A Citizen’S Perspective: Society, Hypocrisy and the 2016 Election Season

By Paul Schwartz

This book is a compilation of my columns for the Montgomery County Sentinel during the period leading up to and including the 2016 election season.

These weekly columns for the Sentinel, which began in February of 2015, comprise the content of this book. The topics are topics that captured the attention of the members of our society. As such, these columns represent a snapshot of the issues we have faced and my analysis of them. I have categorized the columns under six themes relating to societal challenges, such as those that we experienced somewhat recently in Baltimore and Charleston; needed steps to improve our communities, such as our failing infrastructure; today's political landscape, including voter identification to fix a nonexistent problem; the impact of Supreme Court rulings; campaigns and candidate interviews; and the economy, which includes the ever-shrinking middle class and its relation to the Reagan cure-alltrickle-down economics. More than anything, these columns are intended to capture the hypocrisy rampant throughout today's society.

As you will see as you read these columns in order from earlier to later, some prognostication was a bit more accurate than others. Please consider the time frame within which each column was written as you read them.

While the columns cover more than just what has turned out to be a presidential election like no other before it, it is the 2016 election that is the main focus of this book. However, it was always my intention in writing these columns to capture the many challenges we face as a society, provide you with my own personal perspective on those challenges, and motivate the reader to consider widening his or her own perspectives on the various issues reflected in the columns.

I will leave it to the reader to determine if I succeeded.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Mar 14, 2017
• ISBN: 9781524587369

Paul Schwartz

Paul Schwartz has been married for more than forty years to his lovely wife Ruthy, has two children and six grandchildren, and currently resides in an historic little town in Montgomery County, Maryland which just happened to have served as the capital of the United States for one day on August 26, 1814 during the War of 1812. He was an official with the federal government for 37 years working for U.S. Customs at the World Trade Center in New York and, later, Headquarters in Washington. He served in the Department of Homeland Security when that Department was created in 2003 and completed his federal career at FEMA post Katrina. After his retirement from federal service, he became a member of a subcommittee for the National Commission on Children and Disasters, worked as an advocate for gun safety in the aftermath of the Newtown tragedy and worked to have passed Maryland's Firearms Safety Act of 2013, worked on President Obama's 2012 campaign and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh's successful 2014 campaign, has worked in support of Congressman John Sarbanes' efforts to reform campaign financing, is serving as the State Legislative Committee chairperson for the NARFE Maryland Federation, and is currently a member of Montgomery County's Committee on Public Election Funds...AND he is very proud to be a weekly columnist for the Montgomery County Sentinel.

Book preview

Copyright © 2017 by Paul Schwartz.

Library of Congress Control Number:   2017902990

ISBN:      Hardcover           978-1-5245-8738-3

                Softcover            978-1-5245-8737-6

                eBook                 978-1-5245-8736-9

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 03/14/2017

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

752944

Contents

Foreword

Preface

Acknowledgement

Chapter One Politics 101

Voter Identification And The Right To Vote

March 12, 2015

In Or Out? Up Or Down? Left Or Right?

March 26, 2015

An Open Letter To 47 Republican Senators

April 9, 2015

A Conversation With David Axelrod

May 21, 2015

Actions Speak Louder Than Symbols

July 16, 2015

Congressional Doublespeak

August 13, 2015

The Patron Saint Of The Gop

August 20, 2015

The Art Of The Deal…

August 27, 2015

Trusting Iran Is Not The Point, Senator Cardin

October 1, 2015

Some Scandals Aren’t Scandals

October 15, 2015

Racism And Political Correctness

January 21, 2016

Chest Thumping Isn’t Leadership

January 28, 2016

Suffocating The Voice Of The People

February 4, 2016

The Many Ugly Faces Of Voter Suppression

March 24, 2016

Term Limits And Their Limitation

August 11, 2016

Trade Decisions Have Implications

August 18, 2016

The Return Of Voodoo Economics

August 25, 2016

Oh Hypocrisy Let Me Count The Ways

September 1, 2016

Instead Of Term Limits Consider Changing The Game With Public Finance

October 27, 2016

Chapter Two The Supreme Court, The Constitution, And You

It’s Not Government Buy The People

April 23, 2015

The Supreme Court And Health Care

May 14, 2015

Encouraging Supreme Court News

July 23, 2015

Montgomery County’s Model For Reform

August 6, 2015

Cherry Picking The Constitution Gets You Stones

September 10, 2015

The First Amendment And You

May 12, 2016

The Constitution For Now And Ever

September 8, 2016

Chapter Three Let The Campaigns Begin

Senator Mikulski And The Ensuing Dominoes

March 12, 2015

Raskin Seeking Congressional Seat

May 28, 2015

Barve Seeks A Step Up To Congress

June 18, 2015

Lessons For Democrats Running

July 2, 2015

Slithering Back From The Far Right

July 9, 2015

Kate Stewart Talks About The Issues

July 30, 2015

When Is A Republican Debate Not Really A Debate?

