THE VOORHIS VOICE
THE VOORHIS VOICE
Progressive Voice of the Pomona ValleyMAR.,
2016www.claremontdems.org [email protected] AND
SPECIAL EVENTS
Issues Committee Luncheon
Fridays, Mar. 4, 18, 25 from 12 to 1:30 pm
Rabi’s Café, 930 Central Avenue, Upland
No speaker: Bring your issue
Monthly Speaker Luncheon
Friday, Mar. 11, 12 – 2 pm
Our Congress Rep, Judy Chu
‘The right-wing attack on the National Park System.”
Darvish Restaurant 946 W. Foothill Claremont. Lunch at noon,
speaker from 1 to 2. Lunch is $17 including tax & tip. No
charge to hear speaker.
Mar. 28, 7pm – 9pm
Monthly Membership Meeting
Speaker & Venue TBA
A Monster Has Been Set Loose Upon the Land
by John Forney, President, DCC
You may remember the grainy black and white flickering of
static electricity as Frankenstein is brought to life in the dingy
laboratory of a demented scientist. Amid the acrid smoke of
burnt flesh a stiffed-armed creature stirs and is soon loose upon
the land. The Republicans have created a monster of their own
making in the form of Donald Trump, a racist, ill-mannered
presidential candidate set to trash tradition, party decorum and
the hopes they might have ever had of broadening out their brand
beyond a good old white boys club.
They constructed this monster over the years, beginning with the
racism inherent in Nixon’s Southern Strategy. Appeals to
immigrant hatred, Islamophobia and the anger roused up among their
supporters against Hispanics were part of the creature’s
diet. The utter unwillingness to engage in political
compromise in the fear that President Obama might get a smidgen of
credit for something took us to a new political never, Neverland --
stoking yet more hatred that has energized the monster.
Obstructionism has rendered our government incapable of “optimal
solutions,” as Thomas Friedman puts it. In fact, incapable of
pretty much any solution. Yet the problems of ordinary
Americans mount. Virtually all the wealth created in the
recovery following the Great Recession has gone to the top
1%. Our libraries are on life support. And families,
even with insurance, continue to face medical bankruptcy as we
cannot fix the flaws in the health system present in the Affordable
Care Act. It will be up to us Democrats to put down this
abomination that is quickly becoming Godzilla-sized,
Either Hillary or Bernie is totally up defeating this political
Frankenstein -- and whichever of them ends up carrying the banner
of political sanity, we have to ensure that they have what they
need.
But down ballot, we have to urge, cajole, and implore our
elected representatives to look at the big picture. There’s
heavy lifting to be done, lest the resentment whipped up slops
rightfully over to us. In California we must insist that our
elected officials tackle the big ticket items like mass
incarceration, income inequality and urban blight, lest we be
mauled by the same forces of resentment and anger that are
consuming our democracy.
In the Democratic Club of Claremont, we have the moral compass
and urgency to go up against the party of NO and self absorption
and be a constructive presence in the body politic. Clear
your calendars this election season, America is counting on us.
DCC Endorses Anthony Portantino for State Senate
February 20, 2016 ---- The Democratic Club of Claremont has
endorsed Anthony Portantino for the California Senate seat
representing our district (SD 25). We have several reasons for that
endorsement. For some years now Anthony has participated in the
activities of the Democratic Club of Claremont.. In our
dealings with him we have always found him honest and willing to
listen even on topics where we are to the left of his
positions. We respect his views and he respects ours.
We have also been impressed by his accomplishments while
serving two terms (2009-2013) in the California Assembly from which
he was termed out. He received a 94 (out of 100) Assembly
scorecard for his liberal record. Moreover his chief campaign
contributors have not included corporate interests. Leading
Democrats such as Congressman Adam Schiff have endorsed him as we
have. In the Assembly, he sponsored a bill that made it
illegal to carry weapons openly in the state (even if unloaded),
thereby distinguishing California from cowboy states such as Texas.
Anthony is not only active behind the scenes in Sacramento – he is
community minded and a political educator of the public, organizing
town hall meetings on such topics as our drought and human
trafficking. For these reasons, the Democratic Club of Claremont
has decided to give our support to Anthony Portantino for
California Senate District 25. signed: John Forney,
President, Democratic Club of Claremont
Earth Day is April 23
by Carolee Monroe
Hey Folks, because we are an activist club, we join in
Claremont’s community events. These include July 4th, Village
Venture and Earth Day. These occasions are opportunities for us to
promote our values, candidates and issues. The first event of 2016,
Earth Day, is scheduled for Saturday, April 23 from 10 AM until 3
PM. Can you be a volunteer in our booth?
