Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
December 18, 2015
MSNBC Chuck Todd just announced
that the Sanders campaign has FILED an injunction against the DNC. Chuck was interviewing Luis Miranda while this news came in.
December 18, 2015
.
Bernie Sanders Campaign RESPONDS to DNC - "We Will Be In Federal Court This Afternoon
"....What is require here is a FULL and INDEPENDENT AUDIT of the DNC's handling of this data and it's security from the beginning of this campaign to the present -- including the incident in October that we alerted them to, where we are fairly confident that large amounts of OUR DATA were sent to another campaign......"
.
December 18, 2015
He added, "To the best of my knowledge, nobody took anything that would have given the (Sanders) campaign any benefit." The Democratic National Committee suspended Sanders' presidential campaign from accessing its voter database after it alleged the campaign took advantage of a software error to access Hillary Clinton's confidential voter information.
~snip~
Uretsky and his team notified people within the Sanders campaign of the breach on Wednesday and the news worked its way up the chain of command. After reporting it to the campaign, Uretsky said he intended to call the DNC to inform officials there. But before he could do that, the DNC called him.
Uretsky says he got into the system to create a record to make it clear to anyone with NBG-VAN knowledge that he was "going through stuff that I wasn't supposed to have access to." NGP-VAN is the technology company that provides campaigns access to the voter files. The point: He wanted people with knowledge of the voter files to be able to clearly see that he was testing the depth of the breach.
cont'
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/sanders-dnc-data-breach-josh-uretsky/
Fired Sanders Aide: I WASN'T Peeking At Clinton Data Files
(CNN)The Bernie Sanders campaign staffer who was fired for accessing data unique to the Hillary Clinton campaign's vote file, told CNN on Friday that he was only trying to "understand how badly the Sanders campaign's data was exposed" and not attempting to take data from the Clinton campaign.
"We knew there was a security breach in the data, and we were just trying to understand it and what was happening," said Josh Uretsky, reached by phone on Friday morning, a day after the campaign let him go.
He added, "To the best of my knowledge, nobody took anything that would have given the (Sanders) campaign any benefit." The Democratic National Committee suspended Sanders' presidential campaign from accessing its voter database after it alleged the campaign took advantage of a software error to access Hillary Clinton's confidential voter information.
~snip~
Uretsky and his team notified people within the Sanders campaign of the breach on Wednesday and the news worked its way up the chain of command. After reporting it to the campaign, Uretsky said he intended to call the DNC to inform officials there. But before he could do that, the DNC called him.
"They called me fairly quickly after the breach was closed to inform me that there was something weird going on and that portions of the system were shut down," he said.
Uretsky says he got into the system to create a record to make it clear to anyone with NBG-VAN knowledge that he was "going through stuff that I wasn't supposed to have access to." NGP-VAN is the technology company that provides campaigns access to the voter files. The point: He wanted people with knowledge of the voter files to be able to clearly see that he was testing the depth of the breach.
"This wasn't the first time we identified a bad breach," he said, confirming to CNN that the Sanders campaign reported another breach to the DNC in October. "We reported it to them. They thanked us for reporting it and they told us the breach had been closed."
"In retrospect, I got a little panicky because our data was totally exposed, too," Uretsky said of how he handled the latest breach. " We had to have an assessment, and understand of how broad the exposure was and I had to document it so that I could try to calm down and think about what actually happened so that I could figure out how to protect our stuff."
"In retrospect, I got a little panicky because our data was totally exposed, too," Uretsky said of how he handled the latest breach. " We had to have an assessment, and understand of how broad the exposure was and I had to document it so that I could try to calm down and think about what actually happened so that I could figure out how to protect our stuff."
cont'
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/sanders-dnc-data-breach-josh-uretsky/
December 18, 2015
DECEMBER 18, 2015
Two months ago, shortly after our digital vendor who conducts modeling for our campaign told us that there was failure in the firewall that prevents campaigns from seeing one another’s data, we contacted the DNC and told them about the failure. We were concerned that our data could be compromised and we were assured at the time the firewall would be restored.
Instead, we found out two days ago that once again, this sensitive and important data was compromised because the DNC and its vendor failed to protect it.
We have invested enormous campaign resources in acquiring the rights to use this proprietary information. But the DNC, in an inappropriate overreaction, has denied us access to our own data.