September 3, 2015

The Land Of Greedy Opportunity

September 24, 2015

Presidential Debate Finesse Rules

October 29, 2015

Fight For District 8 Is On

December 3, 2015

The Donald And His Cheap Labor Plans

January 7, 2016

A Review Of The Golden Rule

January 12, 2016

Keeping It Real In The World Today

February 11, 2016

And Then There Were None

March 3, 2016

The Subtle Art Of Debating

March 10, 2016

Looking At The Reasons Why People Opt To Vote

March 17, 2016

The Haunting Images Of Being Great Again

March 31, 2016

Finding A Case Where Trump Is Actually Sane

April 7, 2016

No Place For Distortion Politics

April 14, 20016

Seeing And Saying Something

April 21, 2016

The Case For Super Delegates?

April 28, 2016

Elections As Instructive Exercise

May 5, 2016

What Kind Of Fool Is Trump?

May 19, 2016

And Now Pinch-Hitting…

May 26, 2016

On The Road Again With Raskin

June 9, 2016

Yes Trump Can But No He Won’t

June 23, 2016

A Bid Of No Trump Beats Trump Every Time

July 21, 2016

In Hillary We Need To Trust

August 4, 2016

Questions Matt Lauer Won’t Ask

September 15, 2016

Recap Of The 2016 Election Before It Happens

September 29, 2016

Being Prepared Is The Key To The Debate

October 6, 2016

The Vice President Is Just A Heartbeat Away

October 13, 2016

And Now Playing The Delaney Election Card As We Head Into November

October 20, 2016

And Now For Something Completely Different

November 3, 2016

Raskin’s Victory Leads The State’s Progressive Charge

November 10, 2016

The Real Losers In The November Election—The Residents Of The United States

November 23, 2016

Off-The-Mark Yet Insightful!

December 1, 2016

Hope Rises From The Election Ashes

December 8, 2016

Sitting Down With Van Hollen

December 15, 2016

Some Numbers Behind The Unpredictable Election Of 2016

December 22, 2016

Take The Atticus Finch Approach

December 29, 2016

A Review Of The Golden Rule

January 12, 2016

Get An Advance On The Betting Line

January 19, 2017

An Inaugural To Be Remembered

January 26, 2017

A Ban By Any Other Name…

February 2, 2017

Call It Voter Suppression Not Fraud

February 9, 2017

The Federal Government: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?

February 16, 2017

Flattery Will Get You Nowhere

March 16, 2017

Chapter Four It Really Is About The Economy, Stupid

The Trickle-Down Apparently Doesn’t Extend To Higher Minimum Wages

February 27, 2015

For Whom The Tax Credit Tolls, It Tolls For Thee

March 26, 2015

Putting Security In Social Security

September 17, 2015

Of Caterpillars, Loopholes And Stump Speeches

January 14, 2016

Capitalizing On The Socialism Idea

February 18, 2016

If It Works There, It Should Work Here

February 25, 2016

Try Some Trickle Up Economics

January 5, 2017

Chapter Five We Can Do Better

The Wild, Wild West Is Unlimited

April 30, 2015

When The Walls Come A-Tumblin’…

June 4, 2015

The Quest For Affordable Housing

June 11, 2015

Court Watch Montgomery Is The Watch Dog Everyone Needs

October 8, 2015

Another Fine Mess

October 22, 2015

The Price Of Global Warming And Us

November 5, 2015

Atf, Time To Do Your Job On Guns!

November 12, 2015

Government Regulates Business For The Public Good

November 19, 2015

Brian Frosh And The Ag Office

June 2, 2016

Rules, Roles And Responsibilities

June 30, 2016

And Now The Latest In Big Pharma Policies

July 14, 2016

Where Have You Gone, Nra?

