Oct
4
Our Democracy at Stake
October 4, 2012 | Comments Off
By: Jerry Iserson
Wednesday night’s first presidential debate was an absolute disgrace. Not, as even the progressive media would have you think, because Mitt Romney rose to the occasion and demonstrated his skills as a debater, or because President Obama disappointed with a lackluster performance. It’s because Romney continues to get away with policy reversals, distortions and outright lies. And no one, not the President and not the media, called him on it or challenged him for basically saying whatever he felt like to the American people, the truth be damned.
Together with the highly undemocratic efforts to suppress the votes of Democratic voters in key states, and the massive influx of money in the political campaign, this bald-faced lying is undermining the very principles of our democracy. The American public is used to politicians distorting the facts and not delivering on campaign promises, but Romney’s unethical and immoral practice of lying and continually reversing himself on key positions is an enormous threat to our system and our way of life. This sounds very exaggerated and overly dramatic, but if candidates for the highest office in the country can get away with lying and distortions, then all trust in our democratic electoral system, and in each other, will surely be eroded.
Romney simply says whatever the situation calls for. When he speaks to his Republican base, he calls for the repeal of Obamacare. However, in the debate, he indicated that he would preserve key features of Obamacare, had the nerve to take credit for his health insurance in Massachusetts and stated that it would be the basis for a new national health care bill that he would propose. He said this while insisting that he would repeal Obamacare and ignoring the fact that his healthcare law in Massachusetts was the actual model for Obamacare!
When he addresses his supporters, Romney clearly and repeatedly advocates lowering taxes for the rich, but in the debate he shockingly and falsely stated that this was not his policy.
Romney has backed Ryan’s plan to destroy Medicare by turning it into a voucher system, but in the debate he falsely stated that he would save Medicare and lied again when saying that Obama had cut $716 billion from the program.
Romney again spoke falsely by claiming that he would balance the budget while cutting tax rates and raising defense spending, which is clearly not mathematically possible, and he refused to admit that that his policies would cause taxes on the middle class to increase.
Romney refused to specify the income tax deductions he would eliminate and he refused to admit that many deductions, such as the mortgage deduction and medical deductions, greatly help the middle class, and that eliminating them would also amount to a middle class tax increase.
The list of his lies and distortions of the truth goes on.
The second prong of the Republican Party’s strategy to win at all costs is to suppress the ability to vote by the poor, elderly and infirm, despite its chilling effect on our democratic electoral system. Evidence to support Republican claims of large-scale voter fraud simply does not exist, yet Republicans cite it as the reason for pushing for state laws requiring special voter identification cards that would impact those who do not have driver’s licenses and who would have a difficult time securing these special I.D.’s. It’s no coincidence that these efforts are happening in swing states, and in fact a Pennsylvania Republican operative was shown on video claiming that the state would go to Romney because of this voter identification requirement and the impact it would have on the ability of Democratic voters to cast their ballots.
Thankfully, Pennsylvania’s law was put on hold until after the election, but no one seems to care that Romney and other Republicans continue to lie and distort the truth at will. This is based on the Republican’s cynical and destructive view that the American public is not knowledgeable enough to spot these lies and challenge the liars. I am confident that most Americans will understand the truth, but it is not acceptable for any candidate to get away with making these kinds of statements.
The U.S. Supreme Court did the dirty work for the third prong of the Republican’s efforts to strangle our democracy: allowing unlimited campaign donations by anonymous individuals through super PAC’s. The Citizens United ruling has resulted in a nightmare of a campaign, whereby the importance of accumulating huge amounts of money through huge anonymous donations has become the most important aspect of the election. This massive amount of money is then used to produce campaign ads that contain even more lies and distortions. While most Americans oppose negative campaign advertising, these tactics do work. The predominance of money in our elections is giving a major advantage to the rich and the party that most of the richest support: the Republicans. Once again, a key aspect of our democracy is being eroded.
These issues, if not confronted head-on immediately, will have a corrosive effect on our democratic electoral system of government. The Republicans’ attempt to whittle away our democratic government is unpatriotic, unethical and immoral.
Regarding the lack of honor and honesty in our campaigns, much needs to be done. Perhaps having an objective person or a panel charged with identifying outright lies and bringing them to the attention of the American people should be considered. Perhaps that should occur at the debate, so that debaters cannot get away scot-free with falsehoods that register as truth with the public. Typically, the media do this, but after this first debate, the media seems more intent on criticizing Obama for his performance than in criticizing Romney for his dishonesty.
If Romney is elected due to his continued lies, distortions and reversals of position, if every voter-identification law is not thrown out, and if Citizens United is not overturned, then it will be a very sad and frightening time for our democracy.
May
1
Failure to Invest in Young Children Threatens Our Economy
May 1, 2012 | Comments Off
By: Riane Eisler
We’re being told that fiscal responsibility requires big cuts in education, nutrition, and health care for millions of children. This shortsighted and uncaring thinking is not only a nightmare for those directly affected; it is an imminent threat to America’s economic future.
We have to let our policy makers know that fiscal responsibility requires caring economic policies. Here’s why.
Experts agree that a nation’s most important asset is what economists call “high quality human capital” — flexible, creative, educated people who can adapt to our globalized knowledge-service economy. Brain science shows that the years from 0 to 5 are critical for healthy brain development. An overwhelming body of research shows that to ensure that we have this high quality human capital we must invest more in care and education for our children. Indeed, studies have long shown that this is the most cost-effective investment a nation can make.
Other developed nations are investing heavily in early childhood education because it is an investment in their economic success. But our nation has gone in the opposite direction — despite all the evidence that not making this investment will lead to an economic calamity.
A substantial body of research shows that high-quality pre-K education prepares children to succeed in school and enroll in college or career training. It further shows that this not only prevents the enormous financial costs of remedial work, delinquency, crime, and other problems, but also leads to better jobs, higher incomes, and greater contributions to our tax base and our economy.
Yet the State of Preschool 2011 study found that rather than increasing our national investment in these essential programs, real spending on state pre-K education declined by about 15 percent in the past 10 years. This means that spending per child nationally is $715 lower than even the 2001-2002 level.
“A decline of this magnitude should serve as a wake-up call for parents and policy leaders about how well we are preparing today’s preschoolers to succeed in school and later find good jobs in a competitive market,” said Steve Barnett, director of the nonpartisan National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University, warned.
We must see to it that our policy makers heed this warning. They need to know about this report. They need to know about the proven success of hundreds of small programs across the country, such as the early childhood education pilot programs supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
They also need to know about the need for new economic measures that are more accurate and inclusive than the much touted GDP or Gross Domestic Product: measures such as the Social Wealth indicators now being developed. When GDP keeps rising at the same time that joblessness is dangerously high and childcare and educational budgets are slashed, it is clear that we urgently need better measurements that give policy makers and the public a more accurate picture of the true economic health of the country and our citizens, of what really counts for long-term national economic competitiveness.
Social Wealth indicators show the enormous economic value of care and education for children. They identify low-cost, high-value investments for developing our people’s capacities — our human capital — so that our country can achieve a healthy economy, a better quality of life, and a strong democracy through caring business and government policies and practices across the board.
The federal $500 million Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge that is providing grants to nine states for improving quality is a step in the right direction.. But we urgently need more — and it is up to us to demand that local, state, and federal governments invest in our most precious national asset: our children.
There’s an old saying that a stitch in time saves nine. This is a time-tested wisdom. Our policy makers must adopt it in light of the enormous costs of not investing in care and education for our nation’s future workforce. The proven benefits of this and other truly fiscally responsible investments are overwhelming.
Riane Eisler is President of the Center for Partnership Studies and the best-selling author of The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future and The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics.
Jan
26
The State of the Union Address: A Breath of Fresh Air
January 26, 2012 | Comments Off
By: Jerry Iserson
After enduring a seemingly endless barrage of negativism, hypocrisy and dishonesty from the Republican presidential candidates in their debates, it was refreshing to hear President Obama deliver a positive, optimistic and reasonable speech to the nation as his first term nears an end and his re-election campaign begins in earnest. In his State of the Union Address, the President reminded Americans of the many significant successes he has accomplished thus far, and he staked out the positions he will be taking in the upcoming months leading up the to election in November.
It was a brisk, sincere and upbeat delivery that focused on how the country is slowly emerging from a near economic collapse, achieving its objectives in the fight against terrorism and deciding on the course it must set for the future. The President was strong, clear-eyed and passionate in laying out his record and his vision for America.
The President outlined several themes to describe his approach to leading the nation that will no doubt be repeated throughout the campaign. He focused on our American values, reinforced by the World War II generation in winning the war and creating the decades of prosperity that followed. Mr. Obama emphasized economic equality and fairness, core American values that have been disappearing and that the Republicans have no interest in restoring. He vowed to oppose the policies that directly led to the economic crisis and to fight the obstructionism that Republicans have shamelessly used to try prevent a return to full prosperity in order to discredit the President and prevent his re-election.
President Obama noted the positive economic results that his administration has accomplished and that are being distorted or ignored by his conservative opposition. Millions of private sector jobs have been created, the auto industry has rebounded and new overseas markets are being created that will produce even more jobs at home. While the President had to endure intense criticism for the bank/auto company bailouts and the stimulus package, it is clear that these efforts have worked and have saved our economy. Yet according to Mitt Romney and the other Republicans, the President has no understanding of the economy and is to blame for the Great Recession that he inherited.
Regarding his foreign policy achievements, the President could have made even more of the killing of bin Laden on his watch, truly a historic moment given the trauma that the country was subjected to as a result of 9-11 and the failure of George Bush to bring bin Laden to justice. And he has had more foreign policy successes: ending the unnecessary and drawn-out war in Iraq, applying pressure to the Taliban and creating an exit strategy in Afghanistan, killing many other al-Qaeda terrorist leaders, playing his cards right in assisting the Libyan revolution and working to isolate Iran due to its pursuit of nuclear technology. The Obama Presidency will go down as a watershed in the war against terrorism, made even more notable since Republicans have traditionally accused the Democrats as being soft on defense and national security.