Let me briefly discuss the three issues involved here.
First, this is not the first time that the vendor hired by the DNC to run the voter file program, NGP VAN, has allowed serious failures to occur. On more than one occasion, they have dropped the firewall between the data of competing Democratic campaigns. That is dangerous incompetence. It was our campaign months ago that alerted the DNC to the fact that campaign data was being made available to other campaigns. At that time our campaign did not run to the media, relying instead on assurances from the vendor that the problem would be resolved. Unfortunately, the other day, the vendor once again dropped the firewall between the campaigns for some data.
Secondly, after discussion with the DNC it became clear that some of our staffers irresponsibly accessed some of the data from another campaign. That behavior is unacceptable to the Sanders campaign and we fired the staffer immediately and made certain that any information obtained was not utilized. We are now speaking to other staffers who might have been involved and further disciplinary action . Clearly, while that information was made available to our campaign because of the incompetence of the vendor, it should not have been looked at. Period.
Thirdly, rather incredibly, the leadership of the DNC has used this incident to shut down our ability to access our own information, information which is the lifeblood of any campaign. This is the information about our supporters, our volunteers, the lists of people we intend to contact in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere. This is information that we have worked hard to obtain. It is our information, not the DNCs.
In other words, by their action, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee is now actively attempting to undermine our campaign. This is unacceptable. Individual leaders of the DNC can support Hillary Clinton in any way they want, but they are not going to sabotage our campaign – one of the strongest grassroots campaigns in modern history.
We are announcing today that if the DNC continues to hold our data hostage, and continues to try to attack the heart and soul of our campaign, we will be in federal court this afternoon seeking an immediate injunction.
What is required here is a full and independent audit of the DNC’s handling of this data and its security from the beginning of this campaign to the present, including the incident in October that we alerted them to.
Jeff Weaver
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/statement-jeff-weaver/
STATEMENT by Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders 2016 Campaign Manager
DECEMBER 18, 2015
Two months ago, shortly after our digital vendor who conducts modeling for our campaign told us that there was failure in the firewall that prevents campaigns from seeing one another’s data, we contacted the DNC and told them about the failure. We were concerned that our data could be compromised and we were assured at the time the firewall would be restored.
Instead, we found out two days ago that once again, this sensitive and important data was compromised because the DNC and its vendor failed to protect it.
We have invested enormous campaign resources in acquiring the rights to use this proprietary information. But the DNC, in an inappropriate overreaction, has denied us access to our own data.
Let me briefly discuss the three issues involved here.
First, this is not the first time that the vendor hired by the DNC to run the voter file program, NGP VAN, has allowed serious failures to occur. On more than one occasion, they have dropped the firewall between the data of competing Democratic campaigns. That is dangerous incompetence. It was our campaign months ago that alerted the DNC to the fact that campaign data was being made available to other campaigns. At that time our campaign did not run to the media, relying instead on assurances from the vendor that the problem would be resolved. Unfortunately, the other day, the vendor once again dropped the firewall between the campaigns for some data.
Secondly, after discussion with the DNC it became clear that some of our staffers irresponsibly accessed some of the data from another campaign. That behavior is unacceptable to the Sanders campaign and we fired the staffer immediately and made certain that any information obtained was not utilized. We are now speaking to other staffers who might have been involved and further disciplinary action . Clearly, while that information was made available to our campaign because of the incompetence of the vendor, it should not have been looked at. Period.
Thirdly, rather incredibly, the leadership of the DNC has used this incident to shut down our ability to access our own information, information which is the lifeblood of any campaign. This is the information about our supporters, our volunteers, the lists of people we intend to contact in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere. This is information that we have worked hard to obtain. It is our information, not the DNCs.
In other words, by their action, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee is now actively attempting to undermine our campaign. This is unacceptable. Individual leaders of the DNC can support Hillary Clinton in any way they want, but they are not going to sabotage our campaign – one of the strongest grassroots campaigns in modern history.
We are announcing today that if the DNC continues to hold our data hostage, and continues to try to attack the heart and soul of our campaign, we will be in federal court this afternoon seeking an immediate injunction.
What is required here is a full and independent audit of the DNC’s handling of this data and its security from the beginning of this campaign to the present, including the incident in October that we alerted them to.
