SEARCH
Republican Candidates and Our Money |
|
 |
|
The Republican candidates for president are coagulating in Michigan now, vying for top spots in the Jan. 15 primaries. Media reports say the GOP-ers will focus on the economy.
That’s quite a shift from just a few months ago, when entire Republican debates went by with no acknowledgement from any of the contenders, with the occasional exception of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, that working families are suffering through the nation’s biggest subprime mortgage disaster, record gas prices, a lack of guaranteed health care, sinking wages, trade policies that outsource U.S. jobs—to mention a few.
In contrast, when it comes to our pocketbook issues, the major Democratic candidates all have strongly defined their pro-working family positions in the debates and on the stumps. So, given that the Republican candidates haven’t said much to date on their domestic economic agenda, let’s take a look at their records. (Much of the info below comes from our Working Families Vote site here.)
Rudy Giuliani. Here’s how the former New York Mayor describes his position supporting unfettered trade deals:
We no longer have separation between a domestic economy and a global economy. It’s one in the same thing. And I generally agree with the principles of free trade and…increasingly have become more convinced of those principles because I almost think they are inevitable. If we fight them, we hurt ourselves. If we embrace them, we kind of move to the future.
Mike Huckabee. Huckabee’s attacks on CEO pay and job outsourcing offer an appealing message. But check out the details. Although he backed raising the minimum wage in Arkansas from $5.15 to $6.25 an hour, he did so “as a safeguard against a proposed constitutional amendment that would have increased the minimum wage yearly for inflation.” Huckabee’s support of Bush’s privatized Social Security plan doesn’t bode well for the millions of America’s workers looking for a secure retirement: The plan Bush proposed a few years back would have slashed guaranteed benefits by as much as $9,000 per year and prevented individuals from controlling the money in their private accounts.
John McCain. The senator from Arizona has voted against raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour (Congress finally approved the pay boost last year). McCain also has voted to allow states to opt out of future federal minimum wage increases, which effectively would repeal the federal minimum wage requirement.
Ronald Paul. Rep. Paul from Texas voted against a clean minimum wage bill to give low-income working families a $2.10 an hour pay raise. He backs “free trade”—meaning free of what he calls government interference—but opposes many trade agreements. He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and free trade agreements with Oman, Singapore and Chile. His vision of limited government would omit federal support for two key safety nets critical to the survival of millions of America’s retired and poor: Social Security and Medicaid. As The Washington Post noted:
Republican Ron Paul missed out on the 19th century, but he admires it from afar. He speaks lovingly of the good old days before things like Social Security and Medicaid existed, before the federal government outlawed drugs like heroin….
Mitt Romney. Like McCain, Romney isn’t a fan of boosting the income of low-wage workers. As governor of Massachusetts, he broke a campaign promise and vetoed a bill to raise the state minimum wage to $8 by 2008 (the Massachusetts Legislature subsequently overrode his veto). He often touts his business experience, but doesn’t often mention that his days as a venture capitalist with Bain Capital occurred as the company took over two firms, forcing them to file for bankruptcy and lay off thousands of workers.
During debates last weekend in New Hampshire, Romney had this to say about the tens of millions of Americans unable to afford health care:
The reason health care isn’t working like a market right now is you have 47 million people that are saying, “I’m not going to play. I’m just going to get free care paid for by everybody else.” That doesn’t work.
Fred Thompson. Yet another Republican candidate who opposes giving a boost to low-wage workers, Thompson, as a senator representing Tennessee, voted in 1996 against an increase in the federal minimum wage. That same year, he also voted against an amendment supporting the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires federal construction projects to pay prevailing local wages. In 2002, he voted against a Patients’ Bill of Rights and has voted against proposals for a universal, affordable prescription drug program under Medicare.
3 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
hey attention young wild eyed Ron Paul supporters, his vision for the government is the military, some police, some courts for things like rape and murder and an office to oversee the contracts to run the prisons. No federal money for college, no disability, no osha, no department of transportation, no wage and hour, no breaks no lunch no 40 hour week, no sexual harassment protections. No unions or even personal employment contracts. You were looking for work when ya came you can look again.
The more I hear about the 2008 political circus, the more I wonder: The US population is 300 million. If you figure that possibly only 1/10th of 1% of this population would be qualified/interested in running for the presidency, that makes 300,000 possible candidates. I look at the slate for both parties and ask “This is the best we can do?” Or is it just a sign of the times that a person’s character and ethics don’t matter as long as they have some wealthy backers to pick up the tab (and who will expect future benefits for their donations). The presidency is up for sale to the highest bidders.
I have been voting for over 40 years. In the beginning, I voted for who I believed was the best person for the job. The last twenty years, I have tried to figure out who will do the least damage in the next four years and vote accordingly. Sad…….
It really makes me sick to hear some of our own members complain about how their Union never endorses a Republican. They can’t seem to understand why their Union is so partisan. After the lists of Labor endorsed candidates are compiled and distributed, I can barely contain myself when members pose questions like: “Are there any Republicans on this sheet or is this just a list of every Democrat running for office?” They feel that the Republican Party offers “good” candidates for their Union to endorse. Then they start asking questions about what they need to do to withdraw their membership because of their Union’s persistent support of Democratic candidates.
Wake up people! It’s not that your Union hates Republicans. The Republicans hate us. Proof positive of that is outlined in the article above! When we do make an endorsement of a Republican they will often haul off and do something like crossing a picket line. The Machinist’s endorsement of Republican, Huckabee is a perfect case in point. What an embarrassment he must be for them!?!
The Democratic Party platform is simple more in tune with promoting a higher standard of living for the masses of middle and low-income families of America. In contrast, the Republican Party platform is tailor made to promote the practice of wealth concentration for the upper class.
It is unrealistic to expect that a Labor endorsed candidate will be with Labor 100% of the time. However; when the voting records of Democrats are measured against the voting records of Republicans, our choice regarding who we should vote for is clearly simplified.
Perhaps you’ve heard the saying: “A working man that votes for a Republican is like a chicken that votes for Colonel Sanders.”