The President cited numerous ideas for programs to move the country further ahead and to prepare it for the future. He renewed his commitments:
• To increase taxes for the wealthiest while providing relief to the middle class,
• To support education and job training, including college financial assistance,
• To invest in our infrastructure, which is essential for a thriving economy,
• To encourage clean energy,
• To support small business and to provide mortgage relief to those at risk of foreclosure,
• To eliminate bureaucratic redundancy by combining some federal departments,
• To enact comprehensive immigration reform,
• To strongly defend his health care reform legislation.
While Mr. Obama continued to press for cooperation from Republicans in Congress, he stated that he would continue using his executive authority as necessary to make changes when Congressional cooperation is lacking.
The President spoke to the negative consequences of outsourcing jobs to foreign countries and the irrationality of giving tax breaks to companies who do. Mr. Obama used that as a launching point for a populist stance that is designed to capture the support of those on both sides of the political spectrum who are disgusted with the erosion of democracy in America; he advocated:
• Bringing offshore jobs back to America,
• Not increasing taxes for the middle and working classes,
• Consumer protection against unscrupulous business practices,
• Eliminating tax breaks for the wealthiest,
• Reducing federal red tape,
• Regulating Wall Street and creating a special unit to investigate mortgage fraud,
• Eliminating the Senate’s 60% majority filibuster rule needed to pass most bills and ending conflict of interest in Washington.
While the President continued his attempts to appeal to Independents and moderates, he also paid attention to his base by taking a strong position against Republican obstructionism and insisting on restoring equality and fairness in this country. With the war in Afghanistan starting to wind down, President Obama advocated using defense savings to help pay for domestic programs.
While some on the left were probably not happy to hear about his commitment to expanded oil drilling and his willingness to explore reforms to Medicare and Social Security, in general the President sharply contrasted his policies with those promoted by the Republican candidates, and he gave voters reason to believe that he will conduct an energetic campaign that takes the ethical high road and is based on reason, not on name-calling and untruths. Soon we’ll see if this strategy works and if Mr. Obama is able to convince those who supported him in 2008 that he has stayed true to that course and will continue to do so.
The next 9 ½ months will be interesting, to say the least. Clearly many in this country have tuned out the President’s message and will never support him because of who he is and what he stands for. The slanted and ugly campaign ads that are likely to emerge due to the super PACs and the lack of political financing restrictions will divide our country even more than it is. Let’s hope that come November, most Americans will support the incumbent, who is by far the one best suited to lead our country.
Jan
24
GOP Contenders’ Tax Plans—Robin Hood in Reverse
January 24, 2012 | Comments Off
By: Sarah Hackley
As the Republican candidates move from Christian, evangelical South Carolina to Florida, a state still racked by high unemployment and a foreclosure crisis that just won’t end, the hunt is on for the candidate most likely to uproot President Obama. Prior to Newt Gingrich’s South Carolina win, that candidate almost certainly was going to be Mitt Romney. A CNN poll from Jan. 13 – 17 predicted Romney would win Florida with 40 percent of the votes. But, that was before Gingrich nabbed all 23 of South Carolina’s delegates after two debates hammered home Romney’s hesitation to release his tax records. Now, new polls predict Gingrich will win Florida by approximately eight to nine points.
The attacks over Romney’s records, which he has now released, weren’t about transparency as some claimed. Rather, they were about the dawning realization – even among the Republican base – that the tax system in the U.S. just isn’t fair. Romney’s income in 2010 was $21.7 million and he paid just 13.9% in taxes. The tax system is also incredibly complicated, which may be one of the reasons why people are just beginning to get angry about an economic disparity that has been increasing for decades.
Still, regardless of how long it took for everyone to get on board, the truth is in – and middle-class Americans, from both sides of the aisle, are pissed. Unfortunately for the outraged “99 percent,” the fact that the tax system is complicated makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly what it is we’re so angry about it. It also makes it exceptionally difficult for most Americans to figure out where we stand under each candidate’s proposed tax plan.
The reality is that the real median American household income was $49,445 in 2010, a number significantly lower than that of any of the candidates’ incomes, and exponentially less than the profits recorded by the large corporations the Republican candidates are so interested in protecting. If we’re going to get a clear understanding of which presidential candidate’s tax proposal is most likely to give us what we want, we have to start there.
While the majority of Americans pay about 28 percent of their income in taxes, the richest one percent often pay less than 15 percent of their income, and many corporations pay zero. In 2009, for example, General Electric not only owed nothing on its $10.3 billion pre-tax income, it actually recorded a $1.1 billion tax benefit, thanks primarily to the corporate loophole that allows corporations to get tax benefits for overseas operations. Taken together, these corporate loopholes and the low capital gains and dividend tax rates (currently capped at 15 percent) mean most corporations, and the people who run them, are paying less in taxes than the workers who sweep their floors. A fact, billionaire Warren Buffet has noted.
The marginal tax rate, which is the tax rate most recognized by the average American worker, is the percentage a person pays on the last dollar he or she earns. Under current tax law, the marginal rate is 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, or 35 percent, depending on the amount of money earned that year. Money is taxed within each bracket, so a wealthy person pays the smaller percentages on some of his/her income and then 35 percent on most of his/her income. Unless, that is, that person’s income, like that of most of the richest one percent, is earned primarily through investments.
Income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and “carried interest” income (which is how most of the richest Americans make their money) are capped at 15 percent, and Social Security payroll tax does not apply to any income over $106,800. The vast majority of Americans never reach the $106,800 cutoff, so they pay Social Security tax on all their income. But, the richest don’t.
This means that, under current law, middle-class Americans are paying more – sometimes substantially more – than their fair share of the nation’s bills. President Obama’s proposed tax plan changes this.
Under Obama’s plan, a new minimum tax rate would be implemented on individuals who make more than $1 million per year. The new minimum would affect only 0.3 percent of the population, and it would replace the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which the administration says tends to hit “millions of Americans who are considered upper middle class.” Obama also has advocated raising social security income taxes to $190,000 by 2020.
Obama, whose joint adjusted gross income (AGI) was $1.7 million in 2010, has called his plan the “Buffett rule,” after billionaire Warren Buffett, who announced that he paid just 11.06 percent of his AGI in federal taxes in 2010. Though Buffet’s 2010 taxable income was almost $40 million, his salary is only $100,000 per year. Like Republican candidate Romney, the vast majority of Buffett’s income comes from capital gains and dividends. So, like Romney, most of Buffett’s income can’t be taxed at more than 15 percent.
Gingrich, on the other hand, wants to lower the top individual tax rate to 15 percent. This would, interestingly enough, lower his personal tax bill, which was 31.6 percent in 2010. Unlike Romney and Buffett, the vast majority of Gingrich’s income (which totaled $3.16 million in 2010) came from wages and privately held businesses that pay no taxes, but pass through all their profits to his 1040, where it is taxed at the ordinary top rate of 35 percent.
Gingrich’s plan also would eliminate taxes on capital gains and estates, drop the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent from 35 percent, allow businesses to write off capital expenses, and create an optional 15 percent flat tax with a per-person deduction of $12,000. Under Gingrich’s plan, the top one percent of American taxpayers (whose income is over $629,809) would receive an average tax cut of $343,993 in 2015; which would put their average federal tax rate at 12.5 percent. The top 0.1 percent (income over $2.9 million) would receive an average tax cut of $1.9 million.
While Gingrich would cut taxes for everyone and raise them for no one, it is easy to see who benefits the most under his plan: he does. His plan also would add over $1 trillion to the deficit by resulting in an estimated 35 percent cut in revenue. In short, Gingrich’s plan is completely untenable. We can’t cut taxes on everyone – including the rich and the corporations – and expect to have enough money to run the country. It simply doesn’t work that way, especially when the rich and the corporations haven’t been paying their fair share for years.
Romney has a fairly standard Republican-party tax plan that would keep marginal tax rates the same, reduce the corporate tax from 35 to 25 percent, leave the Bush-era tax cuts in place, and give most tax cuts to the richest one percent. Romney’s plan also would make saving and investing easier for middle-class Americans by eliminating taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains for taxpayers who make less than $200,000. Unfortunately for the many Americans struggling to afford higher education for themselves, their children, and/or their grandchildren, Romney’s plan also proposes allowing the American Opportunity tax credit to expire. It also reduces the expanded refund ability of the child credit and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC), both of which were enacted in 2009 under President Obama. Allowing all three changes to expire would substantially increase the tax liability for many middle-class Americans.
Ron Paul, arguably the most economically minded of the Republican candidates, has proposed a plan that would do much of what Gingrich’s plan does without adding to the deficit. Like most of the other candidates, he wants to reduce the corporate tax rate (to 15 percent), extend the Bush-era tax cuts, and eliminate the gift tax. To offset the reduction in revenues caused by the cuts, he has proposed ending corporate subsidies (a proposal both the Tea Partiers and the Occupiers can certainly get behind), giving himself a salary of $39,336 (the approximate median personal income of the American worker), and cutting $1 trillion in spending in his first year in office. Paul also wants to repeal the healthcare reform law, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Sarbanes-Oxley act, all of which are important regulatory measures that hinder only the richest of the rich – primarily corporations – and protect everyone else.
Of the Republican candidates, the tax plan most likely to help the average American family is Santorum’s, which is too bad since he wants to screw them in just about every other way. (To learn how, read his stance on women’s rights, gay rights, government programs, and help for families with children with disabilities.) Still, it must be acknowledged that his tax plan is better for the average American than most of the other conservative candidates.
Santorum’s plan would simplify the complicated tax system by providing for only two individual-income tax rates: 10 and 28 percent. It would triple the personal exemption for dependent children, maintain the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, and eliminate marriage tax penalties. It would even eliminate the cap on deductions for losses incurred in the sale of a principal residence, which could help many families – like those in Florida, where the foreclosure crisis is still in full swing – who are having to sell their homes at a significant loss. It also, however, would lower the corporate tax rate to 17.5 percent, eliminate corporate taxes for manufacturers, and lower capital gains and dividend tax rates to 12 percent. All of which make it, though the best Republican-proposed plan, worse for the average American than President Obama’s plan.
All of Obama’s proposed changes are geared toward increasing the tax burden on the richest Americans and lowering the cost for everyone else. During the (extensive) debate over the Bush-era tax cuts, Obama wanted to permanently extend the tax cuts for all individual Americans with incomes below $200,000, and all married couples with incomes below $250,000. He also wanted to raise the top tax bracket for the wealthy to 39.6 percent, and the capital gains and dividend income tax rate to 20 percent for the wealthy, while leaving it at 15 percent for everyone else. And, unlike Gingrich’s plan, which added a significant burden to the deficit, Obama’s proposal would add approximately $3 trillion in revenue.