Jeff Weaver
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/statement-jeff-weaver/
December 18, 2015
.
Bernie Sanders TAKES BACK Family Values Narrative
For those who have seen Bernie Sanders speak, you may have heard how well he retakes the Family Values narrative away from the right. Frankly, we should be taking back other narratives the right claims...like fiscal responsibility, or patriotism. For those who have not seen Bernie speak about family values, I hope you have a few minutes to be entertained and informed.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/18/1461284/-Bernie-takes-back-Family-Value-s-narrative
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/18/1461284/-Bernie-takes-back-Family-Value-s-narrative
.
December 18, 2015
Hillary Clinton's BIGGEST Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists
Hillary Clinton Opposes Offshore Drilling, Vows to Look Into Fossil Fuel Industry Donations
When asked by Steve Patterson, a leader of local group 350 Iowa, about pledging not to accept money from the fossil fuel industry, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton responded by revealing her full opposition to offshore drilling and vowed to further look into any donations she has received from the fossil fuel industry.
An analysis by the Huffington Post concluded that nearly all of Clinton’s top bundlers have ties with the fossil fuel industry. They include the likes of ExxonMobil executive Theresa Mary Fariello, who raised $21,200 for the Clinton campaign and Gordon Giffin, a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company who tried to build Keystone XL, who has raised more than $100,000. Meanwhile, the Clinton Global Initiative has accepted millions of dollars from major fossil fuel companies like Exxon and Chevron, along with Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter.
cont'
http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/17/hillary-clinton-offshore-drilling/
When asked by Steve Patterson, a leader of local group 350 Iowa, about pledging not to accept money from the fossil fuel industry, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton responded by revealing her full opposition to offshore drilling and vowed to further look into any donations she has received from the fossil fuel industry.
“Clinton said that she doesn’t think there are a lot of people who support her who have ties to fossil fuels, but as it turns out, nearly every one of her top bundlers are connected with the industry in some way. That raises some serious concerns,” said Yong Jung Cho, Campaign Coordinator with 350 Action. “Clinton will have to continue to demonstrate a firmer commitment to keep fossil fuels in the ground if she wants to win over the trust of people who are concerned that the likes of ExxonMobil still have a stranglehold on our government.”
An analysis by the Huffington Post concluded that nearly all of Clinton’s top bundlers have ties with the fossil fuel industry. They include the likes of ExxonMobil executive Theresa Mary Fariello, who raised $21,200 for the Clinton campaign and Gordon Giffin, a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company who tried to build Keystone XL, who has raised more than $100,000. Meanwhile, the Clinton Global Initiative has accepted millions of dollars from major fossil fuel companies like Exxon and Chevron, along with Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter.
cont'
http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/17/hillary-clinton-offshore-drilling/
Clinton's top campaign financiers are linked to Big Oil, natural gas and the Keystone pipeline.
Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry. A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports. Clinton, the former secretary of state, has called climate change the most “consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world” and says it would be a major focus of her administration if she wins the White House. But having so many supporters who have sold their services to fossil fuel companies may complicate her emphasis on pro-environment policies. Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, have been registered to lobby for the Southern California-based oil giant Chevron since 2006, with contracts totaling more than $3 million. The two bundled Clinton contributions of $24,700 and $29,700, respectively. They have helped Chevron over the years resist efforts to eliminate oil and gas tax breaks and to impose regulations to reduce carbon emissions.
The two Clinton bundlers also were part of a much-criticized campaign by Chevron to manipulate Congress into inserting language into the Andean Trade Preferences Act that would require Ecuador to dismiss a longstanding lawsuit against the company for polluting the Amazon jungle. Democratic lawmakers pushed back against the campaign and the lawsuit is continuing. One prominent lobbying topic embraced by Clinton bundlers is the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports and federal approval of new LNG terminals. Ankit Desai, vice president for government relations at top LNG exporter Cheniere Energy, bundled $82,000 to the Clinton camp, with much of it coming from Cheniere Energy executives. Cheniere executives, including Desai, have donated $38,800 to Clinton’s campaign. The company has lobbied hard in Washington and maintains close ties to the Obama administration. The company won the first approval to export gas to countries outside of U.S. free-trade agreements. The company is seeking approval to open additional terminals to export LNG, and will likely need a friend in the White House come 2017.
