Why I am supporting Senator Bernie Sanders for President

My life revolves around politics. I wake up in the morning and digest the breaking news, I debate the issues with my friends, and I tend to put my political work at the top of my priority list, sometimes to a fault. While my energy and time has focused on the important issues facing Missouri, I have been watching the Presidential race play out. I have not officially endorsed a candidate until now. I have defended Hillary on some issues, I have supported Bernie on some issues. I even still think Martin O’Malley is an incredible candidate and would make an incredible Vice-President or Cabinet member. I have also changed my mind on who I will cast my first Presidential vote many times. But, after hearing the candidates on a number of issues, sitting through the first Democratic debates, and looking inward on where I stand on the issues, I am ready to officially declare my support for Bernie Sanders. In this post, I will illustrate what pushed me to endorse Senator Sanders, as well as offer a challenge to the Sanders’ campaign.

The three issues that I base my endorsement off of are campaign finance reform, racial inequality, and the environment. Campaign finance reform is a very important and personal issue to me. One of the first campaigns I worked on is the John Wright re-election campaign for State Representative here in Columbia, Missouri. For those who don’t know, John was a strong representative who did phenomenal work on early childhood education, as well as worked across party lines to make government more efficient. I was inspired by him and his work, and campaigned to make sure he was re-elected to the 47th district.

His opponent was Chuck Bayse. To be fair to Mr. Bayse, he is a proud American who served our nation in the US Marines, and is very passionate about the issues he supports. However, Mr. Bayse has also been a problematic figure in his first year in office. One of his only filed bill in the last legislative session was a political favor to his brother, and he also saluted a confederate flag at a ceremony late last year. Obviously both of these points are highly contested, but one point is clear: Bayse is not qualified to represent the 47th district, and should never have beat John. However, he did. One of the biggest reasons for Bayse’s success was a generous donation from Rex Sinquefield. If you live in Missouri, this name is all too familiar. If you live outside of Missouri, he is equivalent to the Koch brothers who purchase their ideal candidates and fund their super PACs.

Because of Sinquefield’s generous donation to his campaign, Bayse was able to defeat Wright by a mere 263 votes. That was a first hand lesson that money DOES play a role in politics. Money is the reason why the champion for early childhood education was replaced by a political novice with rich donors. Ever since that race in 2014, I have been bi-partisan in my skepticism of where candidates get their money. Most candidates do have big donors or groups backing them; and I have continually been told that money is as much a part of politics as baby kissing and hand shaking. But a unique aspect of the Sander’s campaign is the absence of a major Super PAC backing Bernie. He is running in what will be the most expensive Presidential race in history without a Super PAC. Bernie Sander’s receives his support from average Americans who give in 10 or 20 dollar amounts, not successful kingmakers who write checks bigger than my student loan debt (which is abhorrent). That is huge to me, who has personally seen what money can do in politics.

Adversely, Hillary Clinton has struggled on the issue of campaign finance. Specifically, she has been unable to convince me she is not bought and sold by Wall Street. When she was pressed on this issue in one of the Democratic debates, she gave a very awkward and borderline offensive answer, pulling the 9/11 card. Her quote is as follows: “So I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.” Now, I think Clinton is better on campaign finance than conservatives. But I expect her to be, and I expected her to be the best Democratic candidate on the issue. However she has failed in that regard.

Secondly, Sanders earned my endorsement on inequality seen in the United States. I was on campus during the Concerned Student 1950 movement earlier this fall. And I proudly camped with the protestors who were calling for a change of the status quo at the University of Missouri and across the nation. I did this because of a simple truth: there is racial inequality in our nation and it needs to be fixed. I could write several posts about racial inequality, from racist real estate zoning to how we draw our congressional districts. However, I will save that for another day. The reason Bernie has earned my endorsement is for his focus on inequality in our nation. If nothing else, Bernie has helped shine the light on the issue of inequality during this campaign. In every stump speech given, he discusses the disappearance of the middle class and how 20 Americans hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans. Sanders understands the obstacles facing those trying to improve their lives. I believe he will work to address the reasons why the “American Dream” is harder to achieve than ever before for minorities and those stuck in poverty.