July 28, 2016

Chapter Six A Society Is Made Up Of More Than One

Violence And Riots And Life Outside

May 7, 2015

Racial Lessons From Charleston

June 25, 2015

Scotland Storm: Heroes Do Walk Among Us

November 26, 2015

On Syrians, Rationality Trumps Fear

December 10, 2015

Run, Hide, And Fight For Your Life

June 16, 2016

South Pacific Had It Right: We Have To Be Taught

July 7, 2016

The Case For An Independent Press

September 22, 2016

Chapter Seven America

Meet My Friend Saj—A True American

November 17, 2016

Epilogue—The Aftermath

To my son, Jared, the most positive person I have ever known and the one with the biggest heart

FOREWORD

It has been my privilege to work with Paul Schwartz during the last two years and have found few who can express their thoughts so vividly, so poignantly, and with as much insight as Paul provides his readers.

Inside these pages you will find yourself understanding how compassion can drive politics, while pragmatism can lead to an open mind and a progressive philosophy.

The key is understanding; and Paul not only gives his readers a progressive approach, but shows them how to think progressively.

Without preaching, Paul entertains, engages, and will appropriately enrage a reader to think about things in a different light.

Open your mind to the possibilities. Paul will be there to give you food for thought.

Brian J. Karem

Brian J. Karem

Best-Selling Author, TV Reporter, and

Managing Editor of the Montgomery County Sentinel

December 1, 2016

PREFACE

My entrance into the world of politics began when I was ten years old and my fifth grade teacher asked the class, What do we do on Election Day? My answer: We elect John F. Kennedy president. For those of you who witnessed that short time in Camelot, you will likely remember how inspiring, especially for the young and impressionable, that period of our political history was.

During the many years since that period, I have always remained aware of political activities and elections but never became politically active. That is not to say that it didn’t have an impact on me. It was JFK’s dedication to public service that I found inspiring and made me proud to have chosen a long career in government service. Maybe it was choosing a career with the federal government that made it more difficult, especially with the restrictions posed by the Hatch Act to be politically active.

That all changed, however, when I left government service after a thirty-seven-year career that included thirty years with the US Customs Service at both the World Trade Center and at headquarters in Washington, DC, three years with the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11 and being capped off with four years at FEMA post-Katrina.

This book is a compilation of my columns for the Montgomery County Sentinel during the period leading up to and including the 2016 election season.

These weekly columns for the Sentinel, which began in February of 2015, comprise the content of this book. The topics are topics that captured the attention of the members of our society. As such, these columns represent a snapshot of the issues we have faced and my analysis of them. I have categorized the columns under six themes relating to societal challenges such as those that we experienced somewhat recently in Baltimore and Charleston; needed steps to improve our communities such as our failing infrastructure; today’s political landscape including voter identification to fix a non-existent problem; the impact of Supreme Court rulings, campaigns, and candidate interviews; and the economy, which includes the ever-shrinking middle class and its relation to the Reagan cure-all, trickle-down economics. More than anything, these columns are intended to capture the hypocrisy rampant throughout today’s society.

As you will see as you read these columns in order, from earlier to later, some prognostication was a bit more accurate than others. Please consider the time frame within which each column was written as you read them.

While the columns cover more than just what has turned out to be a presidential election like no other before it, it is the 2016 election that is the main focus of this book. However, it was always my intention in writing these columns to capture the many challenges we face as a society, provide you with my own personal perspective on those challenges, and motivate the reader to consider widening his or her own perspectives on the various issues reflected in the columns.

I will leave it to the reader to determine if I succeeded.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank the editor of the Montgomery County Sentinel, Mr. Brian Karem, for his faith in me as a writer. It is that faith that gave me the confidence to put my feelings and positions on so many issues in writing and share them with the world—or at the very least the readership of the Montgomery County Sentinel.

I want to also thank my daughter, Marisa, for being my rock and the person that I love and respect more than any other. She is a true blessing to her parents and the most independent person I know.

—Paul

Chapter One

Politics 101

In this chapter, we delve into the hypocrisy of politics in general and how so many policy positions are dictated not by what is in the best interests of society but, rather, the best interests of a particular political party. The topics include interviews with players in the political arena as well as analyses of such controversial topics as the Iran nuclear deal, the assault of gerrymandering on democracy, and using political correctness as an excuse for racism. While we capture the actual 2016 campaigns in chapter 5, this chapter is intended to capture some of the key aspects of politics that may directly impact campaigns in general.