ML Strategies’ David Leiter lobbied in 2014 on behalf of Sempra Energy when the company received approval for its LNG export facility in Hackberry, Louisiana. Leiter, who bundled $36,550 for Clinton’s campaign, also is a lobbyist for ExxonMobil. Steve Coll noted in a New Yorker article derived from his book on the oil giant, Private Empire, that Leiter, an ex-staffer to former Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), was retained, along with a host of others, to increase the company’s reach into the Democratic Party it had ignored for years. ExxonMobil’s top lobbyist in Washington, Theresa Fariello, may not be a bundler for Clinton’s campaign, but she is a donor. Fariello, who was a Department of Energy official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, gave $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign. Another Washington-based Exxon lawyer, Judith Batty, donated $2,700. Clinton also got contributions from others involved in the fossil fuel business. Her campaign received $2,700 from BP America’s Mary Streett, formerly the top lobbyist for the nuclear power utility Exelon. Anadarko Petroleum lawyers Amanda McMillan and Richard Lapin each gave $2,700. Sarah Venuto and Martin Durbin, both lobbyists for America’s Natural Gas Alliance, the top gas industry lobbying group, gave $2,910 and $1,000, respectively. Celia Fischer, an America’s Natural Gas Alliance representative who is not a lobbyist, gave $2,700.
Aside from lobbyists currently working to advance fossil fuel interests, there is one Hillblazer bundler -- the name for Clinton boosters raising more than $100,000 -- who stands out. Bundler Gordon Giffin is a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company working to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Giffin sits on the board of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, an investor in the pipeline. The Canadian bank paid Clinton $990,000 for speeches in the months leading up to her presidential announcement. Another Canadian financial institution with an interest in Keystone XL, TD Bank, paid her $651,000 for speaking engagements.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5?ts4f5hfr
Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry. A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports. Clinton, the former secretary of state, has called climate change the most “consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world” and says it would be a major focus of her administration if she wins the White House. But having so many supporters who have sold their services to fossil fuel companies may complicate her emphasis on pro-environment policies. Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, have been registered to lobby for the Southern California-based oil giant Chevron since 2006, with contracts totaling more than $3 million. The two bundled Clinton contributions of $24,700 and $29,700, respectively. They have helped Chevron over the years resist efforts to eliminate oil and gas tax breaks and to impose regulations to reduce carbon emissions.
The two Clinton bundlers also were part of a much-criticized campaign by Chevron to manipulate Congress into inserting language into the Andean Trade Preferences Act that would require Ecuador to dismiss a longstanding lawsuit against the company for polluting the Amazon jungle. Democratic lawmakers pushed back against the campaign and the lawsuit is continuing. One prominent lobbying topic embraced by Clinton bundlers is the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports and federal approval of new LNG terminals. Ankit Desai, vice president for government relations at top LNG exporter Cheniere Energy, bundled $82,000 to the Clinton camp, with much of it coming from Cheniere Energy executives. Cheniere executives, including Desai, have donated $38,800 to Clinton’s campaign. The company has lobbied hard in Washington and maintains close ties to the Obama administration. The company won the first approval to export gas to countries outside of U.S. free-trade agreements. The company is seeking approval to open additional terminals to export LNG, and will likely need a friend in the White House come 2017.
ML Strategies’ David Leiter lobbied in 2014 on behalf of Sempra Energy when the company received approval for its LNG export facility in Hackberry, Louisiana. Leiter, who bundled $36,550 for Clinton’s campaign, also is a lobbyist for ExxonMobil. Steve Coll noted in a New Yorker article derived from his book on the oil giant, Private Empire, that Leiter, an ex-staffer to former Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), was retained, along with a host of others, to increase the company’s reach into the Democratic Party it had ignored for years. ExxonMobil’s top lobbyist in Washington, Theresa Fariello, may not be a bundler for Clinton’s campaign, but she is a donor. Fariello, who was a Department of Energy official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, gave $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign. Another Washington-based Exxon lawyer, Judith Batty, donated $2,700. Clinton also got contributions from others involved in the fossil fuel business. Her campaign received $2,700 from BP America’s Mary Streett, formerly the top lobbyist for the nuclear power utility Exelon. Anadarko Petroleum lawyers Amanda McMillan and Richard Lapin each gave $2,700. Sarah Venuto and Martin Durbin, both lobbyists for America’s Natural Gas Alliance, the top gas industry lobbying group, gave $2,910 and $1,000, respectively. Celia Fischer, an America’s Natural Gas Alliance representative who is not a lobbyist, gave $2,700.
