• Advertisement

Granite State Rumblings: Americans Want A Candidate Who Will Invest In Children

Public Opinion Shows Voters Strongly Favor Investments in Children & Youth

A new poll commissioned by the Children’s Leadership Council finds that a strong majority (63 percent) of Americans want more funding for programs that support children and young people. More than three in five adults strongly favor expanded spending to improve education, health and nutrition.

In this election year, most adults say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who commits to investing in effective child and youth well-being policies, according to a new national poll conducted by Hart Research on behalf of the Children’s Leadership Council. More than three in five adults representing every age, race, income and education level across the country, want the next president and Congress to spend more on nutrition, health and education programs for children, according to the poll findings. By overwhelming margins, Americans say the nation’s children would be better off if government did more to support parents and families, and, that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who would commit to policies that advance children’s well-being, if elected. This is especially true of Millennials, regardless of party.

“Support for the well-being of our nation’s children has no boundaries,” said Randi Schmidt, executive director of the Children’s Leadership Council. “Adults of all stripes, and from every corner of the country, are sending a strong message to presidential candidates and to Congress that our children must come first.”

Those surveyed responded with particular enthusiasm to candidate commitments related to reducing child abuse, child poverty and hunger. These are followed by policies related to child health care coverage, college affordability, child care, and education.

Millennials overwhelmingly support programs aimed at ensuring children’s well-being, according to the poll findings, with three in four millennials (74 percent) saying there should be greater investments in such programs.

Key findings:

Overall government investments in child well-being

  • Support for greater government investments in children is particularly high among Americans age 18- 34 (74%), African Americans (75%), Hispanics (74%), and parents with children under age 18 (71%).
  • Eighty-three percent of Democrats and more than half (58%) of Republicans say the next president and Congress should invest more when it comes to meeting the needs of children.
  • Parents of children under age 18 say that America’s children would be better off if government did more to support parents and families by making education, child care, nutrition and children’s healthcare more affordable. The majority of adults, both parents and nonparents, support this statement, with 75 percent of women, and 64 percent of men responding affirmatively.

Child Poverty and Hunger

  • Both parents and nonparents equally (80%) say they are more likely to support a candidate who prioritizes reducing child poverty and hunger.

Child Abuse and Family Violence

  • Seventy-five percent of all adults surveyed say reducing child abuse and family violence is an especially compelling reason to support a candidate. Among Republicans, this position resonates particularly well, with more than 2 in 3 (67%) of Republicans saying they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who stakes out such a position.

Children’s Healthcare

  • Children’s health care is the top issue among African Americans, with 83 percent of respondents saying they would be more likely to support candidates who commit to preserving and improving health care coverage. Sixty-seven percent of all adults also would be more likely to support a candidate who makes children’s health care a priority.

Affordable College

  • 76 percent of parents with children under 18 say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who commits to making college more affordable, making it the second-most compelling reason among the policies tested, to support a candidate.
  • 66 percent of all respondents say they are more likely to support a candidate who focuses on making college more affordable, while 82 percent of African Americans and 81 percent of Democrats say such a commitment would draw their support.
  • For unmarried moms, parents over 35, college-educated parents, and those making more $75,000 a year, making college affordability a priority is the top reason to support a candidate.
  • Across all geographic and democratic groups, millennials are even more likely than older adults to support an increase in investment for children and youth.

Child Care Assistance and Early Childhood Education

  • Expanding child care assistance and early childhood education garners the most support from African Americans (77%) and Democrats (73%). Both of these groups are most likely to be compelled to vote for a candidate who commits to other learning opportunities, including expanding afterschool programs and summer learning opportunities.

Hart Research conducted the online survey between March 31 – April 6 to understand national sentiment regarding public investments in children and the role of government in improving child well-being. There were 2,050 adults, including 595 parents of children under the age of 18 from across the country, who participated in the survey.

The Children’s Leadership Council is a coalition of leading policy and advocacy organizations, (which includes Every Child Matters), that are working every day to improve the health, education and well-being of children and youth in order to prepare them for school, work, and life.

For more information, visit the Children’s Leadership Council at childrensleadershipcouncil.org.

More Nader Narcissism: The Debate Over How Unions Endorse Candidates

Bernie Sanders Hillary Clinton: By BERRY CRAIG

Ralph Nader’s recent Huffington Post column reminded me of the old saying, “With friends like you, who needs enemies.”

Nader’s narcissistic presidential bid in 2000 helped put George W. Bush in the White House.

Now Nader is providing grist for the union-haters’ propaganda mill by writing that “long-entrenched, affluent big union leaders” who support Hillary Clinton for president are trying to lord it over small unions who Feel the Bern.

Sixteen years ago, Nader, now a Bernie Sanders fan, ran for president because he said there was little or no difference between Vice President Al Gore, the AFL-CIO-endorsed Democratic hopeful, and Republican candidate George W. Bush, the union-busting governor of “right to work” Texas.

In his HP column, Nader trotted a claim often heard from union-busters: that union leaders don’t represent the rank-and file.

“These large unions came out for Clinton in late 2015 and early 2016 before they sensed the growing rank and file workers’ preference for the lifetime advocate for workers and union backer, Bernie Sanders,” Nader charged.

