Skip to main content


I know there are many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the Presidency even though she did not lose the election but won it by almost 3 million votes. But one reason is stated usually only by older women who have seen a great deal in their life time.

I remember in 1997 when Ruth Messinger ran against Rudy Giuliani for the mayor's second term.  The Messinger campaign conducted a survey of likely voters and asked whether or not they would vote for a woman. Almost 25% said they would not vote for a woman. Now that was 20 years ago and times change. But they haven't changed that much.

A great many voters out there still will not vote for a woman for an executive position. There is research that documents voters willing to vote a woman into a legislative office but far less willing to vote a women into an executive one. This prejudice is not easily overcome.


Popular posts from this blog

Free Trade?

What is free trade? Free trade means that nations agree to trade goods and services without government interference – no tariffs, no underlying government regulation. The concept of free trade is supported by mainstream economics (neoclassical) which assumes that there is a level playing field worldwide; that free trade means governments do not help the private sector.

However, we know that is not the case. China’s government has put enormous investment in certain of its industries. One example is solar energy. China’s government has invested in this industry with the result that China now leads the world in the production of solar panels. There are dozens of examples of governments investing in private companies to help them in the tough worldwide competition that has developed.

America companies who put their manufacturing plants in China benefit enormous. It is called the “free rider.”  American companies with manufacturing plants keep reaping all the rewards of selling…

Mayor de Blasio admits homelessness cannot be eliminated immediately.

After three years of blaming his predecessor, Mayor Bloomberg, for moving so slowly on housing the homeless, Mayor de Blasio finally admitted that it will take years to house so many homeless people. Perhaps it isn't all Mayor Bloomberg's fault.
   To add a different perspective, let us take a look at New York State and its inability to commit resources to the city's problem. During the Bloomberg administration, the state cut funding to the homeless from $164 million in FY2002 to $110 million in FY2012, a 33 percent cut.  In addition, the state cut the funding to one of the few programs to permanently house the homeless, the Advantage Program. Not only did the state cut the program, but the state also passed legislation that the city could not use other state funds for the program.
   Then of course there is the federal government that has cut millions of dollars out of the public housing budget that houses so many of people in poverty. Thanks to the federal government, t…