Aside from lobbyists currently working to advance fossil fuel interests, there is one Hillblazer bundler -- the name for Clinton boosters raising more than $100,000 -- who stands out. Bundler Gordon Giffin is a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company working to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Giffin sits on the board of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, an investor in the pipeline. The Canadian bank paid Clinton $990,000 for speeches in the months leading up to her presidential announcement. Another Canadian financial institution with an interest in Keystone XL, TD Bank, paid her $651,000 for speaking engagements.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5?ts4f5hfr
December 18, 2015
Who me?...take money from Oil & Gas Industry?......nah,...but let me tell you about the time I was in Bosnia.......
At a campaign stop in Iowa on Wednesday, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton claimed to be unaware that she'd ever received campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry -- even though she has received over $150,000 from oil and gas representatives during the 2016 cycle alone.
When asked by a member of the audience if she would follow Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, in rejecting fossil fuel donations, Clinton initially demurred.
Clinton has in fact received $159,944 during the 2016 cycle from members of the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's more than every Republican candidate except Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. HuffPost reported in July that Clinton's biggest campaign bundlers are fossil fuel lobbyists, including lobbyists for Chevron.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-fossil-fuel-donations_56733683e4b0b958f655fc87
Hillary Clinton Says She's UNAWARE Of Receiving $150,000 In Oil & Gas Contributions
"Have I? OK, well, I'll check on that."
Who me?...take money from Oil & Gas Industry?......nah,...but let me tell you about the time I was in Bosnia.......
At a campaign stop in Iowa on Wednesday, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton claimed to be unaware that she'd ever received campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry -- even though she has received over $150,000 from oil and gas representatives during the 2016 cycle alone.
When asked by a member of the audience if she would follow Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, in rejecting fossil fuel donations, Clinton initially demurred.
"Well, I don't know that I ever have [accepted donations from the fossil fuel industry]," the former secretary of state said. "I'm not exactly one of their favorites."
"Have I?" she went on. "OK, well, I'll check on that. They certainly haven't made that much of an impression on me if I don't even know it."
"Have I?" she went on. "OK, well, I'll check on that. They certainly haven't made that much of an impression on me if I don't even know it."
Clinton has in fact received $159,944 during the 2016 cycle from members of the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's more than every Republican candidate except Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. HuffPost reported in July that Clinton's biggest campaign bundlers are fossil fuel lobbyists, including lobbyists for Chevron.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-fossil-fuel-donations_56733683e4b0b958f655fc87
December 17, 2015
One presidential hopeful's assessment is that the child care system in the U.S. is disastrous. And based on the findings of a new survey, many working parents in the U.S. have reason to agree. The Pew Research Center report, which surveyed over 1,800 parents of kids under 18, offered a reflection of the widening inequality gripping the country. It found, for example, that wealthier families were almost twice as likely as lower-income parents to say their neighborhood is an "excellent" or "very good" place to raise kids. It also showed that those in lower income families expressed far more worries about their children being victims of violence.
The survey looked at child care views as well, and showed that nearly half (48 percent) of working parents with at least one child under school age say their children attend day care or preschool. It presents a problem across the board; sixty-two percent of parents across all income groups with infants or preschool-age children say that it’s hard to find affordable and quality child care in their community. There's a difference across income groups for where the child care takes place. While most working parents (66 percent) with annual family incomes of $75,000 or above say their young children attend day care centers or preschools, those earning less than $30,000 are more likely (57 percent) to have those care needs met by family members.
As most working parents know, child care can be quite expensive. Vivien Labaton, co-founder and co-director of Make It Work, wrote at the New Republic Wednesday:
That's a perspective championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who earlier this year called the nation's child care system a "disaster" and said that the wealthiest should be taxed more to fund early childhood programs. Sanders has said that his agenda would also include paid family leave. That need was just underscored in a damning review by a group of United Nations experts.
cont'
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/17/sanders-right-childcare-system-us-disaster
Bernie Sanders Is Right. The Childcare System In The US Is A DISASTER
New Pew survey finds that 62% of parents say that it’s hard to find affordable and quality child care in their community.