Voter identification and the right to vote

by Paul K. Schwartz

Sentinel Columnist

March 12, 2015

Fifty years after the historic march on Selma for voting rights, we should give pause and reflect how far we have come. This is how far: fifteen red states recently enacted voter I.D. laws to address a problem that does not seem to exist with a remedy that does not seem to address the non-existing problem. Confusing? Yes and even more so to the citizen who very much wants to exercise his or her right to vote in a process that is making it more difficult to do so, at least in some states.

The issue of voter I.D. requirements became a little more personal to me as a Maryland resident during the midterm election last November while serving as an election judge. The issue of voter I.D. and the fact that Maryland does not require the showing of a photo I.D. to vote was raised quite frequently throughout the day. My response was that a photo I.D. was initially provided upon initial voter registration and placement of an individual’s name and information in the voter poll book is the result of that registration. Moreover, if an individual’s name is not in the poll book, proof of I.D. would then be required.

If I were to have provided a more in depth response, I would have also pointed out that when the photo I.D., usually a driver’s license, was originally received by the individual, the I.D. used to secure it was most likely a birth certificate which does not have a photo. I could have also added that underage drinkers find it rather easy to obtain phony driver’s licenses and the election judge is not really in position to determine the validity of driver’s licenses.

However, the issue did cause me to give some thought to what could be accomplished if individuals did decide to pose as others, such as deceased voters, in order to sway the results of an election. To begin with, the individual would have to know the name, address, birth date, and polling location of the deceased individual or individuals in order to appear in the polling book. Moreover, the individual would also have to be of the same gender and of approximate age in order to pass as the deceased voter. However, to actually impact the results of an election would require a massive coordinated effort of thousands of individuals posing as others. The likelihood of such a massive effort being conducted without any leaks is highly unlikely in the age of social media, if not downright impossible.

The real issue, then, is not the effectiveness of voter I.D. requirements to address the problem of voter fraud, which review after review after review has indicated that this problem is so small as to be nonexistent. The real issue is why, then, is there such an effort to institute more stringent voter I.D. requirements along with curtailing early voting opportunities, reducing voting hours and the like. Since most of the voters that are affected by these new requirements are those who are less likely to possess a driver’s license, such as the elderly and the poor as just two examples, and who are more likely to vote democrat, the answer, regrettably, is to curtail voting all together.

For a nation that prides itself on its democratic values, stressing the will of the people as determined by the election of its leaders and representatives through one person one vote, these recent efforts to curtail the vote is distressing while certainly not new. Our nation’s history is littered throughout with efforts to curtail voting through such methods as the poll tax and literacy tests resulting in the need for the enactment of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution in 1964, which outlawed the poll tax and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which eliminated the literacy tests as a requirement for exercising a citizen’s right to vote. Moreover, the Voting Rights Act gave the federal government the authority to oversee voter registration and elections in counties, primarily located in the south, that had used tests to determine voter eligibility or where registration or turnout had been less than 50 percent in the last presidential election, which was in 1964. This authority, of course, has been severely weakened by a recent ruling by the Roberts.

Further, the enactment of both the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which provided the right to vote to the recently emancipated slaves regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which guaranteed the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, serves to indicate the many challenges to voting rights that needed to be overcome throughout our history as a democratic nation. The recent efforts regarding voter I.D. will be overcome as well.

New York City recently instituted a municipal I.D. program, which is aimed at individuals who do not currently have a government-issued identification including the elderly and homeless, as well as immigrants in the city. Although New York does not require voter I.D., the fact that city officials had to scramble to keep up with demand for these I.D.s serves as an indication of what might be expected if such I.D.s were to be offered to citizens in states with restrictive voter I.D. requirements.

Demands for these states to offer such options to supplement driver licenses to citizens who do not drive may very well be the next big voting rights effort.

In or out? Up or down? Left or right?

by Paul K. Schwartz

Sentinel Columnist

March 26, 2015

In today’s world of social media and the multitude of outlets for public discourse, how disturbing is it that much of our public discourse has been reduced to a dialog that consists of either being for or against without any consideration for the many nuances and issues that fall between those two extremes?