These seemingly small details are important. While the Republican candidates’ tax plans have quite a few similarities – all want to eliminate the estate tax for example – a benefit only to the richest of the rich — there are some important differences between them, both in the overall bottom line (larger deficits versus increased revenues) and in which Americans have to pay the most for their implementation in the long run. And, for the majority of Americans, the answer to who’s getting shortchanged under any of the proposed plans turns out to be them. Unless, of course, we re-elect President Obama.
Sarah Hackley is a full-time professional writer and editor based in Austin, Texas. Learn more at www.sarahhackley.com
Jan
18
Taking a Stand Against Teen Sexual Harassment
January 18, 2012 | Comments Off
By: Inga Schowengerdt
Has your child ever been sexually harassed? Would you know it if they were? Whatever your answers to these questions are, you might want to consider new research revealing that sexual harassment among teens is shockingly common, strikingly underreported, and that what we don’t know as adults is hurting our kids.
“Crossing the Line: Sexual Harassment at School,” is a new report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW). The report has the most comprehensive research on sexual harassment among students in grades 7-12 and sheds light on the ways in which sexual harassment has become a normal part of teen life. The research reveals that nearly half of all students in those grades were sexually harassed last year and only about one-fifth of these teens told their parents.
Additionally, victimized teens report being distracted in school, feeling physically sick and not wanting to go to school, while many perpetrators of harassment are themselves former victims. This data serve as an unsettling call to action for anyone who cares about the well-being of today’s young people, because what we do or don’t do about sexual harassment among teens will determine whether patterns of victimization and perpetration persist and evolve as teens become adults.
You may be asking yourself, “If there is so much sexual harassment going on among teens, why don’t I know about it?” Sexual harassment is a silent epidemic because only half of teen victims tell others of their experiences. When asked to explain their behavior, most perpetrators of sexual harassment say it is “no big deal” and a “normal part of school.” This trivialization of harassment by perpetrators paired with the fact that victims often don’t know how to respond to harassment when it occurs illustrates the need for adult intervention to reframe sexual harassment as unacceptable and establish protocols for dealing with it when it occurs. Anything less corroborates the illusion already held by teens — namely that sexual harassment is inconsequential, that victims should not expect support, and that perpetrators will not be held accountable.
Responding to incidents of sexual harassment is important for victims and perpetrators alike. Teen victims of sexual harassment who remain silent also may not speak out if they are victims of further and more serious abuse later in life, while perpetrators who do not receive consequences may continue to victimize others. Additionally, victims may become perpetrators if it’s not made clear that sexual harassment is neither acceptable nor without consequence.
It’s critical that systems are in place to deal with sexual harassment among teens so they know about and feel empowered to use them. All adults can contribute to these outcomes. School administrators can play a key role by ensuring visibility for their school Title IX coordinator (the individual charged with attending to issues of gender and sexual equity in the school context) and making the identity and functions of this person known to students, parents and teachers. This establishes a go-to person when sexual harassment occurs.
Title IX coordinators in turn can create systems for reporting abuse and implementing consequences for perpetrators that take into consideration victims’ hesitance to share their experiences. Teachers can support the Title IX coordinators by educating students on what constitutes sexual harassment and teaching assertive ways to respond when they are targeted, or witness peers being victimized. Parents can further talk to their children about sexual harassment, respectful and appropriate behavior and action plans for responding when harassment occurs.
Most of all, adults need to recognize that sexual harassment among teens is a problem, and initiate dialogue with other concerned adults. As the “Crossing the Line” report illustrates, negotiating the teenage years is more complex than ever. Young people need to know that adults are aware of the challenges they are facing and that they are there for them.
Inga Schowengerdt is pursuing her PhD at the University of Cambridge in England and is a resident of Newburyport, MA and a member of the American Association of University Women. “Crossing the Line” is available online at www.AAUW.org.
This article is re-posted by permission of the American Forum.
Jan
5
GOP Tries to Restrict Voting Rights of Students and Minorities—Department of Justice Fights Back
January 5, 2012 | Comments Off
By: Sarah Hackley
Last year, amidst crushing budget shortfalls and mounting deficits, state legislatures across the country spent their time on the issues Republicans said really matter: “personhood” for zygotes, the repeal of Obama’s healthcare plan, and the disenfranchisement of liberal voters. Judging by the nearly 130 voting-related bills introduced in 2011, this last “issue” was, perhaps, the most important one of all. This was true even in states, such as Texas, which are already controlled by Republican leaders.
A new Texas photo ID law that could go into effect this month, for example, makes it okay for eligible voters to use their current concealed handgun license to vote but not their student IDs. Considering that the University of Texas at Austin accepted over 2,500 out-of-state applicants for the Summer/Fall 2011 semesters, the new law has the potential to affect tens of thousands of Texas college students – many of whom do not possess Texas-issued IDs and the vast majority of whom typically vote Democratic.
Despite this glaring reality, state legislators, like Texas State Senator Fraser, claim the new law (S.B. 14) was passed to keep elections fair and legal, and to prevent voter fraud.
“Photo ID is simply putting into practice the intent of the current law – that the person who shows up at the polls is who he or she claims to be,” Sen. Fraser said. “Voter impersonation is a serious crime, but without a photo ID requirement we can never have confidence in our system of voting.”
Texas Lt. Gov. Dewhurst has also publically supported S.B. 14 on the basis of its “fairness” and ability to prevent fraud.
“Texas has taken a stand for free and fair elections by making Voter ID the law of the land,” Lt. Gov. Dewhurst said. “We have a responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution, as well as the laws of our state and nation, and I’m proud to stand with Gov. Perry, members of the Texas Legislature and my fellow Texans to uphold the sanctity of our most fundamental democratic principle: one person, one vote.”
Conservative cries of voter fraud, however, are patently false. A recent student voter fraud study by the Maine Secretary of State’s office (conducted because of GOP allegations of student fraud) revealed zero incidences of student fraud. Studies by the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice also indicated that there is “no credible evidence [to] suggest a voter fraud epidemic.”
“There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible,” wrote the Center. “Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.”
Facts like these don’t seem to matter to Republican lawmakers or Texas Gov. Rick Perry, however, who has insisted that the new photo ID law takes “a major step forward in securing the integrity of the ballot box and protecting the most cherished right we enjoy as citizens.”
While the rhetoric may have changed, the pursuit to suppress the votes of the disenfranchised is nothing new. Southern states, in particular, often try to pass legislation that prevents minority citizens from voting – a fact the federal government knows all too well. In 1965, the federal Voting Rights Act was passed to ensure such laws weren’t implemented without federal oversight. Under Section 5 of the Act, states – including South Carolina and Texas – that have a history of passing restrictive voting laws are required to gain federal approval before the laws can be implemented.
Texas’ new photo ID law is currently awaiting federal approval under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. A very similar South Carolina photo ID law was just rejected by the Attorney General’s office for its potential to marginalize non-white voters, approximately 82,000 of whom don’t possess an ID that would be accepted under the new law. In its decision, the Attorney General’s office also said that South Carolina had failed to prove the new restrictive law was necessary to prevent voter fraud:
“The state’s submission did not include any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any type of fraud that is not already addressed by the state’s existing voter identification requirement and that arguably could be deterred by requiring voters to present only photo identification at the polls,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez
Considering that both Texas’ and South Carolina’s laws were passed by Republican lawmakers on the basis of voter fraud prevention, and that both laws would disenfranchise a large number of the states’ eligible voters if implemented, it seems likely the Department of Justice may reject the Texas law as well.
Unfortunately, Texas wasn’t alone in passing restrictive voting laws this year. Six other states, including two states (Kansas and Tennessee) that aren’t subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, passed new photo ID laws that require millions of voters to possess government-issued photo IDs that up to 11 percent of the states’ voting population doesn’t have. Similar bills have been introduced in 27 other states.
In Ohio, a key battleground state since the 1960s, Organizers for President Obama and the Democratic Party managed to stop new Republican-sponsored laws that would have restricted voting access.
Among other things, the proposed changes would have shortened the early voting period, which Republicans claimed was too costly, too long, and somehow “suppress[ed] Republican votes.” In reality, early voting, and expanded voting opportunities in general, leads to elections in which Democrats win, not because they are suppressing Republican votes but because they are making the process work for society’s often marginalized groups. Ohio voters saw the restrictive voting measures for what they were, and rejected them. Such voter-run initiatives to halt Republican efforts, however, won’t work in every state, particularly in states like Texas where Democrats have little to no legislative power.
In addition to S.B. 14, Texas lawmakers passed legislation (H.B. 1570) that makes it extremely difficult to hold voter registration drives. Current law allows anyone registered as a “deputy registrar” to register others to vote, which is how voter registration drivers are held. The new law requires a “deputy registrar” to complete a state-approved training program (which may include an “exam”) prior to assisting others with their registration or receiving a voter registration application from another person. The law requires training standards to be adopted this month. Another new law (H.B. 2194) further stipulates that only Texas residents who are eligible to vote can be deputy registrars.
None of the Texas lawmakers who support the new laws have provided reasonable explanations for why residency or voting eligibility should be required in order to assist another person with voter registration. Reasonable explanations also are lacking for why a training program or “exam” is needed to accept a piece of paper from a willing applicant.
Despite the lack of explanation, the reasons behind the new laws are easy to comprehend when considered in light of the 2008 election. Between five and ten percent of the Texans who registered to vote in the 2008 election registered through voter registration drives. Many of these registrants were young, poor, and/or part of a minority group – all categories which are more likely to vote Democratic. In fact, each of Texas’ new voting laws, like those passed in other states this year, will act to restrict voting access for the very people who voted to elect President Obama in the 2008 election. Hopefully, the Department of Justice will see beyond the Republican talking points and reject all of the new laws on the basis that they are solely tools for discrimination.
Sarah Hackley is a full-time professional writer and editor based in Austin, Texas. Learn more at www.sarahhackley.com
Dec
23
Overturn Citizens United—Amend the Constitution and Affirm that Corporations are not People
December 23, 2011 | Comments Off
By: John Bonifaz
America is at a crossroads. Shall we be governed by people or by corporations?