One presidential hopeful's assessment is that the child care system in the U.S. is disastrous. And based on the findings of a new survey, many working parents in the U.S. have reason to agree. The Pew Research Center report, which surveyed over 1,800 parents of kids under 18, offered a reflection of the widening inequality gripping the country. It found, for example, that wealthier families were almost twice as likely as lower-income parents to say their neighborhood is an "excellent" or "very good" place to raise kids. It also showed that those in lower income families expressed far more worries about their children being victims of violence.
The survey looked at child care views as well, and showed that nearly half (48 percent) of working parents with at least one child under school age say their children attend day care or preschool. It presents a problem across the board; sixty-two percent of parents across all income groups with infants or preschool-age children say that it’s hard to find affordable and quality child care in their community. There's a difference across income groups for where the child care takes place. While most working parents (66 percent) with annual family incomes of $75,000 or above say their young children attend day care centers or preschools, those earning less than $30,000 are more likely (57 percent) to have those care needs met by family members.
As most working parents know, child care can be quite expensive. Vivien Labaton, co-founder and co-director of Make It Work, wrote at the New Republic Wednesday:
Child care now costs more than rent and in-state college tuition in most states, leading to women dropping out of the workforce for the first time in years; millennials have put off having kids; parents are declining promotions or taking lower-paying jobs so they don’t lose the childcare assistance they need to earn a living and make sure their children receive quality care.
Having children isn’t like buying a whirlpool bathtub or a fancy car, and it certainly should not be reserved for the wealthy. Childcare and other supports for working families are an investment in our future and the country we want to be.
https://newrepublic.com/article/125979/childcare-expensive-wealthy-can-afford
Having children isn’t like buying a whirlpool bathtub or a fancy car, and it certainly should not be reserved for the wealthy. Childcare and other supports for working families are an investment in our future and the country we want to be.
https://newrepublic.com/article/125979/childcare-expensive-wealthy-can-afford
That's a perspective championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who earlier this year called the nation's child care system a "disaster" and said that the wealthiest should be taxed more to fund early childhood programs. Sanders has said that his agenda would also include paid family leave. That need was just underscored in a damning review by a group of United Nations experts.
cont'
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/17/sanders-right-childcare-system-us-disaster
December 17, 2015
Ed touches on debates and lack of Bernie media coverage!........
.
Bernie Sanders Picks Up the ENDORSEMENT of the Communications Workers Of America (With Larry Cohen)
Ed touches on debates and lack of Bernie media coverage!........
On Thursday, the Communications Workers of America endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders' bid for the White House. Ed is joined by Former CWA Pres. Larry Cohen to discuss how the over 700 thousand members of the union will mobilize for the progressive champion.
.
December 17, 2015
~snip~
What a shamefully imbalanced primary season this has been. For all their flaws and fakery, the Republican candidates have squared off frequently, at convenient hours and despite the menacing nimbus of Donald Trump’s hair; the Democratic candidates have, in contrast, hidden in a closet. Tuesday night’s meeting of Republicans, who sparred in Las Vegas over how to keep America safe, was the fifth. The meeting of Democratic presidential candidates in a few days will be only the third. And who’s going to watch it? It’s on a Saturday night, when a political debate ranks somewhere between dialysis and a Milli Vanilli tribute concert as a desirable way to unwind. The last meeting of the Democratic candidates was also on a Saturday night, and fewer than nine million viewers tuned in, down from 15.3 million for the sole Democratic debate so far on a weeknight. All of the Republican debates have been on weeknights; the first two attracted more than 23 million viewers each. In fact none of the first four Republican debates had an audience of less than 13.5 million. The fifth debate had an estimated audience of 18 million.
~snip~
But the disparity in viewership is also a function of scheduling, and was thus predictable and obviously intended. When the Democratic debates were set up, party leaders assumed that Hillary Clinton would be their best candidate, put their chips on her and sought to make sure that some upstart didn’t upset their plans or complicate things to a point where Clinton would stagger into the general election all banged up. Bernie Sanders complained. Martin O’Malley cried foul. So did one of the vice chairwomen of the Democratic National Committee, Tulsi Gabbard, who made a lot of public noise about the paucity of debates and the unwillingness of the head of the D.N.C., Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to abide such dissent. It was an ugly sideshow for a few days, then it blew over. But we shouldn’t be so quick to forgive and forget how the Democratic Party has behaved. It prides itself on being the true champion of democracy, more vigilant than the Republican Party about the disenfranchisement of voters, more invested in — and industrious about — making sure that as many people as possible are drawn into the process. Then shouldn’t it want its candidates on vivid, continuous display? Shouldn’t it connect them with the largest audience that it can?