He based a big part of his column on an AFL-CIO executive council meeting at AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington in late February.

“According to insiders, tempers flared when smaller unions challenged the Hillary-endorsing big unions such as AFSCME (public employees), the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the Service Employees (SEIU) and the Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW),” he wrote.

Nader added, “Listening to the nurses union head speak out for Sanders’ strong pro-labor history, Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME, interrupted her, exclaiming: ‘I will not allow you to do a commercial for Sanders.’ She retorted, ‘You mean for the only candidate who has a 100% labor record?’

“A union leader of postal workers charged the unions backing Hillary as being ‘completely out of touch with their workers.’ AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka then cut off their microphones.”

Admittedly, the rules of straight news reporting—notably giving both sides of a story—don’t apply to an opinion column. But this old reporter wonders why the supposedly pro-union Nader, at least out of a basic sense of fairness, didn’t let the parties involved in the alleged dustup give their side of the story.

If he did contact any of them, he didn’t say so in his column. As it is, Nader’s presentation of hearsay as fact amounts to the kind of union-bashing common to Fox News and right-wing talk radio.

“Few union leaders allow [italics mine] a worker referendum to make the endorsement decisions,” Nader also scolded.

It’s the other way around. Members allow union officials to do what they do. Every official in a union from a shop steward to an international president is elected. So if members of a union want a referendum, they can vote one in through their elected representatives.

Since Nader cited my union, here’s how the AFT arrived at endorsing Clinton:

“The AFT sent all candidates (both Democratic and Republican) a candidate questionnaire and invited those who completed the questionnaire to speak before the AFT’s executive council. No Republican candidate completed a candidate questionnaire.

“The AFT executive council, comprised of elected [italics mine] vice presidents and the AFT officers, met with and interviewed Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders and analyzed their position on the key issues.

“Most important, the AFT asked its members directly about the issues that matter to them and their opinions of the candidates through two polls, including a survey that reached out to more than 1 million AFT households; the ‘You Decide 2016’ online forum; emailing e-activists to get member responses on the issues of importance to them; conducting multiple telephone town hall meetings; and having rank-and-file members ask questions directly of the presidential candidates during the June [2015] executive council meeting.

“Additionally, the AFT commissioned a scientific survey of members by Hart Research Associates. The results of the survey provide a clear picture of where AFT members stand.

“First, by an approximately 3-to-1 margin, AFT members prefer that a Democratic candidate win the presidential election over a Republican.

“79 percent of Democratic voters support the AFT making a recommendation in the primary.

“Among those voters, Hillary Clinton is preferred by members by a margin of more than 3-to-1 over her nearest Democratic competitor.

“Furthermore, Hillary Clinton holds a better than 11-to-1 advantage as the ‘Democrat with the best chance to defeat the Republican candidate.’”

I prefer Sanders to Clinton, as do more than a few of my AFT brothers and sisters. But majority rules.

Sanders has made it clear he’ll back Clinton if wins the nomination. (So will I.)

“We cannot afford an America to have Donald Trump or Cruz or any of them be our next president,” Tad Devine, a senior Sanders campaign advisor, recently told MSBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

He explained of his candidate, “The reason he ran as a Democrat was he understood being outside this process could be like what Ralph Nader did in 2000, elect a Republican president, and he’s not going to be a part of that.”

State House Report Cards Available

Website provides voters with level of detail rarely found in down-ballot races

A friendly reminder that Granite State Progress has made publicly available a State House Report Card of more than 200 roll call votes from the past session, categorized by issue and legislator; and a State Senate Report Card of just over 50 roll call votes. The website makes available the same type of resources and attention that top of the ticket races have enjoyed for years.

GSP State House & State Senate Report Cards

http://www.granitestateprogress.org/service/legislator-report-cards

“Granite Staters looking to cut through the election rhetoric can visit our website and see for themselves the voting record of their current legislators, many of whom are running for re-election,” said Zandra Rice Hawkins, Granite State Progress Executive Director. “We’ve removed the confusing legislative jargon around these bills and instead explained in a straight-forward way what they really mean for Granite State families and small businesses. State legislators make big decisions about local roads, public schools and the economy. It’s long overdue that voters are provided with the same type of resources and attention for down ballot races that top of the ticket candidates have enjoyed for years.”

Examples of the roll call vote descriptions include:

  • Rep. Will Smith voted for repealing major sections of the anti-bullying law and leaving our children vulnerable to bullying on-line and off school grounds. (HB370, Roll Call #69, 3/15/2011)
  • Rep. Will Smith voted for urging Congress to privatize all aspects of Social Security. Privatizing social security puts at risk benefits for New Hampshire’s current and future retirees. *ALEC Model Legislation* (HCR39, Roll Call #190, 3/21/2012)

“Whether or not you agree with Granite State Progress’ particular take on a piece of legislation, one thing is clear: you will know exactly which legislators you side with,” Rice Hawkins said. “We are very proud to provide this resource to Granite State voters.”

For the full, original press release, visit http://www.granitestateprogress.org/press-releases. The website was built by Hoeferweb, an Internet Marketing and Strategy Agency based in Keene, New Hampshire and online at www.hoeferweb.com.

 

  • Subscribe to the NH Labor News via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 12,514 other subscribers

  • Advertisement

  • Advertisement