Political Endorsements: Providing the Masses with Bread and Circuses for Fun and Profit

 

Another Opinion has published an article like this in one form or another every election cycle since 2001 not just as a public service, but as part of the fight to save our Republic. Why? Because we now live in a world where independent thought is no longer considered "politically correct". We're expected to toe the line dictated to us by the Status Quo. America is no longer a Republic. It's a Corporatocracy run via diktat by a super rich Oligarchy.

There are just five of these corporations that control 96+% of all media content---TV, movies, video games, radio, publishing, newspapers and so on.  They have an incredably powerful ability to directly influence your opinions by controlling and spinning what you watch, read, or hear.  They keep you entertained, distracted, angry, confused, and ignorant of the real issues. Bread and Circuses. While they your attention, they try to influence your vote through their so-called "endorsements".

We have a problem with this. We believe you should make your own decisions based on your own research regardless of who you ultimately vote for. Independent thought  is important for our present if we are to have a future. Please consider sharing this article. Thank you.

BTW: The opinions expressed here are strictly my own.

 

Political Endorsements: Providing the Masses with Bread and Circuses for Fun and Profit

There was a time when the news media (particularly newspapers) were the ever vigilant "crusaders" of public morality, albeit self-appointed and as often as not, the creators of their own hype (see "Yellow Journalism"). However, society and technology grew up. Today, we are better informed that at any time in history.  We have instant access to information the world over, and with it, the ability to do own investigation of candidates and the issues which are important to us.

The media, especially newspapers, make endorsements to serve their agenda, not yours, although they try to make it sound one and the same.  For years, I've campaigned for the release of unedited transcripts of candidate interviews  and full disclosure of the interviewer's names and their political affiliations. The public has a right to know exactly what a candidate said and in what context, as well as political leaning of those making the so-called "endorsements".

I've been a community organizer and political activist for well over 40 years.  To many times over those years I've come across candidates who were misquoted, misattributed,  or instances  where the "correct" response was inserted while gaffs were carefully removed on behalf of certain candidates. In fact, I've been a victim of these manipulations. That's deception, whether intentional or not.

 Today, a handful of news and other media outlets are making public these interviews unedited and providing the facts behind their research in a timely fashion. They are also providing unbiased information regarding both side of key issues, particularly those that will be appearing on the ballot. To those brave few actual journalists and editors, bravo to you!  

However, not all are providing full disclosure of the names and political registration or leaning of the interviewers making the endorsements nor are they disclosing the criteria by which the endorsements are made. That remains hidden behind a false veneer of make believe "integrity"!  You-- the voter--have a right to know if an "endorsement" on an issue or candidate is honest and fair or is being made based on a political or economic bias.  

As I have done for decades, I'm urging voters to take a few minutes to do their own research in order to make an informed decision before casting their vote.  Using a Voter Guide is one such resource for you to consider.  You can check out a candidate's or issue's website, or do a general search on the internet. You'll find out a lot more than just reading or listening to a biased review or opinion.

As an aside, if you're looking at a political party's website or that of an endorsing organization, bear in mind that they are writing from their point of view. Any endorsements or opinions they make serve their interests, not necessarily yours.  Always understand the political slant of any source.

If you find that you happen to be in agreement with a candidate or issue, fine. Support that individual or issue as a volunteer  or with a financial contribution, a yard sign, or simply with your vote. But whatever you, do so as an informed voter. Don't let anyone think or decide for you. Never surrender your vote!

I also suggest that candidates or those representing an issue who are interviewed for an endorsement, especially by the news media, to be sure and write down the names of those conducting the interview. Ask if they will be making the endorsement. If not, who will?  Also ask when their recommendation will be announced. If you're being recorded for TV or radio, ask when it will be aired.

 Finally, when being interviewed for an endorsement, don't be afraid to ask what their political affiliation is. If they refuse to tell you, note that too. You may want to make this public  once the interview is over in order to keep everyone "above board" and honest. Keep it factual and to the point. Leave any personal opinions or animosity out of it. If your campaign depends on their recommendations, then you, your supporters and the voters deserve to know what to expect.

The role of the media, regardless of its format, is to present the facts in a impartial, balanced and fair manner. It is not to attempt to manipulate or sway public opinion to suit their  political or economic  agenda, even if they believe it's "for your own good".  Only you can decide what's in your own best interests.  

Organizations, including business associations and unions, have a specific agenda.They even create a myriad of fake "committees" for this or that to hype their agenda (made all the more powerful by the 2010 "Citizens United" blunder by the not-so-Supreme Court). It's in their economic interests to make these endorsements. They are responsible solely to their board of directors and/or the stakeholders, not the general public. 

But it's not the job of the news media, including newspapers, to push any agenda! Their one job should be to provide the public with honest and balanced information free of political bias and let the people decide, wouldn't you agree?  

Remember too that endorsements are merely ultimately personal opinions, often based on money and access to power, and those opinions aren't always the most informed! Think for yourself. Do your own research.  And then vote!  Your community and America are counting on you!

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

The Thinning Blue Line: The Growing Exodus of Police Officers

The Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) is down by 300 officers. With an authorized force of 1,328, it now has just 1,038. At the end of July this year, another 95 officers---sergeants, lieutenants, and administrative staff have the option to hang it up.  Why are so many experienced  police officers leaving?

The Louisville Metro Police Department has faced decades of mistrust from officers and the community going back to the city/county merger 2002 when dozens of county officers decided to leave rather than to be part of the newly created metro police department (which was, in fact, merely an expanded city police department). In many ways, the seeds of public distrust were planted in 1975/76 when officers were required to maintain order during the deeply opposed court ordered forced school busing.

However, it was the deaths of Breonna Taylor and David McAtee which ignited the exodus. Breonna Taylor was shot in May 2020 and killed in a botched police drug raid while Mr. McAtte, the owner of a popular BBQ restaurant in Louisville's predominately black West End, was killed in June by the Kentucky National Guard amid protests following Taylor's death (then police chief Robert White was fired shortly thereafter over the shootings, allegations of a cover-up, and concerns relating to unapproved overtime).        

To offset the shortages of officers, the city's Democrat mayor, Greg Fischer, and the Democrat dominated Metro Council authorized $218 million for the 2023 LMPD budget; $25 million more than it currently receives. This represents nearly 1/3 of the city's general fund. Nevertheless, shortages continue amid a complete distrust of top management, including the newly appointed Police Chief Erika Shields (she was the police chief, albeit an unpopular one, from Atlanta Georgia).