The current debate regarding the nuclear arms agreement being negotiated with Iran and its direct impact on the security of Israel provides just such an example. Is it really accurate to say that if you are attempting to negotiate a multinational agreement with Iran to negate its nuclear program, you are jeopardizing Israel’s security rather than as an attempt to enhance security by limiting nuclear capabilities of Iran? Granted, the devil is in the detail, and any intelligent analysis of the potential agreement cannot be made until after the agreement is completed and a detailed assessment of the controls that will be in place to ensure adherence to the agreement can be made.

However, the point is the issue is a great deal more complex than a simple either/or would serve. You are not for Iran and against Israel if you seek a negotiated agreement as some would have you believe.

On a similar note, a question can be posed about the two-state solution, which would create a separate Palestinian state. Does seeking the establishment of a second state comprised of a demilitarized zone serve as a threat to Israel’s security or as an attempt to enhance it? The current debate seems to indicate that you are against Israel if you are for a two-state solution or for Israel if you are against the two-state solution. Since the only other option that seems to exist is a military option, it is safe to say that pursuing an alternative to such an option would be preferable but only, once again, if adequate security controls are in place. Moreover, not agreeing with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s hard line stance against a two-state solution does not mean you are against Israel. It is possible to be against the Prime Minister’s positions on issues without being against the welfare of our ally, Israel.

Of course there are numerous examples in today’s public discord that illustrates my point about the either/or approach that we find in the current debate of issues. Other examples include the debate on gun safety legislation. If you are for gun control, then you must be for confiscation of every gun in every household across America; if you are not for gun control, then you must be for allowing guns in every place and in the hands of every individual across America. Is it possible to be for neither across the board confiscation of guns nor the across the board availability of guns while still seeing the benefit of closing the loopholes that allow individuals purchasing guns at gun shows or over the internet to circumvent the same checks that an individual who purchases a firearm from a licensed dealer is subjected to?

Is it possible that you are not either for Obama or against Obama, but that you can be for some of the positions he takes and question others? Is it possible that you can understand his position on immigration and his justification for taking it (deporting eleven million individuals is not going to happen for practical and economic reasons as much as policy reasons) while still question why he didn’t put up more resistance to the inclusion of legislation to roll back the protections of Dodd-Frank in the recent government funding bill? I think so.

Some people are of the opinion that compromise results in neither side getting what it wants and, therefore, each side becomes a loser. I strongly disagree. Compromise always results in lessening the degrees at both ends of the spectrum and results in achieving middle ground that is almost always of some benefit to most people. The question always posed in negotiations between two parties is Can you live with it? If Congress, and most Americans for that matter, incorporated gaining an understanding of the position of the other side during discourse, we, as a nation, would be in a much better position to address the many challenges we face as a nation.

An open letter to 47 Republican senators

by Paul K. Schwartz

Sentinel Columnist

April 9, 2015

Since 47 Republican Senators recently deemed it appropriate to correspond directly with Iranian leadership in a blatant attempt to undermine President Obama and the administration’s efforts as part of the multinational negotiations for an Iranian nuclear proliferation agreement, would it also be deemed appropriate for Iranian leadership to now correspond directly with those same Senate Republicans? If so, they might want to consider, in their correspondence, pointing out that the point of the debilitating economic sanctions imposed on Iran was to get Iran to the negotiating table, which is exactly what has occurred. They may also wish to point out that the economic sanctions were so effective that Iran has agreed to unfettered inspection and verification of its nuclear sites.

The more important question that needs to be asked is whether such a verification and inspection program makes it more or less likely that Iran could build a nuclear weapon; is Iran more likely to build a nuclear weapon in the presence of inspectors or would they be more likely to build one without an agreement in place and without the presence of inspectors? The answer seems to me to be quite obvious, especially when one considers that any breach of the pending agreement would result in reinstituting the economic sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.

Certainly the security of Israel is a major concern, but again, the question to be posed to the Senate 47 would be whether Israel is safer from a nuclear attack if this inspection/verification agreement is in place or if no such inspection/verification process is in place. Clearly, any agreement can be violated, and certainly trust in Iran is tenuous at best. However, another important question to ponder is why would Iran come to the negotiating table in the first place if it placed building a nuclear weapon to be used against Israel as a higher priority than re-entering the international economic community without the burden of the stringent economic sanctions that has seemingly brought Iran’s economy to its knees?