Claremont’s celebration of Earth Day focuses on sustainability,
addressing both our youth and adults. While adults can check out
home upgrades that support sustainability, kids and family members
visit booths sponsored by each of our public schools and learn of
the activities happening throughout the district.
Our Democratic Club of Claremont has participated in Claremont’s
Earth Day celebration since its inception. Some of our topics have
been the environmental positions of our elected officials,
nutrition, water, sustainability and personal responsibility. We
will continue this year with a booth focusing on the importance of
each creature contributing to our Earth. “Every Buggy Helps.”
Immigration Reform: Evaluating Policy Options
By Ivan Light
Between 1995 and 2008, the number of unauthorized (illegal)
immigrants in the United States rose from 3.6 million to 8.3
million, representing approximately 2.5 percent of the total US
population and one-fifth of the foreign-born population. However,
since 2008 the number of illegal immigrants has stopped growing and
was slightly below the 2008 peak in 2014 (Pew Research). The end of
Mexican migration explains most of this stabilization. During its
peak years, Mexican migration added 2.3 million persons to the US
population between 1995 and 2000. Since 2009, however, net
migration from Mexico to the United States has been negative. That
is, 140,000 more Mexican-born persons returned to Mexico than
crossed from Mexico into the United States in this five-year
period. Realistically speaking, the United States has had zero net
migration from Mexico since 2009, and, since Mexicans have composed
half of the total population of illegal immigrants, zero Mexican
migration has also meant no growth in the population of illegal
immigrants in the United States.
The causes of this historic reversal are straight-forward.
Border controls were a minor contributor. Most importantly, the
economic recession of 2007 to 2009 reduced the availability of jobs
for everyone, Mexicans and illegal immigrants included. Immigrants
do not now and never have entered a country that has no jobs to
offer. Only 16 percent of Mexican returnees were deported from the
United States. The others left of their own accord, usually for
economic reasons. That said, a second less important consideration
is the aging of the Mexican immigrant population. As they reach
middle age, Mexican immigrants have elderly parents at home for
whom they wish to care and, in many cases, they have accumulated
enough money to return and do just that. Living abroad is a
hardship for many Mexicans because they do not understand English
nor do they participate fully in American culture. They are
homesick. If they have the money to do so, many Mexicans prefer to
return to Mexico. This is not unusual. Forty percent of European
immigrants who came to the United States between 1880 and 1920 also
returned home.
Given these facts, what are we to make of Republican plans to
build a wall between the United States and Mexico? That wall is not
a serious policy option because the migration wave from Mexico is
over. The illegal population is stable, not growing. Obsolete now,
Trump’s wall never made fiscal sense. If the cost of a deterrent
wall is one million dollars per mile, and there are 1500 miles of
border between the United States and Mexico, then the dollar cost
of a wall would be (1500 x 1,000,000) 1.5 trillion dollars which is
half the cost of all our wars in the Middle East since 2003. What
is more, that wall would only obstruct illegal immigrants who enter
without inspection from Mexico. The wall would not stop illegal
immigrants who enter from other directions, and it would,
furthermore, do nothing to obstruct the 40 percent of illegals who
enter the United States legally then overstay their visas.
Repatriation of Illegals
There are currently about 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the
United States. These people are about one-fifth of the total
immigrant population and 2.4 percent of the total U.S. population.
Two-thirds of the illegals (also called undocumented) are from
Mexico and Central America but there are also illegal persons from
other countries, notably China and Ireland. Republican Presidential
candidates have proposed to apprehend and repatriate all these
illegal residents, but they have not specified the costs of doing
so, social as well as financial. Donald Trump claims Mexico would
pay the cost of repatriating its nationals abroad. But entering the
United States illegally violates American law, not Mexican law. Why
should Mexico pay for crimes committed in the United States that do
not violate Mexican law? So Trump is wrong. The United States will
have to pay. If we estimate the dollar cost of locating,
apprehending, lodging, and transporting one illegal person to the
border at $1,000, a bargain, then a policy of apprehending and
transporting 11.5 million people would cost (1,000 x 11,500,000)
11.5 trillion dollars. We have also to consider the impact on the
US economy from the abrupt removal of 3 percent of the labor force.
There would be jobs unfilled by essential workers, especially in
agriculture, food shortages, retail firms lacking customers, and
cities stripped of transit-riding tax-payers. The economic shocks
would be massive and catastrophic. They might provoke a recession
in the United States.