~snip~
Clinton is more than adequately steeled. The real danger for her is that she’s become all armor. And a real vulnerability is that she’s seen by voters as entrenched political royalty and thus distant — too distant — from those “everyday Americans” she talked about so much at the start of her campaign. That’s one of the problems with the Democratic debate schedule: It smacks of special treatment, and Clinton, who set up her own home-brewed email account as secretary of state, can’t afford to keep giving voters the impression that normal rules don’t apply to her. And the Democratic Party can’t pretend that it’s done the right thing here. While these debates aren’t as high-minded as we’d wish or as illuminating as we sometimes pretend, they’re an important piece of the puzzle of figuring out candidates, with a bit more spontaneity and surprise than many other facets of the modern campaign. They deserve priority and prominence. Artichoke dip optional.
cont'
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/opinion/campaign-stops/the-invisible-democratic-debates.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Ffrank-bruni&action=click&contentCollection=opinion
The INVISIBLE Democratic Debates
~snip~
What a shamefully imbalanced primary season this has been. For all their flaws and fakery, the Republican candidates have squared off frequently, at convenient hours and despite the menacing nimbus of Donald Trump’s hair; the Democratic candidates have, in contrast, hidden in a closet. Tuesday night’s meeting of Republicans, who sparred in Las Vegas over how to keep America safe, was the fifth. The meeting of Democratic presidential candidates in a few days will be only the third. And who’s going to watch it? It’s on a Saturday night, when a political debate ranks somewhere between dialysis and a Milli Vanilli tribute concert as a desirable way to unwind. The last meeting of the Democratic candidates was also on a Saturday night, and fewer than nine million viewers tuned in, down from 15.3 million for the sole Democratic debate so far on a weeknight. All of the Republican debates have been on weeknights; the first two attracted more than 23 million viewers each. In fact none of the first four Republican debates had an audience of less than 13.5 million. The fifth debate had an estimated audience of 18 million.
~snip~
But the disparity in viewership is also a function of scheduling, and was thus predictable and obviously intended. When the Democratic debates were set up, party leaders assumed that Hillary Clinton would be their best candidate, put their chips on her and sought to make sure that some upstart didn’t upset their plans or complicate things to a point where Clinton would stagger into the general election all banged up. Bernie Sanders complained. Martin O’Malley cried foul. So did one of the vice chairwomen of the Democratic National Committee, Tulsi Gabbard, who made a lot of public noise about the paucity of debates and the unwillingness of the head of the D.N.C., Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to abide such dissent. It was an ugly sideshow for a few days, then it blew over. But we shouldn’t be so quick to forgive and forget how the Democratic Party has behaved. It prides itself on being the true champion of democracy, more vigilant than the Republican Party about the disenfranchisement of voters, more invested in — and industrious about — making sure that as many people as possible are drawn into the process. Then shouldn’t it want its candidates on vivid, continuous display? Shouldn’t it connect them with the largest audience that it can?
~snip~
Clinton is more than adequately steeled. The real danger for her is that she’s become all armor. And a real vulnerability is that she’s seen by voters as entrenched political royalty and thus distant — too distant — from those “everyday Americans” she talked about so much at the start of her campaign. That’s one of the problems with the Democratic debate schedule: It smacks of special treatment, and Clinton, who set up her own home-brewed email account as secretary of state, can’t afford to keep giving voters the impression that normal rules don’t apply to her. And the Democratic Party can’t pretend that it’s done the right thing here. While these debates aren’t as high-minded as we’d wish or as illuminating as we sometimes pretend, they’re an important piece of the puzzle of figuring out candidates, with a bit more spontaneity and surprise than many other facets of the modern campaign. They deserve priority and prominence. Artichoke dip optional.
cont'
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/opinion/campaign-stops/the-invisible-democratic-debates.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Ffrank-bruni&action=click&contentCollection=opinion
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