If you thought we had already answered that question more than two centuries ago, you’re right. The framers of our Constitution were clear that we were to be a government of, for and by the people. They recognized that corporations were not people and that the Constitution did not guarantee corporations rights intended for people.
Yet, five justices of the current U.S. Supreme Court think otherwise. In their January 2010 Citizens United vs. FEC decision, they ruled that corporations have the same free-speech rights as people and can spend unlimited amounts of their corporate money in our elections. No matter that corporations are artificial entities created through state corporate charter laws. No matter that corporations do not breathe, do not think and do not have consciences. No matter that corporations have advantages you and I do not: limited liability, perpetual life and the ability to aggregate and distribute wealth. According to these five justices, corporations are people.
This was not the first time the Supreme Court ruled this way. For the past 30 years, corporate America has worked to create a fabricated corporate-rights doctrine under the First Amendment that has eroded free-speech principles and undermined our self-government. While the notion of corporate personhood dates back to an 1886 ruling of the court, it is through this modern-day fabrication that we now face the threat of unchecked corporate power subverting our democracy. The Citizens United ruling is the most extreme extension of this corporate-rights doctrine, allowing corporations to invade our elections and effectively control their outcomes.
But we can fight back. Article V of the Constitution sets forth the process by which the people can enact a constitutional amendment. We have done this before — 27 times in our nation’s history and 17 times since the original Bill of Rights. And seven of those amendments overturned egregious Supreme Court rulings.
We can, and must, do this again. We must fight for a 28th Amendment — a People’s Rights Amendment — to make clear that corporations are not people, and that people, not corporations, govern.
Recent polling we conducted with Peter Hart and Hart Research Associates confirms that this idea has broad support across the political spectrum. Overwhelming majorities of Americans, whatever their ideologies, oppose the Citizens United ruling and support a constitutional amendment to overturn it. In fact, a constitutional amendment is supported by 85 percent of independents, 87 percent of Democrats and even 68 percent of Republicans.
As dangerous as the Citizens United ruling is, it also presents us with a historic opportunity to build a trans-partisan movement that can unite America.
If you think this isn’t possible, consider Doris Haddock. Otherwise known as Granny D, she decided, at 89, to walk across the country to overhaul our nation’s campaign-finance system. She set out from California, walking 10 miles a day. She had no grand plan as to how she would do it, where she would stay or what she would eat. But people nationwide housed her, fed her, walked with her for part of the way. Fourteen months and 3,200 miles later — turning 90 in the process — she reached Washington, D.C.
On March 9, 2010, Doris Granny D Haddock died at the age of 100. When I heard the news, I thought about the fact that when she was born the Nineteenth Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote, had yet to be enacted. In her lifetime, Haddock saw nine amendments passed by the United States Congress and ratified by the states. She is an example that change can and does happen.
In the name of Granny D, it is time to enact a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that restores democracy to the people.
John Bonifaz is co-founder and director of Free Speech For People, a national nonpartisan campaign working to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and the corporate rights doctrine.
This article is re-posted by permission of the American Forum.
Dec
16
Final Iowa Debate Leaves GOP Contest Unsettled
December 16, 2011 | Comments Off
By: Jerry Iserson
The Republican presidential hopefuls gathered again last night for their final debate before the Iowa caucuses. With Newt Gingrich as the current leader of the pack and Mitt Romney airing ads over the past week that aggressively attacked Newt, it looked like there might be some excitement on the rostrum this time.
But Romney appeared content to let the other candidates on stage do the heavy lifting against Gingrich during the debate.
Ron Paul and especially Michelle Bachmann had Gingrich on his heels, attacking him for taking more than $1.5 million from Freddie Mac. Rick Santorum pointed out that there was a “conservative revolt” against Gingrich when he was Speaker of the House.
Bachmann also went after Newt for the position he took as Speaker not to purge pro-choice Republican members of Congress.
Gingrich pointed out in response that he had a near-perfect anti-choice voting record. For the most part, Newt deftly deflected the assaults and tried to appear diplomatic and collegial. He even joked that he did not want to seem “zany” a reference to Romney having called him that earlier in the week.
Romney returned to his aloof, rigid demeanor and avoided challenging the others to high-stake bets. The main strategy, as always, was to attack President Obama and tout their own agendas. Hypocritical responses and dodging of questions were typical.
Romney stressed one of his major campaign themes: that due to his business experience, he has the knowledge that Obama lacks to restore the economy. But his argument lost all credibility when he criticized the President’s bailout of General Motors. Had Obama followed Romney’s sage economic advice, millions more jobs would have been lost and widespread damage would have resulted. Instead, General Motors is slowly but surely rebounding.
Romney also had the gall to blame the loss of middle class wealth on President Obama, when all of the evidence shows that this slide occurred under President Bush’s watch. And yet whenever Obama and the Democrats propose policies to stop the erosion of the middle class, they are accused of being Socialists and are obstructed at every turn by the Republicans.
Rick Perry (and others) solemnly declared that the President simply doesn’t know how to lead and has not accomplished anything in the White House. He conveniently failed to mention that the Republican’s primary strategy from the time President Obama took office was to blatantly oppose everything he tried to accomplish and shamelessly obstruct his efforts to improve the economy, simply to make him a failed president.
And it seems that Perry cannot understand that the tremendous courage and decision-making under pressure that Obama displayed in the killing of Osama Bin Laden was leadership of the highest order. Had anything gone wrong with that mission, we would never have heard the end of it.
There really was not much new or newsworthy that came out of this debate. Gingrich remains on top, though some recent polls suggest that he has plateaued. Establishment Republicans have blistered him over the past several days. But Romney’s standing in the polls never seems to change. He remains stuck in the twenties, with the majority of the party still unwilling to embrace him.
Ron Paul’s numbers in Iowa seem to be on the rise. His anti-war stance makes him anathema to most of the GOP and he has no chance to actually win the nomination. His followers though are passionate and well-organized. He could pull an upset in Iowa and slow down Newt’s momentum. Romney still looks strong in New Hampshire. Critical tests await in South Carolina and Florida, where polls currently show Gingrich leading
The GOP has adopted proportional allocation of the delegates in most of the primaries and caucuses. This GOP nomination fight is likely to drag on until spring.
When all is said and done though, as Ed Schultz of MSNBC has stated, there is little doubt that no matter who is nominated, and no matter how divisive the primary campaign may become for the Republicans, they will eventually unite under the banner of defeating Barack Obama. That is and always has been their only goal, no matter what damage they do to the country by pursuing it.
Let’s hope the President and his campaign can take these Republicans to task when the real race begins.
Dec
10
Pushing Deregulation in the Name of Small Business? That's Identity Theft
December 10, 2011 | Comments Off
By: blueadmin
Running an auto repair shop, I know it’s important to have clear rules of the road for how and when to repair and maintain vehicles, and clear, justifiable emissions standards. These standards and rules help keep drivers safe, keep vehicles running clean to protect our environment and public health, and provide businesses like mine with the necessary guidance on how to best serve our customers and protect the quality of life in our local communities.
Unfortunately, leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have declared an all-out war on rules and standards, advancing proposal after proposal that would roll back things like environmental protections, new rules of the road for the financial sector, and other basic safeguards.
The latest examples? Two proposals in the House of Representatives that would undermine agencies’ ability to establish and enforce basic standards and safeguards: the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011 (H.R. 3010) and the cleverly acronymed REINS Act (“Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011,” H.R. 10).
Both of these proposals are being promoted under the pretext of helping small businesses. This is despite the fact that in survey after survey and interview after interview, real small business owners are saying that what we need is more customers – more demand – not deregulation.
These attacks on basic standards are either misguided or disingenuous. They completely miss – or ignore – the basic fact that standards and regulations play an important role in creating jobs and supporting innovation in the U.S. economy.
Just look at my industry, auto repair. In our sector, smart and focused automobile emission standards protect the air we breathe, provide needed employment for the nation’s repair technicians who keep our vehicles running clean, and promote innovations that help U.S. companies be on the cutting edge of new automotive technologies.
In the 1990s, when the vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) declared that the diagnostic codes and emissions service bulletins (TSBs) they provided their dealerships to diagnose and repair emission failures were proprietary information they did not have to share, the Environmental Protection Agency disagreed. The EPA came to the aid of clean air and the independent auto repair community, asserting that environmental protection rights trump intellectual property rights. The EPA required the OEMs to release (and eventually standardize) their codes and TSBs, leveling the playing field for the thousands of small, independent businesses across America who keep the country’s vehicle fleet running cleanly and smoothly.
If the EPA is “REINed” in, will all the auto repair shops across this country suddenly be relegated to oil changes and tire rotations? Is that how this U.S. House of Representatives plans to help America’s small businesses create jobs?
We need demand, not deregulation. But to say that all the rhetoric about regulations is just a waste of time would be putting it charitably.
It’s true, the misguided focus is wasting precious time at a point when small businesses need real action from Congress – to create jobs, to get people back to work earning a paycheck they can spend in their local economies, to deal with the mortgage crisis so those paychecks aren’t getting sent straight to Wall Street banks.
But bills like the Regulatory Accountability Act and the REINS Act aren’t just a waste of time. In fact, they’re the latest move to shift risk and shift costs from narrow corporate interests (like big polluters and big banks) to small businesses.
When politicians push this anti-regulatory agenda in the name of “helping small business,” we need to call that what it is: small business identity theft. It’s stealing the good name of small business to drive an agenda that benefits narrow special interests at our expense.
Oh, and about that cute REINS acronym… I think a more apt name would be the REIGNS Act, because what these bills would really do is give big corporations free reign to cut corners, use and abuse their market power, and leave the 99 percent – small businesses and our customers included – to pay the price for their misdeeds. Can someone remind me how that’s supposed to be good for us?
Jim Houser owns Hawthorne Auto Clinic in Portland, Oregon. He serves on the executive committee of the Main Street Alliance, a network of 10,000 small business owners across the country.
This article is re-posted by permission of the American Forum.
Dec
10
Pushing Deregulation in the Name of Small Business? That’s Identity Theft
December 10, 2011 | Comments Off
By: Jim Houser
Running an auto repair shop, I know it’s important to have clear rules of the road for how and when to repair and maintain vehicles, and clear, justifiable emissions standards. These standards and rules help keep drivers safe, keep vehicles running clean to protect our environment and public health, and provide businesses like mine with the necessary guidance on how to best serve our customers and protect the quality of life in our local communities.