Toleration is our current and de facto policy. No one talks
about continuing the status quo but the United States could
tolerate today’s illegal immigrants without changing their legal
status and in 60 years illegal immigrants would disappear from the
population because of mortality. We would then no longer have a
population of illegal immigrants. That is a long time to wait, but
it is appropriate to note that the problem of today’s illegals is
self-correcting in the long-run. Politicians never mention
toleration, but there is a splendid chance that doing nothing about
immigration is the default option they will select for the future
as they have selected it every year for the last thirty years. If
the status quo is preferable to all alternatives,
border-controlling fulminations notwithstanding, and we will not
grant amnesty to existing illegal residents, then continued
toleration is a policy option that merits political support.
However, if Americans cannot wait for the problem of illegal
immigrants to self-correct, then steps could be taken now to
legalize undocumented immigrants with or without citizenship.
Currently, the United States has one sure path to amnesty with
citizenship: military service. Illegal immigrants obtain both when
they serve in the armed forces. This is a working path to
citizenship that should not be closed. Unfortunately, this path
only serves able-bodied young people. Three quarters of illegal
immigrants are ineligible to join the armed forces because they are
too old, too young, or less than able-bodied. “Dreamers” are the
adult children of immigrants who accompanied their parents into the
United States and were subsequently raised in this country without
acquiring American nationality. Dreamers are young, better educated
than their parents, and mostly able-bodied. Dreamers could acquire
citizenship by joining the armed forces, and, upon discharge, they
would be eligible to attend colleges and universities with whatever
supports are available to other American citizens.
But military-age dreamers are at most a tenth of illegal
immigrants. Therefore, new pathways to citizenship for the rest of
the illegal population are unavoidable if the current policy of
toleration is unacceptable. The usual qualifications for
legalization are employment, a clean police record, and proof of
long-term residence. Although legalization of illegals risks
encouraging more illegal migration, which was admittedly a response
to legalization in 1986, that outcome is unlikely today because net
migration from Mexico is now zero. Legalization without citizenship
is unfair to persons who waited in line for an opportunity to
immigrate legally to the United States. That is extremely
regrettable. But no fair-to-all policy normalizes the status of
illegal immigrants already here, working, and contributing to
American society other than blanket admission of all those now on
our national immigration waiting list. Continued toleration of
illegals already here (with or without legalization) would also be
unfair to those who failed to obtain entry because they waited in
line. Either way, tolerating illegals or offering them amnesty, the
United States cheats those who followed our immigration laws.
Immigration proceeds in waves. How can the United States prevent
the next wave of illegal immigrants from obtaining access in the
future? There are two simple and cost-effective solutions, neither
of which makes everyone happy. The federal government can open a
register of legal workers, expanding the current E-verify system,
and require employers to consult that register before they hire
anyone on pain of a hefty fine or even imprisonment. As matters
stand, illegal workers can buy bogus papers for $100 and show them
to employers who then have no legal liability from employing them.
These bogus papers have created a thriving black-market economy in
which substandard and illegal conditions exist. But an official
register of legally authorized workers would shut down the
marketplace for bogus papers and effectively deprive illegal
workers of most of their chances at employment. They could still be
employed, of course, but the serious risk to employers would reduce
their chances of finding work in the civilian economy. Employers of
illegal workers will oppose that policy option and their industries
(agriculture, hotels, garment manufacture, construction) would
suffer short-term disruption and price increases.
A second course is for states and/or the federal government to
raise the minimum wage. By raising the minimum wage to living-wage
levels, say, $15/hour currently, governments shut down sweatshops
that employ illegal workers at poverty-level wages. Sweatshops
depend on cheap labor. They cannot pay a living wage and they close
down when compelled to do so. By denting the supply of
poverty-level jobs, states and the federal government could reduce
the economic attractiveness of the United States to the employers
who hire illegal immigrants. Their sweatshops would migrate to
countries that tolerate them, taking with them the poverty-level
immigrant workers who would otherwise have entered the United
States. State inequalities in minimum wage levels are already
shuffling illegal migrants toward states in the South and West that
use the low, federal standard and away from states like California
that impose higher-than-federal minimum wages. Minimum wage
deflection works and might provide a cost-effective national
deterrent to illegal migration.