As an aside, the distrust and distain also extends to the current mayor, Greg Fischer as well. Fischer has been mayor since 2010 and has continued to earn poor marks in the city's low and middle class areas such as Okolona, Fern Creek, Valley Station, and Pleasure Ridge Park. His popularity among minorities as well as the police department and Metro Council (which has its own popularity problems) remain low.

LMPD has been looking for minority candidates to fill its depleted roll. It has dropped height, education, and test score requirements to make that happen, but with the shortages, almost anyone without a criminal record and in decent health will do (and even that's kinda sketchy). A new requirement say you can't "have used, possessed or sold a narcotic in the last six years"!  Like other police departments, the LMPD is trying to steal replacements wherever it can by offering lateral transfers higher salaries and improved benefit packages (fully funded pensions remain a ongoing problem)

June of 2022 had its largest new police class in three years---31 applicants, but that's far short of its previous class sizes of 48. Recently that number has been around 18 to 19 seats filled, making the 31 recruits appear increasingly more like an aberration rather than a correction.

The department remains predominately white and male (current recruitment is 71% white and male).  Females make up just under 14% of the force while men are over 86%. Whites in general (men and women) are almost 81% of the force. Blacks of both genders comprise 13.87% while 3.32% are Hispanic. Asians comprise 1.46% and Native Americans are just 0.20%.  The largest age "bubble" is between 26 and 45 years old.  

As stated above,  the money situation has improved.  The average salary after two years is now $71k plus benefits, which is a significant improvement, but the long hours, lousy shifts, and high stress environment of police life remain. LMPD Union President Ryan Nichols calls the retention situation  "dire" and added that at the present rate, the matter could become catastrophic in short order.

Minneapolis was the epicenter of the police protests. It's where George Floyd was killed in May 2020 by Officer Derek Chauvin, one of four officers called to investigate a possible counterfeit $20 dollar bill by a store clerk.  Floyd was subsequently detained (Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds) and died shortly afterwards (an autopsy found drugs in his system which were likely strong contributing factors to his death). Since the incident which captured the world's attention. Minneapolis has lost well over 300 of its officers.

Police retirements have jumped by 45% and resignations have increased 18%. The western Minneapolis community of Morris will disband its police force after 140 years of service by the end of the year. The reason? Not enough officers. The 5,200 strong community will use the Stevens County Police Department for its law enforcement needs.

With the decline in officers, amid demands to "defund the police" and "community monitoring", crime has skyrocketed across Minneapolis. Last year there was a record number of murders---62.  As of this March, there were 55. Carjackings for 2021 totaled 2,423. In the first third of 2022 there had already been over 3,000! 4,969 assaults were reported in 2021. By the end of the first quarter, there were already 5,573 with no relief in sight.

Back in Louisville, the situation isn't any better.  Louisville is ranked as one of the most dangerous cities in the country (in one report where "100" was the safest and "0" was basically a Dodge City, Louisville was ranked "5"). Another national site rated Louisville an "F" when it came to crime (along with its school system). Louisville's murder rate is more than double the national average and exceeds much larger cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Atlanta.

Violent assaults in Metro Louisville are also double the national average as are carjackings. Rapes, thankfully, are well below the national average while armed robberies, burglaries and thefts are all about 25% higher than average.

In Asheville North Carolina, more than 1/3 of the police force has quit, resigned, or retired. In New York City, one of the largest police departments in the nation, 2,600 officers called it quits in 2020. In Seattle, resignations and retirements more than tripled, 219 compared to 77. In Philadelphia, which has been racked by an increase in crime, has seen over 79 officers take early retirement thus far this year.

Chicago, a city notorious  for its crime and corruption, has been hemorrhaging police officers and civilian staff. As of April 2022, 300 officers had left. In March there were 11,669 men and women in blue. In 2021 there were 12,739, down 560 from the year before, which was further down 749 from 2019!  For 30 years, the city has never had less than 12,000 officers on duty. Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown called the exodus "generational", meaning it wasn't just the rookies leaving or the "old timers". It's across the board with newbies and experienced officers turning in their badges, along with staffers.

The reason for the mass departure of officers stems from several factors, but most notably from Mayor Lori Lightfoot's edict that everyone had to be vaccinated against Covid-19 whether they wanted to be or not. In addition, the department has seen its budget repeatedly sliced amid calls to "defund" the police (in 2020 the budget was cut by $59 million), along with an increase of assaults, mandatory overtime and a reduction in compensation.

San Francisco is facing a massive exit of police officers. San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott said that he's worry that nearly a quarter of the departments staff will walk out as their early retirement dates near.  Thus far, the city is already down by 600 officers with more expected to leave, and it gets worse.

According to Chief Scott, for every 50 officers leaving, only about eight to ten recruits are taking their place (on average, about 25 apply with roughly half being cut for one reason or another before graduating). Like most other cities, San Francisco is trying to lure officers from elsewhere with offers of more money and benefits thanks to an increased budget.

However, as Chief Scott admits, he's competing with nearly every other police department in the nation. He's also faced with the fact that San Francisco is one of the most expensive place in the country to live, especially if you're coming from out of state. As an aside, in a recent poll, 65% of residents in the Bay Area said that fear of crime was what kept them from coming to downtown San Francisco

According to the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington DC based policy institute, a study of 200 departments nationwide showed retirements (regular and early) were up 45% while resignations rose by 18% over the period from April 2020 to April 2021. In departments with more than 500 officers, the retirement rate was over 30% while new recruitments were under 5%. Those are unsustainable numbers.

Cities like Louisville and Minneapolis weren't the only ones with out of control crime in the face of fewer officers. According to the Police Executive Research Forum, most communities were experiencing a sudden increase in violent crimes like murder, shootings, and carjackings, as well as thefts after the mandatory Covid quarantines were lifted. Large cities have had a 24% increase in killings thus far in 2022, which followed a 30% increase in 2021. By the way, don't think for a moment that criminals aren't paying attention to and targeting these areas where officer shortages are occurring. 

Yes, it's true that the police are increasingly militarized, but they face criminals and gangs with the firepower of professional militias.  According to the FBI, in 2021 129 officers died. Of those, 73 were killed in the line of duty (23 of those were unprovoked attacks while 8 were ambushed). 56 died in accidents (17 of those were pursuits or  were responding to a crime in progress). This total represents 27 more deaths in the line of duty than in 2021.

In today's two tier judicial system, too often the testimony of someone is devalued or their guilt is determined based on the perceived income level, origin, or color of their skin while an officer, politician, or judge walks despite evidence of their guilt. Meanwhile, the wealthy and powerful don't even come close to facing the same "justice" ordinary citizens deal with and even fewer face the true consequences of their actions. 

Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions. The deaths of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, David McAtee, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, or Tamir Rice and others are more than regrettable. They are a national tragedy, as is every lost life due to a crime. Many were, for the most part, avoidable.  However, not all the blame belongs on the shoulders of the police. 

First and foremost is restoring discipline and respect for authority at home and in the schools. There's a direct correlation between doing what a teacher tells you and what a police officer tells you. However, the repercussions can be much worse.  When a cop tells you to do something, stop what you're doing, don't mouth off, and do what you're told. You keep your hands where they can be clearly seen. Don't make sudden moves, and you sure as heck don't run! I can guarantee that you're not faster than a 9mm and you're sure as hell not bulletproof. This isn't about race, gender, religion, or anything else. It's about keeping everyone safe.

 In most cases you'll get a warning or ticket and sent on your way. Get cocky, you may get a free ride downtown. If you do something stupid, you may get a trip to the hospital or morgue. If there's a problem with the stop, go see a lawyer as soon as you can and let them handle it. Otherwise chalk it up to experience. It's better to be a live plaintiff than a dead victim.

Yes, police officers and first responders need more diverse hires along with diversity training. In fact, I think everyone needs diversity training. Perhaps it should be a mandatory class in high school alongside ethics and civics. Everyone is deserving of respect and even some empathy, but not due to some misplaced sense of entitlement or self importance. But because it's the right thing to do as a human being. However, respect and empathy are a two way street. If you want it, you have to give it.

Police officers are resigning or retiring enmasse because to significant degree the public has turned against them, thanks in large part to the media. They have lost the public's respect.  Calls to defund the police force has resulted in a decrease in their ability to do their job, which is to keep the public safe and maintain order. They also must deal every day with people under the worse of circumstances. That's where the empathy comes in.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

LMPD ramps up recruitment in face of shortage

'We're at a dire level': Nearly 100 LMPD officers eligible to retire as staffing shortages continue

LMPD Demographics August 2022

 

Why Police Have Been Quitting in Droves in the Last Year

 

Minneapolis Police Department Down 300 Officers from spring2020

Minneapolis DataSource: Crime Dashboard

AreaVibes: Louisville, KY Crime

Chicago Police Staffing hits new low...

SFPD chief worries about loss of hundreds of officers amidstaffing shortages

Two Peas in a Pod: Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell

Two of the most disliked members of the dishonorable elite are Representative Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco and Speaker of the House, and the Republican Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader.

Nancy Pelosi has been a member of House since 1987, and for much of her time in office, she has held one of the most powerful positions in Congress, Speaker of House (2007 - 2011 and 2019 - Present). She is also one of the wealthiest members of Congress, which is saying something given that Congress is the bastion of millionaires to begin with.

According to Open Secrets, Pelosi is the sixth wealthiest member of Congress. She has an estimated net worth of $135 million dollars. She makes $210,000 from her position in Congress. However, her monthly income from investments brings in $1 million dollars. It's worth noting that her portfolio includes investments in IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, Bank of America, and General Electric; all part of the ruling Corporatocracy which pulls Congress's purse strings.  

As an aside, Pelosi has been consistently one of the most disliked members of not just the House, but Congress of years. So how does she manage to keep getting reelected?  Pelosi's is from San Francisco's 12th District, which covers the entirely of the city itself, and thus is 100% urban; the fertile soil of the Democratic Party. The median income is just under $121,000.

Despite her strict Italian Catholic upbringing, Pelosi represents an extremely liberal district, reflecting its racial and cultural makeup. It is one of the so-called major "sanctuary" cities, offering support to illegal immigrants in violation of federal immigrations laws and still receiving federal dollars, thanks to people like Pelosi.  

Racially it's mainly white at 43.5%, followed by Asian with 31.9%, Hispanic 14.3%, black at 5.4%, and mixed race making up 3.9%. Males comprise 51.3% of population while females are 48.7%. With a population of 771,000, it has one of the highest LGBQT concentrations in the country.

 When it comes to voter registration, just under half of district's residents are either registered to vote (total voter registration is 425,290). With its well earned liberal tradition, it's not surprising the 12th District is overwhelmingly Democrat with 57.50% of the voters. Republicans make up just 6.61%, followed by Independents with 1.65%.  Pelosi won her last race in 2020 with a commanding 74% of the vote.

So, the only way Pelosi can lose is if a strong and very wealthy Democratic candidate runs against her, which is unlikely to happen (in addition, Pelosi is very good friends and neighbor with former San Francisco mayor and current senator, Diane Feinstein).

As for Mitch McConnell, he's been a member of what's been called "the most exclusive private club in the world" since 1985; representing Kentucky's 4th Congressional District, which includes upper incomes of eastern Jefferson County, and much of Northern Kentucky extending to the Ft. Thomas, Newport, and Covington (all of which are considered part of the Greater Cincinnati area).

Aside from the wealthy portions of Louisville/Jefferson County, the 4th Congressional District in general is well to do, especially the areas close to Cincinnati. It is also one of the first Congressional districts in Kentucky to become solidly Republican in what was once a hardcore Democrat state (albeit a fairly conservative one).

In terms of registration, the 4th Congressional District has 619,460 registered voters. Of that, 49.50%  are Republicans. Democrats make up 38.31%, while Independents and third parties (most notably the growing Libertarian Party) comprise a total of 12.19% of voters.  

It's worth nothing that Louisville/Jefferson County, which is Kentucky's largest city and the economic engine of the state, is one of the last Democratic bastions remaining in a de facto red state. While there are pockets of traditionally liberal Democrats (notably in the city's Highlands), most residents tend to lean conservative on the majority of issues.

Louisville also has the highest concentration of LGBQT individuals as well, who are known to be very politically active and predominately Democrat. Nevertheless, it appears that the 80 year old senator's base is pretty secure for the foreseeable future. As for his approval rating, that's something altogether different.

Like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senator Mitch McConnell is one of the most unpopular individuals in Congress. In a December 2021 Gallup Poll, McConnell came in first place (or should that be last place?) as the most disliked person in Congress with an approval rating of 34%. For what it's worth, Pelosi was second place with 40%. Chief Justice John Roberts was the most favorable with 60%, but that was, of course, before the Roe v. Wade decision.

Even at home, the Senator's disapproval rating hovers around a 53%, and yet despite the best efforts of Democrats, he keeps winning (when I say "best efforts", it's usually political retreads or inept newbies harping on the wrong message). Nationally, it gets worse. In a May 2022 survey, the Senior Senator's approval rating was a mere 28%.  To stay in office, despite poor approval ratings, takes a lot of money, and Senator McConnell easily makes bank. Who are his biggest donors?