Unfortunately, leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have declared an all-out war on rules and standards, advancing proposal after proposal that would roll back things like environmental protections, new rules of the road for the financial sector, and other basic safeguards.
The latest examples? Two proposals in the House of Representatives that would undermine agencies’ ability to establish and enforce basic standards and safeguards: the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011 (H.R. 3010) and the cleverly acronymed REINS Act (“Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011,” H.R. 10).
Both of these proposals are being promoted under the pretext of helping small businesses. This is despite the fact that in survey after survey and interview after interview, real small business owners are saying that what we need is more customers – more demand – not deregulation.
These attacks on basic standards are either misguided or disingenuous. They completely miss – or ignore – the basic fact that standards and regulations play an important role in creating jobs and supporting innovation in the U.S. economy.
Just look at my industry, auto repair. In our sector, smart and focused automobile emission standards protect the air we breathe, provide needed employment for the nation’s repair technicians who keep our vehicles running clean, and promote innovations that help U.S. companies be on the cutting edge of new automotive technologies.
In the 1990s, when the vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) declared that the diagnostic codes and emissions service bulletins (TSBs) they provided their dealerships to diagnose and repair emission failures were proprietary information they did not have to share, the Environmental Protection Agency disagreed. The EPA came to the aid of clean air and the independent auto repair community, asserting that environmental protection rights trump intellectual property rights. The EPA required the OEMs to release (and eventually standardize) their codes and TSBs, leveling the playing field for the thousands of small, independent businesses across America who keep the country’s vehicle fleet running cleanly and smoothly.
If the EPA is “REINed” in, will all the auto repair shops across this country suddenly be relegated to oil changes and tire rotations? Is that how this U.S. House of Representatives plans to help America’s small businesses create jobs?
We need demand, not deregulation. But to say that all the rhetoric about regulations is just a waste of time would be putting it charitably.
It’s true, the misguided focus is wasting precious time at a point when small businesses need real action from Congress – to create jobs, to get people back to work earning a paycheck they can spend in their local economies, to deal with the mortgage crisis so those paychecks aren’t getting sent straight to Wall Street banks.
But bills like the Regulatory Accountability Act and the REINS Act aren’t just a waste of time. In fact, they’re the latest move to shift risk and shift costs from narrow corporate interests (like big polluters and big banks) to small businesses.
When politicians push this anti-regulatory agenda in the name of “helping small business,” we need to call that what it is: small business identity theft. It’s stealing the good name of small business to drive an agenda that benefits narrow special interests at our expense.
Oh, and about that cute REINS acronym… I think a more apt name would be the REIGNS Act, because what these bills would really do is give big corporations free reign to cut corners, use and abuse their market power, and leave the 99 percent – small businesses and our customers included – to pay the price for their misdeeds. Can someone remind me how that’s supposed to be good for us?
Jim Houser owns Hawthorne Auto Clinic in Portland, Oregon. He serves on the executive committee of the Main Street Alliance, a network of 10,000 small business owners across the country.
This article is re-posted by permission of the American Forum.
Nov
3
Occupy Oakland: A Tale of Two Movements
November 3, 2011 | 1 Comment
By: Jerry Iserson
The Occupy Oakland protesters called for a general strike yesterday, expressing the frustration and anger felt by many Americans who see our country’s wealth shifting to the elite and our government’s inability to do anything about it.
Thousands showed up to protest unacceptable levels of unemployment and under employment, shrinking incomes, mortgage foreclosures, concentration of wealth and power in the top 1% and real worry about the future of this country. Being a resident of Oakland, I was compelled to attend to see for myself and to express my own feelings.
The daytime events were a positive exercise in democracy. A diverse crowd consisting of students and other young adults, teachers and other workers, union members and older people formed next to the Occupy Oakland encampment in front of city hall.
Thousands assembled to march up Broadway, chanting slogans, holding signs and receiving supportive honks and waves from motorists temporarily stuck in traffic and from office workers/residents in the area. The crowd was largely good-natured and peaceful, and despite a few helicopters hovering above downtown Oakland, the police presence was virtually non-existent.
People brought homemade placards and wore tee shirts expressing their particular issue. Most centered on the main theme begun by the Occupy Wall Street protesters weeks ago. There were signs stating, “tax the rich”, “stand with the 99%”, “honor labor, tax greed”, “marching for your pension”, “end corporate control, build a real democracy”, “save capitalism from cronyism”, “de-regulation is destroying us”, “get money out of elections” and “bail out schools, not banks.”
Several different labor unions, the Oakland Education Association, professional groups (such as Architects and Engineers for the 99%), artists/musicians and neighborhood groups (such as the Chinese Progressive Association) were represented.
But another, more ominous element came out as well, a group that clearly is pursuing a more radical, disruptive agenda. Signs like “the system has no future for the youth, the revolution does”, “fuck your order, destroy capitalism”, “capitalism failed – your time is now” also were on display. Most troubling was the small group of individuals dressed in black with masks and hoods who were prepared for and ready to instigate violence. During the otherwise peaceful daytime march, these alleged anarchists smashed windows of a few banks and, for some reason, poured paint on Whole Foods Market’s window.
All this despite a strong effort by the main body of the marchers to remain non-violent. They chanted loudly, “protest peacefully.” (Although one of those dressed in black with whom I spoke said that they were dressed like that to “protect themselves,” one marcher stated that the outfits represented the Mexican revolutionary anarchist/Marxist group, the Zapatistas.)
I left downtown Oakland after these events feeling that the “strike” had been a success in terms of its size, diversity and the largely peaceful nature of the demonstration. Although few businesses were actually shut down, many voices were heard.
But the nighttime events brought troubling news. According to reports from Bay Citizen, in blocking one of the Port of Oakland’s access gates attempting to shut it down, the radical fringe erupted with violence, causing police to respond with tear-gas and arrests. Protesters broke windows, threw bottles at police, started fires in the street and occupied a vacant office building.
There were, fortunately, no reports of injuries inflicted by the police, although a car attempting to drive through the crowd hit and injured a street demonstrator. Thus, the peaceful, inclusive nature of the day’s march had been tainted if not ruined by a small minority of those bent on violence.
As I wrote in my previous article on the Occupy protests, (“Occupy Wall Street Sweeps the Country”), one of the main threats to achieving a successful, effective movement for meaningful change would be the hijacking by radicals of the progressive message to restore fairness to our system. After initially visiting the Occupy Oakland encampment last week, I had some reservations about some of the radical rhetoric that was expressed. Oakland was the site of recent demonstrations in the wake of the killing of Oscar Grant by BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) police at an Oakland BART station after he engaged in criminal/disruptive behavior aboard the train.
The radical element, which violently protested this killing and vandalized Oakland buildings and businesses, has clearly been a part of the Occupy Oakland effort, as seen with their “renaming” the plaza in front of city hall to “Oscar Grant Plaza.” It turned out my fears were justified.
One demonstrator quoted on KCBS news radio lamented the evening’s violence, stating that it undid all of the good achieved during the day’s march. All eyes were indeed on Oakland, and after that night, the Occupy Oakland movement has lost some respect and credibility.
Most realize that in order for the message of restoring economic equality and fairness to continue to be supported by the majority of Americans, including many middle class people and small business owners who have been impacted by our economic mess and who support the goals of the 99%, it must be delivered clearly and non-violently.
When a few radical elements disrupt the efforts of everyday people to restore American values and ideals through peaceful, lawful demonstrations, most people will turn away from this cause and disengage, missing the chance to change the system.
For the last three years, Republicans have obstructed nearly every effort that President Obama has made to restore the economy and to work towards resolving the pressing issues facing us. Republicans have shamefully wasted precious time and extended the suffering of millions while failing to even try to improve the economy and failing to even consider pressing challenges such as energy policy and climate change. As a result, many in this country have been quietly seething about this lack of action while misguided right-wing groups have dominated the political agenda and Wall Street corporations have become richer and more powerful.
The Occupy movement has given hope to many that these issues would finally be expressed in a spontaneous and energetic protest to re-take the momentum from the right-wing and re-capture the imagination of millions of upset Americans who are looking for a fair solution to our problems.
But if middle class, mainstream Americans, who believe in their right to peacefully protest and are frustrated enough to do it, see that radical groups are gaining control of this fledgling movement, groups that want to bring down the system, not restore it, the Occupy protests will lose the support of the people.
The positive energy created by the spontaneous outpouring of frustration will be lost. We can’t have a repeat of 1968, when the majority of Americans opposed the Viet Nam War but the methods and violent tactics of some protesters created the “Silent Majority,” resulting in the election of Richard Nixon. We all know how that turned out.
Oct
28
Occupy Wall Street Sweeps the Country
October 28, 2011 | 1 Comment
By: Jerry Iserson
The biggest political news of the last few weeks has not been the Republican presidential campaign “debates” or even President Obama’s apparent success in bringing his jobs plan to the American people. The most interesting and exciting events have been the “Occupy Wall Street”/”99%” protests, which have turned into “Occupy Your City” marches and live-ins across the country.
While politicians and analysts are trying to figure out exactly how these demonstrations fit into the election landscape and if we are witnessing the birth of a new movement, one thing is clear: this apparently spontaneous grass-roots protest is vastly different from the Tea Party in both substance and composition. But it is the issues, goals and methods of the Occupy groups that will ultimately determine the influence and staying power of this new political expression.
The Tea Party claimed to be a populist movement that sprung up in reaction to the Wall Street bailouts and the Stimulus. However, whether they were co-opted by rich right-wing interests such as the Koch brothers, or whether they simply revealed their true colors as mainly upper middle class, conservative Republicans who blame government and taxes for all of their problems, or both, the Tea Party is far from a populist movement.
That raises the question of exactly who are the Occupy folks? The protests in New York City and elsewhere have been a mainstream uprising by people disgusted with the hoarding of wealth by the richest in the country in the face of over 9% unemployment, the power of big corporations and the Republicans’ refusal to even discuss taxing the wealthiest or adopting meaningful financial reform. The people occupying Wall Street are a largely young yet diverse group, and economic fairness and limits to the power and wealth of the elite corporations and have been the main themes. Americans from all walks of life are represented, all feeling bitter about the concentration of wealth by the richest 1% within the last decade (hence the name “99%), while people have lost their homes and jobs due to the greed of Wall Street.
