What Cuthbert Stands For...

San Luis Obispo Broadside July 2006 

Robert Cuthbert, age 50, is running against Republican Sam Blakeslee for the 33rd Assembly seat.  Cuthbert is a Member of the Santa Barbara Democratic Central Committee, VP of the 33rd AD Committee, and a former member of the California Democratic Party’s Labor Caucus. 

 “As candidate for 33 AD I am fully committed. Not only am I a dedicated activist, I believe I have a unique set of personal experiences that lend to our common cause. I feel compelled to serve because of those experiences.”

Cuthbert’s special experiences include work with the United Farm Workers at 18 years of age, work as an electrician, and active work in local, state and national campaigns.  Cuthbert overcame physical disability after a serious injury. Graduating Magna Cum Laude with a degree in the Social Sciences from Cal Poly in 2001, Cuthbert now serves at-risk children as the manager of a placement home.

“A successful candidate must build relationships while maintaining principles of service. The heart and soul of democracy needs to be articulated to the broadest electorate possible in this diverse region,” he said.

Cuthbert’s strategy is to focus on major issues. “Here locally, as in all of America, voters are concerned with the most immediate economic issues. Solving those economic problems is the key to this campaign’s success in the State, and on the Central Coast.” To do that, Cuthbert believes that the practical and everyday needs of working families must be at the core of every legislative action.   Cuthbert named several areas of concern:

• Our local economy needs sustainable wages. There must be living wages in every career path.

• Transportation issues are increasingly relevant. Regional public transportation and energy efficient personal vehicles are needed to grow economically vital and healthy local communities.

• Our planet is at risk. The air, water, and biological superstructure that farms, ranches, and people depend on have been pushed out of balance. California legislators must address fundamental impacts and turn solutions into opportunities for our citizens.

• Most Californian’s cherish the fact that here, it does not matter who your parents were, what your race or ethnicity is, or who you choose for your life partner, so long as your character and work contribute to advancing your family and your community. 

Stew Jenkins, the Democratic nominee from the 2004 race supports Robert Cuthbert, “... he has my unqualified support!” said Mr. Jenkins.  “Robert has strived with the United Food and Commercial Workers to help Wal-Mart employees organize to seek better wages and health care.  I know he will work hard for the citizens of the Central Coast…” Jenkins said.

Working Families

For twenty-two years I have worked for a living. I have worked on farms, in factories, in the building trades, and in stores. My first exposure to the union movement was with the United Farm Workers AFL-CIO. From 1974 to 1976 I was a paid community organizer. Later, over the years, I involved myself in several progressive causes.

Union Members contribute more than just goods and services. They enrich the economy with higher wages, set the standard for all workers, and provide greater security for their families.

Government has a responsibility to support working families. Officials need to understand more than just "the bottom line". Things I will not support are the contracting out of established union jobs, use of temporary workers to avoid contract obligations, and the overuse of community service workers; I will not participate in; roll-backs. The Unions have been the leading edge in advocating rights for all workers, minimum wage, work place safety, the right to organize, state disability/ unemployment/ insurance, overtime pay, equal opportunity law, workers protections against harassment, and so on, are all derived from the Union Movement.
Let’s keep Social Security secure and honor promise

Lompoc Record
February 18, 2005

The subject of “Social Security” seems the issue of the day. Certainly, the Bush Administration has said, in no uncertain terms, crisis looms on the not so far off horizon. The President told the Nation, “Social Security is collapsing” and headed for bankruptcy. It seems he wants the incremental, decades in and out, legislative fine tunings are off the table. Is it reform to privatize, or is it a gutting of America’s premier social insurance?

The first proposal of note for a social insurance program came in 1797, from none less than Thomas Paine. Not much was done for 137 years. In another State of the Union address, Roosevelt in 1934 declared, “Among our objectives I place the security of men, women and children of the nation first.”

Today political reality has put the once “sacred cow” of retired America up for debate. What only hard right conservatives advocated in decades past is now characterized as sober strait talk. High rhetoric terms like “bankruptcy” and “crises” are just false to fact.

The inevitable demographic shift in 2040, when there will be two workers for each retiree, should not be oversimplified. We baby boomers are more than numbers. Economically, we behave differently than our parents. We are planning on working longer in an overall more productive national economy. As a group we are earning higher wages that in the near term, during our peak earning years, provide quite a surplus to Social Security.

The American Association of Retired Persons (www.aarp.org) has some well-referenced analysis. What are the real deadlines of crisis? First, 2018 is the year when payments to retirees will out balance payroll taxes. But, the system could still sustain current benefits until 2027 with the payroll taxes and the interest payments on what reserves there are. Now that’s not encouraging, but we are not on the verge of catastrophe.
(over)

As to investments, there are numerous secure investment opportunities to enhance our retirements above and beyond Social Security.

The greatest error in judgment of the reformers is on the issues of solvency. Diverting funds from Social Security only hastens the day of bankruptcy. Just to maintain the benefits as outlined by the President may cost, in the low end of estimates, two trillion dollars. The increased national debt will directly affect what benefits the savvy investors might gain.

Now what about the less than savvy investors? The current reform scheme will create winners and losers. The original intent of Social Security was insurance against disability and destitution in retirement. In other words, a base line that we as American’s could not allow our fellows to fall below.

For those who do not fair well in the market, or for those whose retirement is not timed with the market’s periodic downturns, some struggle lies ahead in the latter years. Will future working Americans institute new social welfare programs for old folks that don’t make the cut? It is likely they will, and it will cost.

The current proposals for privatization should be seen with foreboding. The President’s plan has more questions than answers. Let’s keep Social Security secure and honor this nation’s promise to place the security of men, women and children of the nation first.”