The majority of McConnell's donations come from Wall Street, especially banks and other financial institutions, including healthcare and real estate investment firms. Other top donors include insurance, energy and technology companies which contributed $6.3 million dollars in 2020.

Some of the top donors include the financially powerful Blackstone Group, Humana, NorPac, and Kindred Health. One of the largest is Kent Companies, a third generation family owned construction company based in Midland Texas. It has donated $6.94 million dollars into McConnell's war chest.

Other donors include BlueCross/Blue Shield, AT&T, Goldman Sachs, UPS, Brown-Foreman, Citigroup, General Electric, Peabody Energy, FedEx, and  JP Morgan and Chase. With all those "political investors" in Mitch McConnell, just how much money does he have in his war chest?

When combined with the Senate Leadership Fund (a super PAC), One Nation (a political nonprofit fund), McConnell controls just under $90 million dollars (or $87.5 million to be precise) as of January 2022.  In 2021, he raised a total of $100 million dollars which he used, in part, to help fellow Republicans in Congress with their re-election efforts. Is it any wonder the Kentucky senator so strongly supported Citizens United?

As for the senator himself, he's done alright personally. According to an article by Forbes, Mitch McConnell earns $200,000 annually as senator. With investments, his monthly income is $900,000. His Wall Street investments exceed approximately $25 million dollars in stocks and bonds. Overall, his net worth is around $150 million dollars, making him the 19th richest member of Congress.

Irrespective of their popularity ratings, Pelosi and McConnell have done quite well in politics. The same can be said for Congress in general where more than half were millionaires going in and practically all are coming out. Compare that to just 8% of the total population who are millionaires, and you'll have to agree that Congress doesn't even begin to represent most Americans. They have little or no concept what the average American goes through on a daily basis just to make ends meet. That's mostly thanks to Citizens United.

That fact that these individuals who make up the House of Representatives and Senate can have a reelection percentage of over 90% despite sustained dismal approval ratings under 30%  is due to partisan gerrymandering and (again) Citizens United, not to mention unregulated term limits which allows them to hold office practically forever no matter how poor their performance. Isn't it time for a change?

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

Justice Roberts Tops Federal Leaders in American Approval

Nancy Pelosi Net Worth 2022: Salary Stock Portfolio Wealth

Favorability of Mitch McConnell among U.S. adults, as of May2022

McConnell-aligned groups build $87.5m war chest to spend onwinning Senate majority

Congressional Stagnation in the United States

The Upcoming Primary Elections and What's At Stake

Five states have primary elections on May 17th. A few have already had theirs while others are yet to come. Primaries are notorious for having low turnouts, which is a shame. They determine our choices in general election. Primaries offer us the best opportunity to decide who we want to represent us verses who the party wants to represent them.  

Did you know that out of the 30 most populous cities in the US, most are non-partisan? We're talking about cities like Los Angeles,  Chicago,  San Francisco, Jacksonville Florida, Boston Massachusetts, Seattle and Portland Washington, Nashville Tennessee, and most of the cities in Texas. In fact, of the top 30, only seven are partisan. The most notable of which is New York City. So too is Louisville Kentucky.

However, it may surprise you to know that not all of Kentucky's elections are partisan. In fact, according to the Kentucky League of Cities, of Kentucky's 416 cities, only seven hold partisan elections, including Louisville, which is the state's largest city, economic engine, and one of the few remaining Democrat stronghold.

Lexington, Kentucky's second largest city with a population of just over 322,000, is governed by a 12 member non-partisan metro council and mayor while Louisville, with a population of just under 619,000, has an oversized 26 member metro council and mayoral office dominated by Democrats (the last Republican mayor was elected in 1965). Most of the city's political clout tilted toward the predominately black and Democrat West End and the largely white and well-to-do Republican East End with the mixed middle, especially in the southwest part of the county, largely underrepresented.

Judicial races are officially non-partisan, although political persuasion does creep in and while judicial candidates are prohibited from openly divulging their political affiliation, it's generally obvious when you listen to their answers to questions or notice what meetings they attend (a review of their campaign finances is another good clue). However, several states are experimenting with the notion to allow judicial races to be partisan (or at least, allow judicial candidates to reveal their party affiliation).         

The reason cited is that it would allow voters to choose judges who are more closely aligned with their political, social, and moral ideology. Opponents, however, cite this as being dangerous as it would create a more biased bench and would impact the ability to receive a fair hearing. Rather than cases being heard and decided on the merits of the case, decisions from the bench could be based on ideological leanings.

 It's kind of like the media (especially newspapers) which are suppose to be non-biased and report just the facts, their political bias is often laid bare for all to see, if not in the slant of their articles, then definitely in their so-called endorsements which are aimed at influencing the electorate if not outright manipulating the vote.

Nevertheless, I think judicial races should be non-partisan and impartial whenever and as much as possible. People need to know they are getting a fair and honest hearing. It's bad enough that we have a two tier legal system, one for the ruling elites and one for the rest of us, without worrying that the judge sitting before us is already biased toward me for some position me or my attorney might hold.

Along the same lines, certain elected or even appointed political positions should be the non-partisan too. For instance, The Secretary of State, which is in charge of elections in most states should be non-partisan. It doesn't create or set policy. It merely enforces existing policy set forth by the state legislature and the governor. There is no reason that the office of Secretary of State should be encumbered with the usual partisan biases when it's suppose to represent all registered voters.

While not elected, often the Board of Elections is appointed based on political party. While they don't make laws, they are there to ensure elections are as fair and honest as possible. However, typically only Democrats and Republicans are represented, which is in itself inherently biased and unfair.

Not everyone is a Democrat or Republican. In fact, nationally, the majority of registered voters are Independent (Independents also make up majority of registered voters in 11 states). Typically Independents and third party members are lumped into which of the two corporate parties are the smallest and ignored. That's not right. They should have their own appointed board representatives.

While we're on the topic, in many states, Independents and third parties are required to jump through an inordinate number of hoops just to get on the ballot. If the Democrat or Republican needs three signatures to file for an office, an Independent or third party candidate may have to have 50. Not only is that wrong, it's possibly illegal.

And another thing. Primaries. Did you know that primaries for the two corporate parties are paid for by you---the taxpayer? Well, they are. However, if you're a Independent you are prevented from voting in most states despite the face you still have to pay for the primary. That's known as a "closed primary" (Kentucky and eight other states have a closed primary).That's taxation without representation and that's wrong.

In the 30 states with open or semi open primaries, Independent and non-party registered voters can choose which of the two primaries they can vote in. Both parties, of course, want to prohibit open primaries as much as possible because, if allowed, more voters will leave either party and, who knows, voters may ultimately demand that the two parties pay for their own primaries!