At the same time, during the worst economy since the Great Depression, the country has been held hostage by the Republican Party with only one goal: make President Obama look weak and ineffective in dealing with our economic problems so that he will be defeated in 2012. The surprising thing is that this spontaneous protest didn’t happen sooner.
Many studies and articles, including past articles on this blog, have pointed out how the wealth in this country has been accumulating into the hands of the very top income group. For example, a recent Congressional Budget Office study showed that the incomes of the top 1% of Americans from 2003 through 2005 exceeded the total income of the bottom 20%, and that the total income of the top 1.1 million households was roughly equal to the income of the bottom 166 million. Other studies have indicated that in more recent years, the disparity has increased.
Polls indicate popular support for and sympathy with the 99% and the issues that are motivating the movement. A Time poll conducted on October 9 to 10 indicated that 54% of Americans view the Occupy Wall Street protests very or somewhat favorably.
The Time poll found that 79% agree that the gap between rich and poor in the United States has grown too large. 86% agree that Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington. 71% agree that executives of financial institutions responsible for the financial meltdown in 2008 should be prosecuted and 68% agree that the rich should pay more taxes.
It seems clear that many Americans view the politics of the Republican Party as irrational to the point of being bizarre in its refusal to take any action to help the country overcome our economic mess. People cannot find decent employment, and the young especially are worried about being able to establish a career and maintain a middle class standard of living while the rich continue to increase their wealth.
Another reason Americans are sympathetic to the Occupy groups is that the effort has been non-violent and has included many middle class people. Fox News and other right-wingers are trying to portray the demonstrators as radical “hippies” so as to decrease their legitimacy. If this protest is to gather steam and become an effective political force as the Tea Party was in 2010, then the mainstream character of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations must be maintained.
The staying power and effectiveness of the Occupy protests will also be determined by the ability of these grassroots groups to organize and coordinate among the various groups and to find leaders. But most importantly will be their ability to truly represent the dissatisfied middle class majority and to not allow itself to become radicalized. They will also have to determine if and how they are to associate with the Democratic Party, which is close ideologically to the demonstrators and which would love to benefit from the energy this potential movement has generated.
For example, the Democrats passed the Frank-Dodd Act to impose at least some regulation on Wall Street, they have been pushing for higher taxes on the rich and they support the President’s jobs bill. Like the Democrats, the 99% don’t simply blame government for all our problems but see the massive spending cuts the Republicans want as creating further job losses and threats to programs that our country truly wants. There is also major concern with Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters, especially the poor and minorities who most often vote Democratic.
It’s no secret that some Democrats, especially those on the left side of the political spectrum, are dissatisfied with President Obama and the Democrats in Congress due to their failure to enact much of the progressive agenda and for what they see as being over-accommodating to the Republicans. Although most would still vote for the President, especially when confronted with the reality of a Romney, Cain or Perry on the Republican ticket, part of their frustration is that a strong, effective response to Republican obstructionism has not been expressed until very recently.
While the country largely supports the Occupy demonstrations, the danger is that the radical left will flex its muscles and influence them in a way that will alienate the center and independent voters whom the Democrats desperately need in 2012. If the protesters reject the mainstream American views and values, they will marginalize themselves, invite comparisons to the anti-war radicals of the 60’s and weaken the President.
For example, recently it was reported that some anti-Semitic comments were expressed at an Occupy demonstration. If such slurs are repeated, the Occupy groups’ legitimacy as a mainstream movement advocating a more just society would be greatly diminished. The Tea Party was rightly criticized for its racist elements, and if the Occupy groups descend into using this type of rhetoric and looking for others to blame for our economic woes, then the great energy and strong moral position they have taken will be wasted and their cause will be weakened.
The success of this fledging movement depends on its ability to continue focusing on the economic disparities and social injustices that are hurting many Americans, and showing that they reflect the feelings of the majority in this country. The Democrats would like to find a way of allying themselves with the Occupy groups’ message of economic fairness and of tapping into their energy without appearing to co-opt or control them.
It remains to be seen where the Occupy groups will go from here in terms of actually influencing the political system. If they can coordinate with President Obama’s message, and if they can express their concerns as a diverse, middle class, grass roots, progressive movement, then their efforts can be effective in bringing about the change that has been on the President’s agenda since 2008.
The Occupy protests have the potential to become an exciting, productive force in American politics. Let’s hope that it works.
Sep
26
Building Green Schools Will Help Economy Grow
September 26, 2011 | 1 Comment
By: Kathleen Rogers
Despite the political banter of Washington, D.C., President Obama offered a bright solution in his recent jobs speech: school construction.
As the President noted in his speech, “How can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? This is America. Every child deserves a great school — and we can give it to them, if we act now.”
As proposed, the American Jobs Act would repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools — creating jobs in communities across the country.
In one groundbreaking example, Dr. Robert Pollin of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst has demonstrated that spending on education generates the largest number of jobs (23.1 per $1 million in spending) of any government spending.
With such potential investment, we now have the possibility to further increase the rate of return for taxpayers by emphasizing green school construction practices. These efforts have the proven ability to significantly reduce a school’s energy, water and other resource needs. Such savings translate into real financial paybacks for cash-strapped school districts.
On average, a green school utilizes 33 percent less energy, 32 percent less water, and reduces waste by 74 percent when compared to a traditionally built school building. These savings alone can average $100,000 annually — enough to hire 2 new teachers, buy 250 new computers, or purchase 5,000 new textbooks.
Green schools can also reduce the following pollutants on an annual basis: 1,200 lbs of nitrogen oxide (NOx) — a principal component of smog, 1,300 lbs of sulfur dioxide (SO2) — a principal cause of acid rain, and 585,000 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2) — the principal greenhouse gas.
Unfortunately, not everyone on Capitol Hill agrees with this industry-standard analysis. The words “environment” or “green” have become anathema to the mainstream Republican worldview.
In one draconian sweep, the Appropriations Committee has proposed eliminating all federal funding for the EPA’s Office of Environmental Education (just shy of $10 million). Since 1992, this program has benefited all 50 states with more than 3,400 grants to increase the public’s awareness about environmental issues and also address an educational priority such as teacher training, education reform, or health. This lack of foresight and leadership does not have to be the case. Environmental education and green school practices provide a solid foundation and investment for any school community — regardless of the community’s political affiliation.
In the past, the topic of education used to be beyond partisan bickering. Today should be no different. In fact, the future of the nation’s 55 million schoolchildren and our economy is depending on it.
A sound, 21st century education is one that investigates and emphasizes the relationship between the economy and the environment. Congress can begin to advance such an agenda by protecting the EPA’s Office of Environmental Education and supporting President Obama’s school construction plan with an emphasis on cost-saving, sustainable construction practices.
With efforts like these, the classrooms of tomorrow will again be filled with students eager to share their personal experiences of a world filled with innovation and wonder.
As President Obama noted “we have to look beyond the immediate crisis and start building an economy that lasts into the future”.
Green schools are a great place to start.
Kathleen Rogers is President of Earth Day Network. Earth Day Network today launched the Green Schools Leadership Center, a comprehensive online platform that will advance the green schools movement nationwide.
This article is re-posted by permission of the American Forum
Sep
23
President Obama–the Keystone XL Pipeline is a Bad Idea
September 23, 2011 | Comments Off
By: Billy Parish
Families across the middle swath of our country — from North Dakota to Louisiana — have a disturbing question to ask themselves: “Do we want a leaky pipeline pumping 800,000 barrels of oil a day running through our community?”
The proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would transport tar sands — a mixture of sand, clay, water and a dense tar-like form of petroleum, from the Boreal forests of Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico region — is a 1,700-mile time bomb that either will be activated or defused in the coming days.
The pipeline would travel directly across the Ogallala Aquifer, the largest underground aquifer in North America, which provides drinking water and irrigation for much of the Plains region. The thick raw bitumen tar sands are mixed with a volatile natural gas, making a highly corrosive, acidic and unstable combination — not something you’d want flowing in enormous quantities anywhere near where you sit down for dinner with your family.
The fact that the predecessor pipeline and its pumping stations have leaked a dozen times this past year should be enough to make anyone question the intelligence of this scheme. Can farmers, families, cities and ecosystems really afford an on-land spill similar to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?
But this is a problem that should worry us all. The threat to immediate public health is compounded by the threat the tar sands pose to our planet’s atmosphere. Bizarre weather patterns are playing out the climate change crisis — Irene, record floods and droughts around the world, freak tornadoes and wildfires. The atmosphere is changing, and the accelerating use of fossil fuels is a major driver.
The tar sands represent the second-largest pool of carbon on the planet, second only to the oil remaining under the desert of Saudi Arabia. If we actually go through with clear-cutting enormous tracts of Boreal forests, processing the thick tar with steam and water, mixing it with natural gas and transporting, refining and burning it, it would take the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere from nearly 400 parts per million to 600 parts per million, something leading scientists have been sounding the alarm about for years.
As James Hansen, NASA’s top climatologist, put it, if we have any chance of getting back to a stable climate, unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground. In other words, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over.
The project developers want us to believe we need these tar sands — that there is no alternative. They want us to forget that the solar industry employs more Americans than U.S. steel production, and that entrepreneurs nationwide, like myself and my team at Solar Mosaic, are finding creative ways to help communities prosper through clean energy.
Because of their belief in better alternatives to our energy needs, 1,200 people have been arrested these past few weeks while peacefully protesting in front of the White House. These are people of every generation — religious leaders, union workers and business people. Actors Danny Glover and Darryl Hannah joined what has become the largest environmental civil disobedience in a generation.
The two individuals with exclusive power to stop construction of the pipeline are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Because the pipeline would cross the border, the secretary of state and, ultimately, the president must sign a certificate of national interest for the development to begin.
If jobs are the president’s big concern, let’s not set the planet on fire for what the State Department estimates would be only 5,000-6,000 jobs. With even a modest carbon fee, the president could raise enough money to support an Apollo-style program to rebuild America’s lagging infrastructure and really catalyze transition to a clean-energy economy.
Your phone call this week will actually make a difference. Even if we can’t protest in front of the White House, we can step up and speak out. Our water, our health, our environment and the natural beauty of a 1,700-mile swath of America need you.