Once again, Hillary Clinton has fallen short on this important issue. She has continued to make strides to reach out to minority communities, sometimes in inappropriate fashion. Switching her logo to reach those who celebrate Kwanzaa, as well as her “7 ways Hillary is like your abuela” post was tone deaf and did not address the issues facing minorities in America. Additionally, her answer on “what is white privilege” at a recent forum was severely disappointing. Clinton’s answer can be found at this link:  The problem with Clinton’s answer was that she was unable to define what white privilege really is. She may recognize she is “lucky,” but she does not recognize that the luck she faced was systematic and is something that millions of Americans will never have because of the color of their skin.

And finally, the stances of the candidates on the environment has led to my support of Bernie Sanders. Now to be completely honest, Martin O’Malley really beats the rest on this issue. His plan to pull the United States away from oil and to be 100% dependent on green energy by 2050 is astounding, bold, and should be a model for the next Administration. I think the fight against climate change is going to need someone who will stand up to “Big Oil” and “Big Coal” and say that enough is enough. I think the fight against climate change will need a President who does not fold when the biggest polluters of our time threaten them with a political opponent. I can see Bernie Sanders doing both of those things and doing them well.

These are the issues that have driven my endorsement for Bernie Sanders. However, there is an emotional side to my endorsement. I worked for the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. The reason I supported President Obama was because of how his speeches and his policies moved me. He was my introduction into political life, and he is the reason I am devoting my life to public service. When I look at the three candidates running for President on the Democratic side, Bernie is most like President Obama in this regard. He has the authenticity of Obama, the tenacity and spirit of Joe Biden, and has helped restore my faith in the political process.

Additionally, I applaud boldness. I have heard the argument that Bernie has no chance and that Hillary is the “electable candidate.” For a long time, Hillary Clinton was the prohibitive favorite who had no chance of being beat. So why run against her? What is the point of running if she will win? However, I do not believe we should vote based on who will win the nomination or the general election. I believe we should be bold with out vote, and be bold with how we pick our candidates. It was a bold move for President Obama to run against Hillary in 2008. It was bold of President Obama to announce sweeping healthcare reform and announce an executive action on gun control. The Presidency needs someone who is bold, strong,  and willing to fight every day to perfect our union. I think Bernie Sanders is bold, and can continue to be bold behind the Resolute Desk.

I tried my hardest to like Hillary Clinton. I recognize her years of service, and I applaud everything she has done  during her career. Before her campaign kicked off, I was Ready for Hillary. Even as President of the College Democrats of Missouri, I foolishly pushed to endorse her as an organization and was luckily talked down by the executive board.  But as the campaign has gone on, and as I have learned more about the candidates, I have had a change of heart. I am not impressed with Hillary the candidate, but Bernie has continued to impress at every debate, forum and town hall. I have also learned that I should not have to try to like a candidate. A favorability for a candidate should come naturally, and should not be forced. I genuinely like Bernie Sanders and the platform he has put together.

Now, Bernie Sanders is not the perfect nominee. None of them are. I recognize his weaknesses as much as his strengths. So I call on Bernie Sanders to show several attributes to me during this primary election:  I want him to show me that he can unite the nation on important issues, while still standing strong on the fundamental ones. Show me that you can raise the minimum wage in America to 10 dollars, even if that goes against your 15 dollar platform. Show me that your willing to go through the budget and find departments that deserve to be cut, while also standing up for government services that are vital for national prosperity. Show me that you can be diplomatic, while also showing you are not afraid to demonstrate military force when necessary. Be Presidential, Bernie Sanders. Let me see how you can interact with the other party, and that you can get real work done during your Presidency. If he accomplishes this, I believe he can win the nomination and the general election.