Whatever is required of a Democrat or Republican candidate should be required of an Independent or third party candidate. Independents and third party members should also be appointed to boards and commissions the same as a Democrat or Republican. No more. No less. We need a level playing field laws at the national and state levels.

In addition to the Secretary of State's office, the same holds true for the city or county clerk's office. They typically oversee vehicle licenses and registrations, marriage licenses, deed records, and voter registration. Why should this office be partisan?  The same goes for Circuit Court Clerk, which should be totally impartial, and thus non-partisan. 

The Property Evaluation Administrator is another one of those offices which don't set policy. They assess property---commercial, personal, and vehicle--- for tax purposes. They don't establish law. They just follow existing laws as laid out by the state legislature, and there's not a reason in the world it should be partisan.

Other offices which should be non-partisan including county/city attorney, the sheriff's office, State Treasurer, Agriculture Commissioner, State Attorney General, county/city coroner, county surveyor, Justice of the Peace, Constable, and State Auditor. Not of these elected offices deliberate legislation and thus should be non-partisan.

 In some jurisdictions nationwide, county commissioners and school board members are partisan. Why is that? They merely enforce what has already been laid out for them by the state legislature or municipal government (such as the city aldermen or state assembly).

Personally, I believe that anyone elected to office should be required to take an oath to represent all their constituents. In our "winner-take-all" political system, only those who belong to the winning party are represented, be it for two, four, or six years. I should clarify that only the corporate clique behind the winning party's candidate are actually represented.

You, the voter, are only along for the ride for which you may or may not received some benefit. Those on the losing side are not represented by anyone. Therefore, by renouncing their partisan allegiance, the winning candidates has an obligation to serve everyone.

There are things we can do to restore the Republic as well as our state and local governments. Moving beyond partisan bickering and corporate control is key. We need to ensure that every voter is equally represented. That means passing laws which ensure level playing fields for everyone with no one party or candidate having an advantage over the other.

It means de-politicalization of certain offices which don't make laws. It also means winning candidates resigning from their party and taking an oath to represent everyone regardless of their registration. 

Of course, there are other things we can do such as eliminate partisan gerrymandering which seeks to allow parties to pick their voters instead of voters picking their candidates. We can adopt rank choice voting which would eliminate the need for partisan primaries by ranking candidates by preference with the top ranked candidate winning (party isn't shown). In the case of a tie, there would simply be a run off the same way. It would also go a long way to ending rigged elections.

We can demand term limits, referendums and voter initiatives. Of course, one of the most important things we can do is insist that Congress introduce legislation to void Citizens United, which was one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court (and it goes to show how those with lifetime appointments or unlimited terms are so out of touch with reality).

Citizens United declared that corporations are defacto "people", with greater rights than you or me. The Supreme Court equated money with free speech, except that corporations are free to voice as much "speech" as they like while common citizens remain capped (not like we could match the millions they donate anyway).

Citizens United effectively removed citizens from the election process. It has contributed to putting the cost of running for office beyond the means of the average citizen so that only the wealthy can afford to run for office.  It ensured that we are ruled---not governed---by a permanent political class that has nothing in common with the average working class man or woman. Citizens United was the catalyst which transformed our Republic into their Corporatocracy, managed by an elite oligarchy which has no obligation to you or me.  

None of these suggestions are impossible. Not a single one is beyond our ability to achieve. But it won't happen on its own. The ruling elites and their corporate backers will do whatever they must to keep and expand their control. They've made that abundantly clear. But if we join together, we are unbeatable.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

National League of Cities: Partisan vs. Non-PartisanElections

Kentucky League of Cities: Elections

10 new state laws shift power over elections to partisan entities

NCSL: State Election Primary Types

Paying Your "Fair Share" of Property Tax: But Is It Fair to All?

 

This week we're going to veer off of our usual topics. As readers of Another Opinion know, most of our articles are national or global in nature. This week we are going to focus on something a little closer to home; some a bit more personal. Taxes.

Just over 200 hundred years ago, our nation kicked off a revolution against the most powerful country on the planet, England. What provoked us, a nation of farmers and merchants, to the point where we were willing to take on the highly disciplined and superbly equipped British army?  

The British monarchy, under King George III, and Parliament had repeatedly tried to impose taxes on the colonists without our consent. The colonist saw themselves as British subjects, no different than someone living in London or York, with the exception that they had no say when it came to taxation.

The Crown, which believed it wasn't answerable to the common working class, and especially to those thousands of miles across the Atlantic, felt justified in the imposition of taxes. After all, the British Crown had spent hundreds of millions of dollars and doubled their national debt to defend the colonists from the expansion of France into the western regions of the colonies and parts of Canada, with Native American support, killing or capturing settlers and burning settlements. This was known as the "French and Indian War" and the "Seven Years War", which lasted from 1756 until 1763.

Although the Britain ultimately prevailed, and in doing so, acquired additional territory in Canada and Florida (from the Spanish; an offshoot of the Seven Years War, lasting from 1762 to 1763), secured the Ohio Valley, and opened up the Mississippi Valley for further exploration and expansion. However, the war nearly bankrupt the Royal treasury. The taxes the Crown attempted to impose was to replenish the treasury. It was seen as being for the "common good", while those who opposed the taxes were viewed as "selfish" or "ungrateful" and disloyal to the Crown.

From the colonist's perspective however, they resented the fact that the Royal Government didn't take into consideration the cost already borne by the colonists. First, they already paid taxes to the crown. Secondly, the war was fought here, not in England or continental Europe. It was their homes and so forth which were affected, not to mention disrupting businesses and trade which negatively affected their income.

Lastly, but most importantly, the imposition of new taxes not just presented an additional hardship on the colonists, but they weren't even consulted; something they felt was the least the Crown should have done. Now, while each of the colonies had a representative or agent in London, most were beholden to the Crown, and thus, did little or nothing on behalf of the colonies.  It was Founding Father, James Otis Jr, who, given the situation, first coined the phrase "taxation without representation is tyranny". 

Where I live, here in Kentucky, we just received our property tax bill. For those of you unaware of what  a property tax, it's a additional tax homeowners pay for the privilege of owning their own property. The tax, which is usually collected by the County Sheriff, is calculated based on the appraised value of your home and property. The appraisal is done by the local government.  No conflict of interest there (sarcasm intended).

The property tax is broken down to indicate who gets what of your money. A portion covers state real estate tax, a metro real estate tax, a fire department tax, and a school tax. For those over 65, there is a homestead exemption deducted from the gross tax amount. You also have to pay interest, which goes to the local government, if your payment is late.