Billy Parish is president of Solar Mosaic, a solar energy marketplace, and author of the forthcoming book, “Making Good: Finding Meaning, Money and Community in a Changing World.”
This article is re-posted by permission of the American Forum
Sep
21
Raising Wages for a Real Recovery
September 21, 2011 | Comments Off
By: Eli Markham
This summer we’ve seen wild swings in the stock market, a last-minute debt deal, and even a rocking east coast earthquake. But one thing we haven’t seen — from Memorial Day to Labor Day — is any improvement in the economy.
There are 14 million Americans officially counted as unemployed — many of them for over six months. If you count people who have given up looking for work, the number of Americans out of work climbs to over 17 million. Even people fortunate enough to keep their jobs have seen wages frozen or even cut. Families across the country are struggling to make ends meet.
The future promises even more pain. As the funds from the federal stimulus package expire, state budgets are collapsing. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the total budget deficit from 42 states and the District of Columbia is $103 billion.
One of the worst states is New Jersey, whose $10.5 billion gap is nearly 40 percent of its budget. Nearly every state is facing a budget crisis this year brought on by evaporating tax revenue.
State governments across the country will be forced to cut local jobs — teachers, state troopers and nurses — to balance their budgets. So will municipal governments. Hundreds of thousands of laid-off state and city employees will join the 14 million already on the unemployment rolls.
But one group is doing better than ever: corporations. By the third quarter of 2010, non-financial corporate profits had recovered to $776 billion, or 5.3 percent of GDP — the highest level since the dot-com bubble. Profits for large corporations have recovered more quickly and more strongly than any other part of the economy.
Businesses that pay minimum wages are especially profitable right now. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Sodexo, Yum Brands (the operator of Pizza Hut, KFC, Taco Bell and other fast food chains) and Target all made greater profits last year than they averaged from 2002 to 2006. Why are corporations making record profits but not hiring new workers? It’s an economic problem: lack of demand.
The average American has over $10,000 in debt. Their house value has plummeted and they see no chance of getting a pay raise in the near future. As a result, they’re not likely to spend a lot of money. Businesses know that, so they aren’t investing in new technology or new employees.
Instead they’re just hoarding cash, waiting for the day when consumers start spending again. But consumers aren’t going to start spending again until businesses start hiring and raising wages.
It’s a classic collective action problem. Everyone — including the corporations — would be better off if they started hiring again, but each business is maximizing its own short-term profits by being thrifty. Their hoarding has put the economy in a hole.
This was the same problem America faced during the Great Depression, and the government solved it with a massive fiscal stimulus. The government paid people to build bridges and tunnels and dams, which then gave them money to go out and spend.
Unfortunately conservatives in Congress have decided to focus on the debt instead of the economy — the equivalent of mowing the lawn while your roof is on fire — and the large fiscal stimulus the country needs faces strong opposition in the House of Representatives.
State governments, most of which are constitutionally mandated to run a balanced budget, are likewise unable to spend.
But there’s a policy tool that costs the government nothing and could get the economy moving again: the minimum wage. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that President Obama’s 2008 campaign proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011 would have generated more than $60 billion in new consumer spending.
Without some help, American workers can’t get themselves out of this hole, and each month we delay sees greater numbers of American workers losing their employment, more families depending on low-wage jobs, and greater numbers of American children going hungry.
If we want to help Main Street recover, we should raise the minimum wage. Even if we are politically unable to do so at the federal level, raising the minimum wage state by state would still make a great difference.
Eli Markham is a researcher with The National Employment Law Project.
Sep
13
Attacks on Perry Rule Tampa Tea Party Debate
September 13, 2011 | Comments Off
By: Sarah Hackley
Last night’s Tea Party Debate in Florida unfolded largely as a fight to strip Texas Governor Rick Perry of his frontrunner status, and almost everyone – from Romney and Bachmann to Huntsman and Santorum – jumped into the ring.
The issues on which the candidates agreed were basic, party-line talking points (namely that social security and medicare are broken, that the federal reserve needs to be audited and have its scope narrowed, and that Obama’s healthcare reform law needs to be repealed), and thus rather uninteresting. Their disagreements, however, were another story.
The very first question of the night was on Social Security – the big ticket issue on which Romney planned to pummel Perry (who has called the program a “Ponzi scheme,”) and the one everyone expected to be the big question of the evening. Instead of fireworks between the two frontrunners, however, the question left all of the candidates trying to appease the senior voters, who are afraid of losing their benefits, without losing their credentials as hard-line Social Security reformers.
Basically, there was a lot of party-line kowtowing about how seniors already on Social Security would get to keep their benefits, and assurances that everyone else would “have another option” as quickly as possible. The “other option” will likely be privatization, which bombed when George W. Bush proposed it in 2005 and isn’t likely to fare much better now.
With the uncertainty of the current markets still causing unease among investors, it’d be mind boggling for the country to decide to entrust its future to the ups and downs of the volatile stock market. Romney hasn’t said so yet in this campaign, but when he ran for President in 2007 he was a vocal proponent of privatization.
With just a few jabs thrown by Romney at Perry, and one thrown by Huntsman at Romney and Perry, the debate quickly moved to the topic on everyone’s mind: the economy.
While Bachmann continued to assert that fixing the economy would be “easy” (a stance that highlights rather than minimizes her lack of experience and inability to fully comprehend the huge economic problems facing the country), she seemed to have little in the way of actual ideas besides telling people to take “individual responsibility” and quit asking the federal government to supply them with stuff. Such “stuff” could be taken to include the $260,000 in federal farm subsidies that Bachmann’s family farm, in which she retains a partnership, received, but Bachmann must not see it that way. (Apparently, she only has a problem with the federal government giving out money to poor people.)
Romney showed he had some understanding of the country’s economic difficulties (“We’re not going to balance the budget by pretending we can just cut waste,”) but offered only general solutions to big problems that have plagued two presidents. Herman Cain spoke repeatedly about his 9-9-9 plan, a plan that seems rather arbitrarily chosen simply for the way it sounds.
Perry’s role in Texas’ growth – one of his major selling points – was called into question when the moderator asked Romney whether Perry deserved credit for the jobs created in his state. “Yes. But if you’re dealt four aces you’re not necessarily a good poker player,” Romney replied. A reply, it should be noted, that still gives Perry more credit than he actually deserves.
Other than her mindless remarks on the economy, Bachmann spent the majority of the debate avoiding questions and staying out of the limelight, until she again went after Governor Perry’s use of an executive order to require Texas girls to be vaccinated with Gardasil, an HPV vaccine touted as a way to prevent cervical cancer. Bachmann said Perry’s order was a “violation of liberty,” and attempted to tie his action to a $5,000 campaign contribution he received from Gardasil’s manufacturer.
Perry was appalled at the suggestion. “It was a $5,000 contribution from Merck” he said. “If you’re saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I’m offended.” Quick question, Governor: Just how much would it take?
Perry, as he did in last week’s debate, quickly admitted he made a mistake by not going through the legislature. Still, his comments showed internal consistency with a value system that means he is “always going to err on the side of life” – a stance that may help salvage his “mistake” with his anti-abortion base.
Interestingly, Perry found himself attacked the most on an issue that even some Texas liberals approve of: in-state tuition for students who have lived in Texas for three years and either are or plan to become citizens (no matter their immigration status), a practice Perry said he’s “proud” to enforce. As Perry rightly noted, Texas has a very long relationship with Mexico and helping students become contributing members of society “no matter the sound of [their] last name[s]” benefits the people of Texas by keeping kids on track and out of trouble.
Still, the other candidates saw an opportunity to attack, and they took it.
Unlike Huntsman, who called Perry’s comments against using a fence to secure the border “treasonous,” Romney attacked Perry’s in-state tuition program in the guise of common sense. “Of course we don’t give in-state tuition credits to people who come here illegally,” said Romney.
While it’s easy for the former governor of Utah and the former governor of Massachusetts to say what can and cannot be done to secure the border, it is worth noting that none of the other candidates on last night’s stage have been responsible for maintaining a 1,254-mile border with another country. In this case, while all of the other candidates continue to parrot party dogma, Perry is correct – “The idea that you’re going to build a wall is just not reality.”
Kind-hearted people everywhere were dismayed by the debate’s nasty turn when the candidates began talking about a hypothetical 30-year-old man who declined to buy health insurance and then suffered a catastrophic accident. “Should society just let him die?” the candidates were asked and the question was appallingly met with whoops, cheers and applause from the audience. The candidates neither acknowledged nor rebuked the offensive Tea Party crowd’s response but instead offered weak answers cloaked in the language of “individual responsibility.” (A lack of a definite answer is likely tied to the fact that the candidates’ “priority” of repealing healthcare reform would leave tens of millions of U.S. citizens without insurance and could cause nearly 50,000 unnecessary deaths each year.)
In a twilight-zone-worthy switch of policy, the Republicans are now almost unanimously advocating for the removal of our troops in Afghanistan. When asked what the U.S. would do to protect the women and children in Afghanistan, the candidates all said it was time to get out and/or transfer security to the Afghanis. Because the vast majority of Republican politicians supported the war in Afghanistan up until President Obama took office, it’s worth asking how much of their rhetoric comes from seeing the nation’s needs clearly and how much is simply designed to oppose the President, whose plan for withdrawal has been called too slow by many Americans.
Overall, despite Romney’s unexciting performance and the heated attacks on Perry, the perceived frontrunners remain the same. Romney held his own throughout the debate, and managed to address Republican concerns about his stance on healthcare by differentiating his Massachusetts healthcare plan from Obama’s plan by saying he didn’t raise taxes to fund his plan and that what worked for his state wouldn’t work for the country at large.
Of course, in the debate last week, Romney explained that his program was uniquely needed in Massachusetts and not other states because uninsured residents were getting free care in hospital emergency rooms while state taxpayers were footing the bill; a lame explanation because that’s exactly what’s happening all over the country.
Perry’s comment that “People are tired of spending money we don’t have on programs we don’t want,” was well received by the audience, and he remained stronger than the other candidates on economic issues despite some inaccurate comments (Obama’s original stimulus plan created or saved between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs – far from Perry’s claim of “zero”), and a history of hypocrisy when it comes to the federal stimulus (a stimulus that he has repeatedly labeled a failure despite taking $17 billion for his state over the past two years). Bachmann, Huntsman, and Santorum all managed to land some heavy blows, though, and it will be some time before we can see just how big of an issue Perry’s stance on illegal immigration is going to be for his campaign. Until then, the Republican landscape continues to look much the same.
