks: this country is screwed up! We are closing in on 4,000 American dead [ed. note: it is now 4,312] in a war that no one here even pays much attention to any more — a war that was begun under false pretenses. Our economy’s down the toilet, gas prices are out of sight and oil companies fight off every effort to develop true renewable alternatives. We have troops in Afghanistan fighting and dying, and we’re consumed with the latest “scandal” on the campaign trail. America has become a nation of toddlers: “Ooh look! Something shiny and bright! I want it!”

What’s behind that shine, folks? I am afraid that it’s as thin as some pretty foil — all shine and no substance. So call me an old fart if you want. I call it growing up.

I continue to support Hillary Clinton as the most qualified candidate to take over the White House. She wants all the same change that Obama speechifies on. The difference is that she has the experience and the understanding to take on the challenge of bringing about that change. He does not. She will be able to lead, he will not. He will rely on advisers and confidantes, and where have we seen this before? For the past 7 years George W. Bush has overcome his “inexperience” by bringing in Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc., and what has happened?

So don’t waggle shiny things in front of me, Sen. Obama. I outgrew that a long time ago.

And today, I read this from CBS News, and I have never been so sorry to have been “right” about a hunch:

In hindsight, perhaps, it should be no surprise that Mr. Obama is shying away from this front in the cultural wars. He broke faith with liberal supporters over warrantless wiretaps, the repetition of the Bush administration’s arguments on “state secrets,” and the continuation of the Bush administration’s indefinite military detentions of terrorism suspects.

The surprise should be that some supporters seem to have confused a politician’s campaign promises with his actual policies.