 

Missouri Legislature, Raise the Minimum Wage

Earlier this year, the City Council for Kansas City voted to increase the minimum wage within city limits to $13 an hour. The ordinance was later repealed and replaced with a plea to the Missouri State Legislature for a minimum wage hike. In St. Louis, the city approved an $11 hour minimum wage that would have taken effect if it had been upheld in circuit court. In the past year the two major cities in Missouri have worked to increase the minimum wage for it’s citizens. This has taken place for one simple reason: Missourians need a raise. Below, I will outline why it is imperative that the Missouri Legislature vote to increase the minimum  wage, as well as why I praise the local leaders who are working to make this happen.

I am a junior at Mizzou, and work at the University bookstore. Now, for full disclosure, I make ABOVE minimum wage (8.75 an hour). My bills and monthly expenses are as follows:

• Car payment and Insurance: $365
• Rent and Utilities: $390
• Food, gas and other groceries: $125

Just with these three costs, my bills total up to $880 a month. This does not include any other extraneous costs, such as school supplies, textbooks, and day-to-day costs. Now, remember, I make $1.10 above minimum wage. If I wanted to simply pay my bills, without any extra money in my bank account at the end of the month, I would need to work an average of 30 hours a week. Now, 30 hours a week does not seem terrible. However, when you add 15 credit hours for school, hours of volunteering and interning, and the necessary studying needed to maintain good grades, 30 hours of work becomes more and more difficult. And 30 hours a week just barely covers my bills. I have no money to begin a savings account, or any money for emergencies.

The most problematic fact about this? I am lucky. I am lucky that the University pays me $1.10 more than the minimum wage. I am lucky that I only have to take care of myself. I have only one person to feed and one person to clothe. I am lucky that no one in my family is sick or unable to sustain themselves. And I am lucky that sickness or some other unforeseen accident hasn’t kept me from working. However, there are people out there who are not so lucky. There are single mothers who work around the clock to put food on the table and buy school supplies for their kids. There are college students out there who struggle in school because their financial struggles take priority over their studies. For students who aren’t fortunate enough to attend college, obtaining wealth and building a strong financial foundation is nearly impossible with skyrocketing bills and a stagnant wages.

Now, it is obvious that local leaders in St. Louis and Kansas City see this problem. They see the families struggling, and have offered a solution. Both municipalities, through different means, managed to work out a plan to raise the minimum wage. The problem? The Missouri State Legislature is upset that progress is being made at the city level. In the past legislative session, the Legislature voted and passed a measure banning cities from enacting their own minimum wage laws. The proponents of this legislation believed that raising the minimum wage in only parts of the state will move businesses away from the cities and lead to unemployment in the city.

The logic behind this makes sense. It would make sense for businesses to move to places with lower minimum wages. Lower wages means lower overhead cost, which means higher profits. However, the real world results have shown the opposite. New York City, Seattle, San Francisco, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles have all raised the minimum wage above the state level. And none of the cities have seen massive layoffs and businesses run for the hills. In fact, it can be argued that these cities have thrived with the extra income being pumped into the economy. So the main complaint against city level minimum wage hikes is not true.

The simple truth is this: if the Legislature is not going to allow cities to increase their own minimum wage laws, then the Legislature needs to raise the minimum wage statewide. Personally,  I think there is room for compromise between both parties in this issue. Proponents of a wage hike have called for a hike to $15 an hour. This would be almost double the current minimum wage, which would ultimately force struggling small businesses to close. However, at the current $7.65 an hour, minimum wage workers do not make enough money to stimulate the economy in any significant way, making it difficult for small businesses to attract customers who are attracted to the low prices of big businesses. So, lets find a middle ground. Let’s find a minimum wage that simultaneously stimulates the economy while also putting more money in the pockets of workers and businesses. President Obama has suggested a raise to $10.10 an hour for minimum wage workers. This hike seems reasonable, yet also significant enough to help low wage workers. With this hike, consumers would have more money to pay bills, buy essential products, and stimulate the economy with excess spending. However, this hike would be manageable for businesses to meet, and would bring more consumers in who have new disposable income.

The public outcry and need for a wage increase is there. The economic benefit can be seen. Now it is just time for political leaders in Jefferson City to have the backbone necessary to enact this modest wage hike.

I would like to thank the city leaders in Kansas City and St. Louis for working towards a minimum wage hike.

-Evan