As an aside, Kentucky ranks nationally 23rd when it comes to property tax rates. Neighboring Indiana ranks 22nd while Ohio ranks 39th and Tennessee comes in 15th. The lowest tax rates are (surprisingly), Hawaii, Alabama, and Colorado. The highest are New Jersey, Illinois, and New Hampshire.

Most everyone here in Kentucky have come to accept that property is the penalty for owning property, though some would consider it simply the price you pay for a society just as you pay a tax when you buy a vehicle, you pay an annual licensing tax for that vehicle, and you pay a gasoline tax to drive that vehicle.  

The issue, however, is not the tax itself, although there are surely a more equitable way to tax citizens such as through a flat or consumption tax. But most people were outraged at the unexpected increase in their property bill, especially the school tax which increased about 9%, which brings up another point.

What about those who either don't or ever had children in school anywhere in the state? Those who had children in school have surely paid their fair "pound of flesh". But now that their children are grown and out of school, why do they have to pay the same as some who has three or five or however many children in school?  Why do those without children pay the same rate at those who do? Why do seniors or those on fixed incomes have to pay the same percentage of school tax as those who are working?

It would seem that if seniors are afforded a exemption on the overall property tax, they should also be exempt from paying a school tax, or at the very least, pay a reduced percentage. The same goes for those who never had children in school.  No one denies that schools generally benefit society though it's the students themselves who benefit the most. Without a adequate education, they are unlikely to find a job that pays much more than minimum wage or meaningfully contribute to society. However, it's the tax rate which is inequitable and unfair.

Secondly, the increase was done without the consent of the us, the taxpayers. Existing law says that certain entities can request and receive an increase up to 7% without approval of the voters. I've long opposed that. While it may be viewed as a "hassle" by various special interest groups and government officials, I believe that any increase in taxes, rates, fees, or salaries of elected officials must have our consent. It's our money, and we all know how politicians are when it comes to money.

However, that's unlikely to happen unless voters ban together. The state legislature is loath to give voters more control over our tax dollars or a greater voice on the issues by "allowing" us to have voter referendums (currently voters have to get a petition together with appropriate number of signatures and present it to a member legislature like some medieval supplicant and say "pretty please" to get it on the agenda to be heard and voted on). The same can be said of local governments too.

Voters should have the right to have an issue placed on the ballot without being on bended knee before some self important elected official. Yes, a realistic number of signatures should be required and the issue (as it will appear on the ballot) should be reviewed by either the local county attorney for a local issue or the state attorney general for a statewide matter to ensure that it's legal. I think voters are capable of making up their own minds without the guiding hand of government.

So, what do you think? Should the citizenry have been alerted of the coming tax increase and given an forum to comment? Should those with no children in school, seniors or those on fixed incomes be either exempted  from or at least afforded a discount on the school tax? While nobody wants to pay taxes, they should, at the very least, be fair. Those without children in school shouldn't be penalized by paying the same percentage as those who do.

What about referendums? Shouldn't voters have the right to put issues on the ballot without the acquiesce of the state legislature or local government as outlined above? What about a level playing field so that Independents (the nation's largest voting bloc) and third parties have the same requirements for running or holding appointed positions as Democrats and Republicans?  Those in power will do anything to retain and increase that power.

However, that "power" isn't theirs to hold on to. It's ours, and we need to remind them of that often. I believe that we should have the final say on taxes, fees, rates, or salary increases. For that matter, there's a great argument to be made that those who are 65 or on limited income should be exempt altogether from paying property tax. Our nation fought a war with the mightiest nation on earth over that issue of taxes and representation. What will we do?

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider subscribing. It's free!

 

Property Taxes by State

 

Is It Time To Stop Funding Schools With Local Property Taxes?

School Taxes Are Driving Readers Crazy...

School Finance: The Elephant in the Property Tax Equation

School property tax elimination doesn't mean it's over

2020's Defining Moments and the Stimulus Package

 

2020 has been described as being everything from "challenging" to "historic". However, it's one that won't soon be forgotten. If we were to pick a symbol for the year, surely a dead skunk in the road would be it. So, let's briefly take look at some highlights of the past "stinker" of a year before delving into the year's main story, COVID-19 and the stimulus package.

The year kicked off with the protests and riots unlike anything we've seen since the 1960's following the deaths of Breonna Taylor in Louisville Kentucky in March and George Floyd in Minneapolis Minnesota in May; both at the hands of the police. It should of been taken as warning of what was coming.

 

Protests, Riots, and Calls for Racial Justice

Whether their deaths were racially motivated or simply poor decision making by all concerned,  it sparked massive waves of protests and riots nationwide along with looting, arson, random attacks on individuals, and destruction of property which had nothing to do with racial justice.

It also saw the appearance of so-called "Right Wing" militias (often wrongly labeled as "neo-Nazi" or "racist" by the media), which tended to be rather well behaved, and Leftist groups like Antifa which, despite its name, was more akin to the Nazi Brownshirts or Communist Red Front than not.

Black Lives Matter showed its true colors as a race-centric neo-Marxist group, which, along with Antifa, turned out to be surprisingly organized and well funded. It's worth nothing that both groups were labeled by the media as "peaceful" despite the chaos they caused. Race baiting seems to be back in fashion.

 

We Can Still Be Friends

The media continued to pound President Donald Trump at every opportunity as they have since he was first elected. Never once did they let up or give him any serious credit, even when there were historic diplomatic breakthroughs like the four Arab nations agreeing to officially recognize  Israel---Sudan (which lost the moniker of a terrorist sponsoring state), the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Bahrain (which was promised high tech weapons  and diplomatic favors including financial aid).  

Relations between Kosovo and Serbia were normalized, while Muslim Kosovo also agreed to recognize Israel. Meanwhile, the UK  formally said "goodbye" to the European Union as Brexit took effect. The virus shut down the pro-democracy moment in Hong Kong to China's relief as it upped the ante in challenging America and her Asian allies for dominance.

 

Presidential Election:  The Ole Cup and Balls Trick

In 2016, we were told that Russian meddling in the election caused Hillary Clinton to lose his bid for president; not her inability to connect with voters, and surely not her questionable behavior (like Benghazi). We were told to ignore the rigging of the Democratic Primary against Bernie Sanders even though it was admitted and the head of the DNC was fired (as was her successor). This year, despite ample evidence of ballot corruption, we're told that our electoral system is safe and there is no way fraud could have taken place, so ignore the evidence and videos. Nothing to see. Move along.

Biden's Cabinet picks (as I've recently pointed out in my previous two articles) are primarily retreads from the Clinton and Obama administrations. Throughout Biden's 47 years in office, he has repeatedly shown himself not to be a friend of the working and middle classes or small business owners. He has perpetually pushed to cut taxes for the wealthy, favored deregulation and bailouts for big business, while supporting tax hikes on everyone else. Even seniors and veterans aren't safe.