The advantage of both administrative methods is low cost and
flexibility. Employee registers and high minimum wages would cost
very little to administer and they would seriously reduce (but not
eliminate) any influx of illegal immigrants in the future. There
would be complaints, of course, that government has become too
intrusive and that high minimum wages diminish the employment
opportunities for native-born youth. But if the policy goal is
cost-effectively to reduce illegal immigration, then some
collateral damage has to be accepted. People who cannot accept
either exclusion policy (E-verify expansion or higher federal
minimum wage) should rethink the wisdom of tolerating illegal
immigrants in the population as a way of dealing with unauthorized
immigrants.
The United States is not the only country that attracts unwanted
and undocumented immigrants. European countries have as many
illegals as does the United States, and they are taking in millions
of Middle Eastern refugees to boot. Every continent experiences
illegal immigration, but especially the rich countries of Europe
and North America. In the present world, unwanted and illegal
immigration is a nasty policy problem to which there are no easy or
painless answers that will please everyone.
Ivan Light is professor emeritus of sociology at UCLA. He is
past President of the International Migration section of the
American Sociological Association as well as a past president of
the DCC.
It’s alright, you can agree with Trump on this one!
Bob Hertzberg Speaks at CMC
by Bob Gerecke
Claremont, Feb. 26, 2016 - - - - Bob Hertzberg spoke at
Claremont McKenna College's Athenaeum about “The Future of the
Democratic Party in California.” He's a former Assembly
Speaker, then clean energy entrepreneur, and now State
Senator. He is a founder of California Forward and a frequent
participant in other think tanks. Below are the main points he
made.
· Control of the California Legislature, the Governorship and
other state offices has swung between Democrats and Republicans in
the past. Our Party's current dominance isn't necessarily
permanent and won't last unless we address the right issues
constructively and retain the public's confidence.
· We need to reform the state's tax system to reduce its
volatility from boom to bust and back, but a split roll (higher
property taxes on commercial properties than on residences) is off
the table, because it would harm small businesses whose leases
usually require them to pay the landlord's entire expenses plus a
profit.
· Politicians don't cast votes which will result in a
well-funded opponent. This is exacerbated by Citizens United,
but unfortunately a Constitutional amendment to overturn it is
impossible, so only the Supreme Court can reverse its own
decision. Meanwhile, the national government will become less
able to function and less relevant in addressing national issues.
State governments will be the ones to act on issues, but even state
legislators are vulnerable to big money's effect on elections.
· 0ur top-two primary has made campaigns more expensive, because
a candidate must appeal to the entire electorate twice, thereby
giving more power to big money.
· Public cynicism about government and politicians has resulted
in a lower percentage of voters registered to either political
party, with more declining to state a party.
· To regain the public's confidence, we need to improve
government's responsiveness to the people, and therefore we need to
push decision-making downward from the state to the localities,
where people can more easily influence decisions and where big
money has less power to make or break candidates whom people
already know or can learn about from sources other than paid
advertising.
Sharing the Pie
by Bob Gerecke
Many businesses based in the USA and other developed countries
produce, buy and sell goods and services in several countries
possessing various levels of development. It's competitive
and profitable for them to produce or buy as much as possible in
countries which have lower wages, and to sell it in countries with
higher wages and thus higher consumer spending power.
Collectively these firms therefore weaken job creation, wages,
consumer spending, business revenues, tax receipts and public
services in their own countries.
In order to ensure the prosperity of the American people, more
production needs to be located in the USA -- at least enough of it
to erase our trade deficit, so that money isn't continually sucked
out of our country and its’ people. Yet if any American
business chooses the higher-wage workforce in our country, it's at
a disadvantage with competitors who choose the lower-wage workforce
offshore. Therefore, the choice must be made by all, and this
requires public intervention to raise working people's share of the
pie, which has severely eroded over the last 30-some years.
An increase in the minimum wage benefits those employees at the
bottom and just above it, not most employees. To benefit most
employees, the general level of wages must rise. However,
it's impossible for the government to mandate the appropriate wage
for every job, and a general rise in pre-profit wage costs will
make American businesses less competitive globally. Perhaps
other measures would work.
One way would be to set US tariffs based on the wage difference
between American production workers and foreign production workers
for the same product, to reduce imports from low-wage
countries. This would require withdrawing from some
international trade agreements; it can be done. However, it
would also create a major obstacle to development in the "Third
World", thereby disadvantaging the poorest people on our
planet. For the sake of those poorest, the tariff could be
reduced for some countries as a means of foreign aid until a
country's economy "takes off". Simply reducing our trade
deficit would keep more money in our country, to the benefit of
businesses, households, government at all levels and
non-profits. This would compensate for the rise in prices,
but maybe not enough, and it would reduce the economic progress of
developing countries. Therefore, a higher minimum wage is a
mixed bag.