It is easy for many to simply write off any agreement with Iran based on Iran’s dubious history and its clear link to international terrorism. However, unless a viable alternative is offered, the only issue that really needs to be considered is whether the inspection process makes the world a safer place. Would not the world have benefitted greatly if the weapons of mass destruction inspectors had been allowed to complete their work back in 2003 rather that the military approach decided by the Bush-Cheney presidency? I think most Americans would agree that cost in lives and treasure made going into Iraq in 2003 may very well have been the greatest blunder in American history.

Most Americans would also probably agree that a military solution should never be the first option and should never be the option until all other options are exhausted. Besides, where would it end, or rather, where would it begin? The Middle East? Probably. Parts of Africa, like in Nigeria? North Korea? Drug cartels in South America? Maybe open carry states, or for that matter, maybe concealed carry states? Ah, so many choices. Maybe we need to give diplomacy a chance!

A conversation with David Axelrod

by Paul K. Schwartz

Sentinel Columnist

May 21, 2015

I recently had the opportunity to listen to David Axelrod, longtime advisor to President Obama and key strategist for both his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, speak about his new book Believer: My Forty Years in Politics. The event was sponsored by the Woman’s Democratic Club of Montgomery County and was quite enlightening.

Of particular interest to me was the issue of dealing with the rampant partisan politics within the beltway. In his book, Mr. Axelrod had indicated that one of the motivating factors convincing President Obama to run for the presidency was his sincere belief that he, as someone new to the beltway, could have a significant impact on cutting through the partisan politics that so stymies the ability of the federal government to get anything accomplished. Regrettably, the reality that is all too apparent to anyone following President Obama’s time in office is that this president has faced more blatant obstructionism than any other president in history, certainly any president in my own lifetime, which goes back to the Truman Administration.

The election of the first minority candidate for president, rather than serve to indicate how far we have come as a nation, served all too often to awaken in too many the desire to take us backwards to where we once were… 30, 50, 100, or even 200 years ago in areas such as race relations and how we react to the differences that exist among all of the various members of our society.

My question to Mr. Axelrod was simple: Knowing what we now know, how would you have advised President Obama differently in the early stages of his administration in dealing with the blatant partisan obstructionism intended to undermine any attempts by the president to move this country forward? I made it clear that this was not a trick question, Jeb Bush notwithstanding. His response was both extremely honest and, in my opinion, quite appropriate. His answer was I don’t know, and he didn’t know, he went on to say, because there really is no surefire way to deal with an opposition that won’t take YES for an answer.

If I could find one positive thing to say about the intentions of the opposition, it is that at least they didn’t try to hide them. They were quite upfront with their plan from the beginning, which was to win back the White House by blocking everything the President attempted to accomplish. As Mr. Axelrod indicated, Mitch McConnell made that strategy quite clear when he declared that his goal was to make this President a one-term president. Regrettably, this strategy is still being adhered to in a second term.

So how do we break through the obstructionism that plagues today’s beltway politics and all too often places party before the best interest of citizens? Mr. Axelrod did offer a solution, albeit one that requires time and dedication. His solution is bottom-up politics. Looking at local elections, whether for school board, City Council, and the like and working and voting for candidates who represent the best interests of citizens. It is local and state legislatures that serve as the breeding ground for the senators and representatives in the Congress of the future, and it is an investment well worth taking.

Mr. Axelrod also referred to the strategy used by Ronald Reagan to curry favor with what is now known as the Reagan Democrats of the southern belt through social issues. He did so not to win back that specific voting bloc as much as to use as an example of rallying a group around a specific set of issues. As the middle class continues to shrink as a result of the policies of the current Congress, the rallying point for those of us who consider ourselves still part of the middle class must be, according to Mr. Axelrod, around economic issues.

These, of course, would include the earned benefits we worked for, such as social security and Medicare, but they should also include recognizing the need for investment in education and infrastructure. It should also include a tax structure that rewards hard work over making money off of the money others earn. That tax structure should also reward investment in creating jobs in America while penalizing those companies who ship jobs overseas. Supporting candidates who understand and support these middle class issues when they are running for office at the lower echelons of the political spectrum is the most effective way to ensure that they make their way to the upper echelons of the political spectrum down the road.

Actions speak louder than symbols

by Paul K. Schwartz

Sentinel Columnist

July 16, 2015

The recent controversy regarding the displaying of the Confederate battle flag gave me cause to consider the difference between actions and mere symbols. The argument most given against removal