Biden has repeatedly backed cuts in Social Security and support for veterans. But, not to worry! It seems that Biden isn't quite all there. Many expect a short tenure in office before being forced to stepped down and replaced by Kamala Harris as the first female president.

 

The COVID Virus: The New Normal

Not since the 1919 Influenza outbreak has a virus had such a far reaching affect on society. Businesses and restaurants have been shuttered, laying off millions of workers. Ordinary people have been forced to self-quarantine.  When we do go out, we're expected to wear mask and only go where we absolutely must and return home as quickly as possible, and don't forget to wash your hands thoroughly with the sanitizer you're now expected to keep in your car, your purse, or pocket.

Of course, we can't forget "social distancing"; maintaining that invisible six foot barrier between you and the next person. Government has stepped in to ensure that we can't gather in groups of more than  ten. They don't want us attend weddings, funerals, or religious services, movies, family gatherings (and especially if it involves singing), but apparently protests, political events and shopping at big box stores are okay. Just no small local stores. 

Americans are scared, which seems to be the way the Status Quo wants it. As a result, we've seen hoarding and artificial shortages. If there's any doubt that in a crisis, self-interest will always prevail, this should have removed all doubts. As a result, we've willingly accepted so-called "temporary emergency" restrictions to many of our freedoms. Many a despot has come to power using "temporary emergency" measures. Freedoms, once lost, are hard to reclaim just as power, once obtained, is hard to surrender.

Nevertheless, what we have entered is a "new normal" of masks, sanitizers, and self-imposed restrictions of movement. It's part of what the elites are calling "the Great Reset". It will be their attempts to reverse any changes President Trump made to the Status Quo, and to implement new ones under Biden/Harris. How far this "reset" will go depends on how much resistance they encounter. Based on the previous months, I expect very little.

The media will do its best to sell it. So will Hollywood, and naturally, so will Wall Street and  Madison Avenue since they all make up this Oligarchic Corporatocracy that is now America. Unions, once the voice of the working class, long ago sold out, leaving millions of blue collar workers high and dry, not to mention unemployed or underemployed.

But there is some good news I suppose. Earlier this year most Americans received a "stimulus" check of around $1200 (some countries gave citizens as much as $7000). It helped, but was nowhere near enough for the long term, especially as many were nearing the end of their unemployment benefits. Many more were looking at the possibility of facing repossession or foreclosure.

 More recently, Congress offered the American People $600. To call it insulting would be a gross understatement. The public was (rightfully) outraged. Social media was flooded with stories about illegal immigrants getting $1800 or Pakistan receiving billions to study "gender differences". But, how true were these stories?  What was in the 5600 page bill?

 

The Devil is in the Details

While Americans felt that the stimulus bill was supposed to be by and for us, it was, in fact, not. The bill did include billions in foreign aid, much of which was for education and infrastructure development in places like Tibet, Laos, Cambodia, and Egypt. There was $33 million set aside for "pro-democracy" programs in Venezuela (basically political bribery). $1.65 billion to Jordan which can use the money however it wants.

Four billion was authorized to help other countries purchase vaccines for the COVID virus. $130 million went for programs to empower women overseas and promote gender equality, while another $15 million went to help at-risk women and girls from religious extremists. $25 million went to World Bank to help with refugees. $40 million went to Syria for the purpose of providing medical assistance to those exposed to chemical weapons as well as first responders. So, what about us? Did we get anything besides the $600 lump of coal from Congress?

 

 Political Afterthought: The Voters and the Stimulus Package

The $900 billion dollar stimulus bill does include a few perks for Americans. Well, first some good news. At President Trump's insistence, we could get a check for $2000 rather than $600. However, the biggest roadblock is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has indicated that he will oppose the increase in order to keep the bill's cost from skyrocketing (we could cut the foreign aid pork but that would be rejected by members of both parties anxious to score brownie points with their financial backers).

Nevertheless, the bill does include funding to help extend unemployment benefits up to $300 per week, which is half of the amount provided this past spring. Schools and universities will get $82 billion. $7 billion is for expanding broadband internet access. $285 billion goes to a program called Paycheck Protection Program. It's to help guarantee employers' ability to meet payroll. $12 billion of that has been earmarked for minority owned businesses. However, the program has come under criticism in that the majority of money goes to large corporations not adversely affected by the pandemic.  Many have used the money to cover top level executive bonuses.

$10 billion will go to the childcare industry, which has been hit hard by the mandatory shutdowns. The bill also includes a ban to prevent doctors, hospitals, and others in the medical industries to send so-called "surprise" bills to patients. They define this as bills for services not previously explained to and acknowledged by the patient or their family. That one, I suspect, will need a lot more clarification.

The bill also provides a provision to prevent evictions, foreclosures, and repossessions for the next 30 days (but not interest charges or late fees). $13 billion will go for food assistance such as SNAP, food banks, and food pantries. $175 million of that is earmarked for Meals on Wheels and similar programs.

Lastly, there is nothing in the bill that provides illegal immigrants with a stimulus check. Only those here legally and possess a green card will receive a payment, which will be for $600 like the rest of us.

While the stimulus bill is far from perfect (much of the funding of foreign countries is unnecessary, at least at this time), it does provide some badly needed relief, especially to those worried about losing their homes or cars, those on SNAP or depend on food programs.

Sadly, not included in the package is assistance for senior care, help with utilities like heat or shelters. As of now, it seems likely that most of us will receive $600, not the $2000 President Trump wanted. It also appears that this is just the beginning of our "new normal", at least for the foreseeable future.

 

A Look at What's in the Stimulus Package Trump Signed

Long-term care industry expresses disappointment as Congresspasses stimulus bill

Foreign Aid in Congress' December Stimulus Package

Biden failed veterans as VP, he'd fail them again as President

 

 

 

Amy McGrath vs. Mitch McConnell: A Breakdown and a Prediction

The McConnell vs. McGrath U.S. Senate race is probably one of, if not the most watched campaign in America next to the Presidential race. The latest polls show the incumbent McConnell with a pretty hefty lead over his challenger---52% to 41%. Forecasting models show McConnell with a 96% probably of being reelected, but as everyone who follows politics will tell you, anything can happen.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is considered to be the single most "hated" politician nationally, even more so than President Trump, thanks to the media which never tires of batching him. In July, his unfavorable rating was at 47%, the highest of any senator. McConnell is usually portrayed as Machiavellian, a master manipulator, and someone who constantly impedes progress.