Another way would be to mandate profit-sharing by American
companies and by foreign companies that employ Americans. A
wage increase is a fixed cost which may increase prices;
profit-sharing is not. Although it would reduce the retention
of profits for further investment, there is no shortage of capital
available from investors to enable a company to modernize, expand
production and buy other companies. This would draw more
capital away from zero-sum trading and into productive investment,
which is as socially desirable as is sharing of the pie with
working people. There are options for many aspects of
profit-sharing, such as sharing a fixed percent of profits vs. on a
sliding scale based on a measure of profitability, allocating
profit shares equally to all employees vs. in proportion to their
base wage, allocating to company employees only vs. to individual
independent contractors and to employees of sub-contractors as
well, allocating profit shares quarterly vs. annually, and so
on. The total amount shared should not be tied to the
company's stock price, because that is too volatile in response to
traders' sentiment and ambient interest rates, usually over-stating
or under-stating the company's profitability. As company
profit fluctuates, profit-sharing would adjust total compensation
costs automatically, minimizing layoffs while increasing workers'
share of the pie. It would also incentivize employees to
improve their employer's success. Everyone would benefit.
Another way would be to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC) and expand it to employees with middle as well as low
income. This would have no negative effect on business
profits or on the retention of those profits for further
investment. However, it would transfer the cost back to the
general public who are supposed to benefit from it, unless it were
paid for entirely by a tax surcharge on high-income individuals
and/or by a tax on accumulated wealth above some reasonable
level. It would also require workers to apply for it, and
those whose income is now too low to owe income tax would have to
file a tax return, which many may be unable to do without
assistance. On the other hand, this might entice some people
out of the underground economy.
On balance, better pay would be better than an expanded EITC,
because generally people feel better about themselves when they are
paid well for their work, more so than when they need to ask for a
government benefit, and public morale is an important factor in
quality of life, social stability and the economy. And
profit-sharing would be better than higher fixed wages because of
the incentive factor and the automatic adjustment as profits
fluctuate.
Something must be done to increase wages. Working people,
retired working people and their dependents are the vast majority
of our people and therefore of our consumers. The well-being
of American businesses and therefore of the investor class (to use
George W. Bush's terminology), as well as of the employee/consumer
class, depends on it. More profit-sharing may be our best
solution. If national, state and local governments have the
authority to mandate a minimum wage, they can also mandate a share
of profits.
Congress Rep Judy Chu has a job opening (2-26-16): Description:
Field Representative/Caseworker monitors and updates the Member on
district and local issues. The staffer will act as a liaison to
federal, district, and local agencies for the Member and
constituents, and answer casework correspondence and verbal
communications with constituents. The staffer will also handle
event planning and logistics for community meetings and various
outreach programs for the Member. Strong oral and written
communication skills, sound political judgment and ability to work
closely and collaboratively with district and D.C. staff are
essential. Knowledge of the cities of Pasadena, Altadena, and the
27th District, along with local, state and federal agencies and
departments are also a plus. Please submit your cover letter and
resume to [email protected] or fax to 626-304-0132. No
phone inquiries.
Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?
Let ‘Em Hear from You!
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Renew Your Membership Now, Here!
Renew Your DCC Membership Today!
We have no corporate sponsors. Your membership dues pay all
DCC’s expenses that include our meetings, p.o. box, club charter,
storage space for our booths, publicity, political donations and
events such as Claremont’s July 4th celebration and Village
Venture. Take this opportunity to renew if you haven’t already done
so. Just complete and clip this form and mail it to DCC.
___Individual $30 ___Family $40 ___Contributing $50-99 ___Patron
$100-249 ___Lifetime $250___Student/Limited Income $5
Date_____________
Name_________________________________________________________________
Street Address or P.O.
Box________________________________________________
City, State and
Zip_______________________________________________________
Telephone(s)_____________________________Email__________________________
Occupation_____________________________Employer________________________
Mail this form with your check to: Democratic Club of Claremont,
P.O. Box 1201, Claremont, CA
The Voorhis Voice is published by the Democratic Club of
Claremont, PO Box 1201, Claremont CA 91711. The newsletter’s name
commemorates the late Jerry Voorhis, a talented and courageous
Congress member from Claremont.
Newsletter Editor: Ivan Light
[email protected]
�
