Katherine Parker’s snide insinuations

ImageIn a column titled “Democrats get desperate ahead of Nov. elections,” which appeared in the Elmira Star Gazette on April 7, Kathleen Parker, known for her snide (slyly malicious, derisive) opinions, outdoes herself. Her target is Democrats and efforts to raise the minimum wage. Here are a few of her points:

      • The Democratic “strategy” of hurling “pocket-book” legislation at Republicans that has no chance of passing (the unneeded quotes suggest a dubious strategy for advancing poor legislation).
      • The minimum wage campaign is obviously an effort to bestir the Democratic base to turn out at the polls.
      • Democrats get to reiterate the familiar trope that the GOP is heartless, greedy, obstructionist Party of No.
      • If a minimum wage bill is passed by the Senate in the next few days, who cares? (it will die in the House since Speaker Boehner need not bring it to a vote)
      • …raising wages will do more harm than good.
      • If Democrats can make Republicans look nasty enough, maybe a few more single women, low income workers and minorities will turn out (to vote) in November.

There’s more, but this will do to make the point. Parker despises the idea of a minimum wage increase; one can’t help wonder why. Perhaps she is unaware that too many Americans are working for poverty level wages. Even if she has reason to believe that the minimum wage is unnecessary or is currently high enough, it is hardly obvious that others don’t have valid reasons for a different opinion. Parker’s implication that single women, minorities, and other low wage workers, whether they vote or not and whatever their plight, are of no concern is reprehensible. Parker’s writing reflects the view made notorious by Mitt Romney–that half the voters, Democrats and persons with low incomes, are undeserving takers.

Tom Reed’s view that cutting benefits forces the unemployed to look for jobs isn’t heartless? Tax cuts and welfare for the rich isn’t greedy? Boehner’s refusal to bring immigration reform and unemployment extension to a vote in the House isn’t obstructionist? The GOP reflected in Parker’s column is very much the heartless, greedy, obstructionist Party of No.

© William Hungerford – April 2014





About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Economics, Political, Reed's Views and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Katherine Parker’s snide insinuations

  1. pystew says:

    Your fourth bullet, “it will die in the House since Speaker Boehner need not bring it to a vote” is the only reason you need to have to vote against every Republican in the House. Boehner will not bring it (and as you mentioned other bills) up for a vote because he knows that it would look bad if his republicans vote them down.


  2. whungerford says:

    According to historian Jill Lepore: “The smaller the gap between rich and poor, the more moderate our politicians; the greater the gap, the greater the disagreement between liberals and conservatives. The greater the disagreement between liberals and conservatives, the less Congress is able to get done; the less Congress gets done, the greater the gap between rich and poor” — a viscous circle. Thus today, discussion of minimum wage, income inequality, immigration reform, and other issues revolves around political expediency rather than the general public interest.

    In a NY 23 fundraising appeal Tom wrote: “This week, Robertson invited Jan Schakowsky, a leading Democratic Congresswoman from Chicago, to our district to raise money. Did you know that Schakowsky was rated the most liberal member of Congress in America? That’s the kind of company Martha Robertson keeps.” This sets a discouraging low standard for political debate.


  3. pystew says:

    I saw the same comments by Tom, and thought if that is all he has against Martha he is really desperate. Just remember Tom, you get money from Halliburton.


  4. BOB McGILL says:

    The British tried the Democrats method of reducing the gap between the rich and poor and every thing they looked at only increased the gap. They discovered that it would be too costly and unsustainable. The more money you gave to lower income people the more the cost of living went up and the rich got richer and inequity increased. The only thing that would go broke is the government.


  5. BOB McGILL says:

    Corporations use the ” COST PLUS ” method for setting prices. If it cost $5 to make something and the government taxes them $1, the price of the item is $6 plus a percentage for profit. At a 10% profit margin that would be 60 cents. add another $1 tax, now the price would be $7 plus 10% for profit, now the corporation makes 70 cents. So if I were a corporation I would welcome all the taxes you want to throw at me. Only problem is China is selling the same thing for $6. So I move to China and you lose $2 in taxes and all the jobs. How did you hurt me ?


  6. solodm says:

    Exactly! What is Tom Reed’s complaint about Martha Robertson? — She might beat him on principle.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s