Well, the veteran McConnell is certainly Machiavellian and a master of the backroom deal, he is less a barrier to progress as he is someone who wants to slow down the process and examine the issue given how politicians tend over react to the latest poll and don't think things through---regardless of party.

So, what's at stake? What would change if Amy McGrath (D) should defeat McConnell?  If we look at the bigger picture first, we see that the Republicans have a commanding control of the Senate by a 53 to 45 margin (with two Independents). Mitch McConnell, by virtue of his seniority and mastery of insider politics, is the Senate Majority Leader. That means that he is the leader of the Senate Republicans. Basically, what McConnell wants McConnell gets from his fellow Republicans.

Being the Senate leader has been called the most powerful position in America's political power structure up to and including that of President in terms of raw power. However, it needs to be noted that the Speaker of the House is third in the line of succession behind the Vice President and President. In fact, the Founders originally intended that the Speaker be the primary leader of the country with the presidency being primarily a ceremonial office.

The number two position is the Senate Majority Whip, which is currently John Thune (R-SD). His primary job as "whip" is ensure Senate Republicans line up and support the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell. In the event there is a Republican President (Trump is in this case), McConnell serves as his top general as it were. Sort of an Eisenhower while the whip acts like a Omar Bradley.

So, if we have a Senate Majority leader, then we have a Senate Minority leader, which is Charles "Chuck" Schumer (D-NY). His party's Minority Whip is Richard Durbin (D-IL). Their roles mirror that of McConnell's and Thune's. As the minority, they typically oppose whatever it is the majority are trying to accomplish. In short, they are there to "impede" and promote their own---partisan---recommendations.

If there is a Democrat President and the Democrats remain a minority in the Senate, they will back whatever issues that individual is promoting while the majority Republicans will do whatever they can to oppose; the exact opposite of what's happening now. At some point a compromise is reached, but not always, especially given the divisiveness of today's politics and media bias. 

As an aside, in the House the Democrats have the majority. Therefore, they control the Speaker of the House post, which is Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).  The House Majority Leader is Steny Hoyer (D-MD). The Majority Whip is James Clyburn (D-SC).  On the minority side is Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as the Minority House Leader.  Steve Scalise (R-LA) serves as the Minority Whip.

So, what happens if Amy McGrath should beat McConnell? Well, besides becoming perhaps the most popular politician on the Left and being on endless talk shows for months on end, not much else.

McConnell currently sits on some choice committees, including the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senate Committee on Appropriations (where all the money is spent), Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Should McGrath win she would not, despite some misconceptions, assume McConnell's mantle as Majority Leader or any of his committee assignments. In fact, McGrath would take her seat in the Senate as a junior minority senator. She can request specific committee assignments, but her committees will be determined by the Democrat Senate Leadership based on what seats are available (as the majority party in the Senate, the GOP gets the lion's share of committee choices and chairmanships).

 In short, should Amy win, she would be at the very bottom of the Senate dung heap. While she would have great name recognition, her political clout would be nil. Even if the Democrats should take control of the Senate, she would still be at the bottom of the pile. In order to be appointed to any of the prized committees, she'll need to work her way up like everyone else has. Perhaps a victory over McConnell might help grease her ascendency somewhat, but fame is fleeting, especially in the Senate.

How realistic is the prospect that Amy McGrath will defeat the wily incumbent? Mitch McConnell's use of some pretty clever commercials (everyone in politics remembers the bloodhounds) went a long way in helping him defeat incumbent, Walter "Dee" Huddleston (D-KY). Amy McGrath is trying the same tactic with some cute cartoon-like commercials portraying McConnell as a slow moving turtle stuck in a swamp of his own making at Trump's beck and call. Cute, but that's about it.

McGrath's campaign has enjoyed a lot of funding, mostly from outside the state (about $34 million), which has brought in around $46 million dollars, with about $16 million still on hand. She'll likely get a last push infusion to do a final all out media blitz. Meanwhile, so-called "soft money" support has been coming in but not at level Amy needs to take out McConnell.  So, where is her money coming from?

The majority of her donations are coming from retirees, education, attorneys, healthcare, businesses, individuals and companies in the entertainment industry, real estate developers, media, and technology companies. Interesting, she's getting a lot (over two million) from lobbyists and single issue groups. Unions, which knee-jerk their endorsement of Democrats, have only donated a little over $53,000.

Key donors have included the University of California, Walt Disney, Harvard University, Stanford University, Microsoft, AT&T, and  Kaiser Permanente, which is a managed care consortium. Alphabet, Inc (the parent company of Google and its subsidiaries) and Moveon.org. Democracy Engine, which bundles donations, gave her over just at $164,000.   

On the other side, McConnell has raised just under $37 million dollars and spent a little over $20 million of it, leaving about $16 million on hand; $27 million has come from out of state. Outside groups and "soft money" has been very supportive of the Senator.  For instance, his Leadership PAC has provided a bit over $5 million dollars, of which he's spent close to $4.7 million.

The majority of his direct donors has come from retirees, securities and investments, real estate firms, attorneys, and insurance companies. Some of the largest donations has come from UPS,  Votesane PAC,  NorPac (a pro-Israel political action committee), NRA, Goldman Sachs, Humana, and global investment companies  KKR & Company and  Apollo Global Management.

Donations to his Leadership PAC (which everyone in Congress has regardless of party) are principally pharmaceutical and health product manufacturers, insurance and real estate professionals again, electrical utility companies, and healthcare professionals. The major notables are Eli Lilly, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Altria Group (a manufacturer of tobacco products), LHC Group (Louisville based senior care conglomerate), and Amgen, Inc., which is a multinational biopharmaceutical company.

So what's the bottom line? Amy McGrath, despite some impressive credentials (including being a former Marine, which being former Navy, I won't hold against her) and some cutesy commercials won't win this election. She lacks the resources, financial and otherwise, to defeat a seasoned pro like McConnell.

Even if by some fluke she should win, she won't be in a position to do the things she's promised to do (or, for that matter, any of those things she is being accused of "secretly" plotting to do). Politics doesn't work like that. It's a team sport. She'll need years to build up the clout inside and outside of politics to get much of anything accomplished. 

As for McConnell, at age 78, and with a six year senatorial term, I look for this election to be his swan song. He's served longer than most, and certainly longer than anyone from Kentucky. His legacy is secure. The Kentucky GOP has some prospects to put forward, including 4th District Representative, Thomas Massie. Amy McGrath would have a tough time against the popular Massie, but a much better shot than she does against McConnell. This isn't her time.

 

OpenSecrets: Mitch McConnell

Vote Smart: Amy McGrath's Finances

 

The Economist: Forecasting the U.S. Elections