WhirledView

Another Bossy Billionaire: Time for a Boycott?

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Starbucks czar Howard Schultz just told Fox news that he’s not running for President as a Democrat because there’s too much infighting within the Party. Sounds to me like we’ve got another I-know-best billionaire, someone who’s used to instant absolute obedience. Sure, infighting can sometimes descend into mutual suicide, but much squabbling is the democratic process at work. Many points of view. Furious debate. Ultimately an agreed upon modus operandi.

And sometimes not. Just another round of debate.

Seems like Schultz is really miffed and sulking because the Democrats aren’t welcoming his self-nomination with hosannas. And so he goes whining to Trump string-puller  Fox, choosing the one news channel that will joyfully use him to tarnish Democrats who are willing to work their way up within the party—from school board to mayor to Congress and so on, thus acquiring the skills and demonstrating the temperament to do the job of joining with the co-equal branches of government to make America work.

Exactly what the current billionaire (or probably much less-aire) is unwilling to do.  What, if anything, we’ve learned from two years with Donald J. Trump as president is that all-powerful CEO'S are totally unsuited for the position of chief executive of a democracy with divided powers. These guys don’t like limits. They like autocrats.

Already Schultz is using his hiring and firing authority to pressure Starbcks employees to read his own books (half price offers, for instance) and, worse, by instructing them to tell customers he’s a great boss—or, essentially, keep their mouths shut. Evidently there’s a some quiet, anonymous push back against that "back me" decree by employees who don’t think much of their pay levels and work conditions, especially considering that they themselves are the source of the whip wielder's obscene wealth.  (Note: I admire people who build fabulously successful businesses—but only up to a point. If they aren’t already paying their staff and employees generously enough to keep profits to a reasonable level, they need some pretty high tax brackets to do the distribution they refused to do voluntarily on the way up.)

Meanwhile, consider the bad example we’re living with now. Donald Trump has been running his properties with low paid non-documented workers, while railing about illegal immigration to the point of holding Federal workers hostage to his demands for a WALL–or else! Yes, he’s been outed on his employment practices.  Reform, supposedly, is on the way. We’ll see. 

Back to the imperious Mr. Schultz. We already know that his baristas aren’t rolling in dough. Would a President Schultz be any better attuned to the needs of Federal workers or structurally disadvantaged Americans , or would he, like the Donald, be blithely ready to furlough them—or make them work without pay or or rip up the safety net, because Congress won’t bow to his unilateral unalterable demands?

Doubtful. Howard Schultz is one more self-nominated savior with nothing but his own self-esteem to recommend him. The time to stop him is now. Don’t give up coffee. Give up Starbucks. People who once happily lived in Trump Towers have been suing to get the Trump logo off their buildings. Maybe we coffee fiends should start boycotting Starbucks. That’s easy for me. I live in a city where Starbucks has plenty of competition the behemoth hasn’t managed to squash out of business. But look around and send Howard Schultz a powerful message. See if there’s a better place to get your joe and your free wifi.

In 2016, many American’s fell for the notion that an uber entrepreneur can run a government better than the bureaucrats. We should think twice before we fall for that line again.

 

 

An Under Reported Story: The Disappearing GOP Voter & More

By Patricia H Kushlis

Every time I see a poll asserting that 85% or some high percentage of GOP voters support Trump or a Trump administration policy, I say to myself – that’s not surprising but shouldn’t 85% of a declining number of supporters be the real story?  Yet the stories often ignore a decline that has been underway over the last decade perhaps because the current figures are not as readily available as they should be.  Yet, since 2009 or thereabouts, we know that Independents have comprised the largest group of American voters.  Democrats are second. Republicans are third.

Here’s the 2014 analysis from Pew Charitable Trust and information from a comparative Gallup chart that displays the percentages from January 2004-December 2018.  Both Pew and Gallup are reputable polling organizations:   

“Pew:  The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.

When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 48% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 39% identify as Republicans or lean Republican. The gap in leaned party affiliation has held fairly steady since 2009, when Democrats held a 13-point advantage (50% to 37%)

Gallup’s chart of American voters for Dec.3-12, 2018 shows:  39% consider themselves Independents; 32% Democrats and 26% Republicans.  In comparison, for the same time period in 2004 which was the earliest reported on the chart, 29% identified as Independents, 37% as Republicans and 32% as Democrats.  

One more look at Gallup stats:  For December 2018, those identifying as Republican and Republican Leaning Independents were 40% while 47% identified as Democratic or Democratic leaners.  At the same time period December 2004, those identifying as Republican and Republican Leaning Independents were 48% and 45% as Democrats and Democratic Leaning.

It looks like the decline in GOP party membership began under George W Bush with his ill-advised invasion of Iraq but it has continued during the Trump administration.  This is why the party has gone to such lengths to retain or gain power through voter suppression and gerrymandering as opposed to seeking to broaden its electoral appeal beyond its aging base.  

Details, details

Although the media was slow to recognize it – perhaps because they were burned in 2016 for predicting a Clinton win – but a Blue Tsunami did occur on November 6, 2018.  In fact, the major reason the GOP even won the Senate was because far more Democratic Senators were up for reelection in conservative states than GOP.  The media too often neglects to mention this as well.

The results in the 2018 House races have given the Democrats a 40 or 41 seat advantage, a phenomenal number which the country has not seen in decades – since Watergate if not before.  This creaky democratic system is based on checks-and-balances; and it’s clear the US electorate in November decided it was time to add a check into a system that had given far too much power to a single party – and to the party that represents a minority of the voters at that.

And yes, even this partial check will make a difference in two important ways: 

    1) it makes it possible for the new Congressional Democratic majority to veto Trump administration initiatives; and

    2) more importantly, given the tenor of this administration, it allows House Committee chairs like Adam Schiff who heads the all-important House Intelligence Committee to hold hearings and subpoena witnesses in the Trump-Russia investigation which Devin Nunes, the former GOP Committee Chair, either refused to hold or buried the results of those he didn’t approve of in the House basement.  Schiff, however, knows where those testimonies are stashed and has already stated that they will soon see the light of day - plus there will be more.  Thus Nunes’ cover up of Trump's Russia connections will shortly disappear into thin air like Puff the Magic Dragon or the vapors from Aladdin’s magic lamp.

Then there’s Maxine Waters, the new chair of Financial Services who Trump has called a “seriously low IQ person” and who will “likely work to reinstate consumer protection regulations eroded by the Trump Administration;” Jerry Nadler, Judiciary, “who has long sparred with Trump and has already said he'll initiate probes into sexual assault and perjury allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Trump's ousting of Attorney General Jeff Sessions; and  Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, the new chair of the oversight committee, who has said he'll launch inquiries into voter suppression and alleged fraud in the Trump administration.”   I hope Waters looks into Trump’s questionable finances as well - beginning with his income taxes.