Sarah Hackley is a full-time professional writer and editor based in Austin, Texas. Learn more at www.sarahhackley.com.
Sep
10
The GOP Debate and the President's Jobs Speech–The Campaign Begins
September 10, 2011 | Comments Off
By: blueadmin
This week was busy from the perspective of presidential politics. On Wednesday, the Republicans held a candidates’ debate, followed on Thursday by President Obama’s address to Congress, and the nation, on jobs. The contrast could not have been starker.
The eight candidates participating in the debate were Rick Santorium, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Jon Huntsman. About the only thing they all agreed on was what a terrible job Barack Obama is doing as President and that he needs to be replaced and his policies repealed. Otherwise, the debate revealed a number of differences among the candidates themselves.
Going into the debate, Governor Perry was the rising star of the field, having bolted past Romney after his recent entry into the race. He is benefiting from his association with the religious right as well as assuming the mantle as the standard bearer for the tea party. The debate was his chance to show if he could withstand the scrutiny of being the front-runner or if he would retreat from his controversial statements and actions. Mr. Romney had to show that he could hold his own as the “establishment” Republican, and Ms. Bachmann was tested as to her ability to compete with the more experienced and better-funded Perry as the tea party darling.
Perry didn’t disappoint, insisting that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a “monstrous lie.” He doubted science in denying climate change and evolution, even as he defended his order in Texas to inoculate pre-teenage girls with the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, presumably to gain support from the drug companies. This drew the ire of Bachmann and Santorium for superseding parents’ rights (and, although not said, for supposedly encouraging teenage promiscuity). And he was insulting and disrespectful to the President, stating that Mr. Obama either had faulty intelligence or was an “abject liar” when commenting that El Paso is a safe city. The truth is that El Paso is one of the safest cities in the country. So much for raising the level of political discourse in this country.
While Perry maintained an abrasive, humorless, even hostile demeanor, Romney attempted to be “presidential” in his tone and appearance. He challenged Perry on his comments on Social Security, stating that it needs to be fixed, not abolished. This was a shrewd political move since the majority of Americans support this program.
However, he avoided mentioning any specifics on how he would actually address Social Security’s funding issues, leading one to suspect that “fixing” it may turn out to be privatizing it. Indeed Romney has come out in favor of privatization in the past. Given Romney’s history of flip-flops and his hypocrisy on health care (opposing Obama’s health care reform despite it being based on the program he passed in Massachusetts), Romney has shown that he cannot be trusted and will say anything for political advantage.
The debate moderators directed most of their questions to front-runners Perry and Romney and tried to highlight the differences between them. Following is a brief summary of the others’ main points:
Bachmann: Continued to focus on the issue that got her there – railing against “Obamacare.” She didn’t back down from her idea to drill for oil in the Everglades. The conventional wisdom is that she has dropped from the top tier of candidates; realistically, she never should have been there.
Santorium: Stressed his ability to work with Democrats on issues such as welfare reform and homeland security, despite coming across as a rigid conservative.
Paul: Continued to be true to his Libertarian beliefs, maintaining that power should be transferred from the federal government to the states, and from government to the private market. When discussing illegal immigration, Paul stated that a border fence would be a bad idea because it could be used to keep Americans in! He clearly represents the radical, delusional fringe of American politics.
Gingrich: Came across as a cranky old guy, yelling at moderator John Harris for asking questions that would cause him to disagree with other Republicans. He stated that Obama and the Democrats are the problem and accused them of engaging in class warfare. Yet he agreed with the President’s education plan and praised himself for working with Democrats under Reagan.
Cain: Proudly unveiled his plan to revamp the tax system by creating a “9-9-9” Tax Plan – 9% National Sales Tax, 9% flat income tax and 9% payroll tax. I’d love to see the numbers! He maintained that this would “level the playing field” without seeming to be troubled that this highly regressive system would punish the poor and middle class. He supported states’ rights, despite the fact that if the southern states had prevailed during the Civil Rights era, he, as an African-American, probably wouldn’t be a candidate for president today.
Huntsman: Although an anti-regulation, pro-big business Republican, Huntsman refused to tow the tea party line. He mocked Perry and others who question science, refused to agree to sign pledges binding his future actions and opposed instigating a trade war with China. By actually sounding reasonable, it’s doubtful he’ll be around for long.
The main themes of the debate were state’s rights, limited federal government, limited regulation, free reign of the market, reduced taxation and no tax increases of any kind, especially for the rich and the corporations.
There was hardly any discussion of foreign policy in the debate, despite the fact that we are fighting two long and expensive wars, worrying about terrorist threats and seeing major upheavals in the Middle East. Yet with all the talk of the President’s failure on the economy, no jobs plan or even any ideas beyond not taxing the rich and eliminating governmental red tape emerged from this debate.
What we have are candidates espousing extremely conservative beliefs, stressing ideology over practicality, whose only real platform is defeating President Obama and undoing his work.
Which leads us to the President’s speech. Mr. Obama needed to hit one out of the park in order to counter his declining popularity and the nation’s evaporating confidence in his handling of the economy.
He needed to appear strong in the face of what has been regarded by some as capitulation to the right and inability to lead effectively.
He laid out a jobs program containing elements that Republicans have supported in the past and which will at least help create jobs. And of utmost importance, he came across as a strong, energetic, determined, even feisty leader who understands that now is the time to rally his supporters, confront the Republicans’ obstructionist tactics and take the matter directly to the American people. If it wasn’t a home run, the speech certainly was a two-run double off the wall.
The Plan would involve an expenditure of approximately $450 billion. However, the President emphasized that it would be paid for through spending cuts/revenue increases identified by the congressional “super committee” working on the deficit. This may be questionable, but Obama again spoke of the need to increase taxes for the richest Americans, which would certainly help. Let’s hope that this time he goes to the mat for it.
The following are the highlights of the President’s proposed American Jobs Act:
–A payroll tax cut for employees and small businesses to put more money into the hands of workers and lighten the burden for businesses;
–Infrastructure repair and modernization, including an infrastructure bank to create jobs while repairing the country’s dilapidated roads, bridges and schools;
–Funding to restore laid-off teachers’ jobs;
–Summer jobs programs for kids;
–Extension of unemployment insurance;
–Tax credits for businesses hiring veterans;
–Elimination of corporate tax loopholes so that the overall corporate tax rate can be lowered while collecting more revenue;
–Mortgage assistance for those in danger of default.
The President also firmly stated what he will not do. He will not let the economic crisis be an excuse for wiping out regulations which protect Americans. He will not strip workers’ collective bargaining rights. He will not allow the repeal of health care. He will not privatize Medicare, although he acknowledged that some reform is necessary. And he will not let Republicans off the hook; either they work with him to pass meaningful jobs legislation, or he will take his message “to every corner of this country” in an effort to force the Republicans to help solve our problems.
We should be heartened by the President’s strong, clear-eyed plan and challenge to the Republicans, who want to turn back the clock and emasculate government while letting the corporations reign supreme. This presidential campaign will decide what direction America will take. President Obama has finally drawn a line in the sand; now it’s up to us.
Sep
10
The GOP Debate and the President’s Jobs Speech–The Campaign Begins
September 10, 2011 | Comments Off
By: Jerry Iserson
This week was busy from the perspective of presidential politics. On Wednesday, the Republicans held a candidates’ debate, followed on Thursday by President Obama’s address to Congress, and the nation, on jobs. The contrast could not have been starker.
The eight candidates participating in the debate were Rick Santorium, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Jon Huntsman. About the only thing they all agreed on was what a terrible job Barack Obama is doing as President and that he needs to be replaced and his policies repealed. Otherwise, the debate revealed a number of differences among the candidates themselves.
Going into the debate, Governor Perry was the rising star of the field, having bolted past Romney after his recent entry into the race. He is benefiting from his association with the religious right as well as assuming the mantle as the standard bearer for the tea party. The debate was his chance to show if he could withstand the scrutiny of being the front-runner or if he would retreat from his controversial statements and actions. Mr. Romney had to show that he could hold his own as the “establishment” Republican, and Ms. Bachmann was tested as to her ability to compete with the more experienced and better-funded Perry as the tea party darling.
Perry didn’t disappoint, insisting that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a “monstrous lie.” He doubted science in denying climate change and evolution, even as he defended his order in Texas to inoculate pre-teenage girls with the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, presumably to gain support from the drug companies. This drew the ire of Bachmann and Santorium for superseding parents’ rights (and, although not said, for supposedly encouraging teenage promiscuity). And he was insulting and disrespectful to the President, stating that Mr. Obama either had faulty intelligence or was an “abject liar” when commenting that El Paso is a safe city. The truth is that El Paso is one of the safest cities in the country. So much for raising the level of political discourse in this country.
While Perry maintained an abrasive, humorless, even hostile demeanor, Romney attempted to be “presidential” in his tone and appearance. He challenged Perry on his comments on Social Security, stating that it needs to be fixed, not abolished. This was a shrewd political move since the majority of Americans support this program.
However, he avoided mentioning any specifics on how he would actually address Social Security’s funding issues, leading one to suspect that “fixing” it may turn out to be privatizing it. Indeed Romney has come out in favor of privatization in the past. Given Romney’s history of flip-flops and his hypocrisy on health care (opposing Obama’s health care reform despite it being based on the program he passed in Massachusetts), Romney has shown that he cannot be trusted and will say anything for political advantage.
The debate moderators directed most of their questions to front-runners Perry and Romney and tried to highlight the differences between them. Following is a brief summary of the others’ main points:
Bachmann: Continued to focus on the issue that got her there – railing against “Obamacare.” She didn’t back down from her idea to drill for oil in the Everglades. The conventional wisdom is that she has dropped from the top tier of candidates; realistically, she never should have been there.
Santorium: Stressed his ability to work with Democrats on issues such as welfare reform and homeland security, despite coming across as a rigid conservative.
Paul: Continued to be true to his Libertarian beliefs, maintaining that power should be transferred from the federal government to the states, and from government to the private market. When discussing illegal immigration, Paul stated that a border fence would be a bad idea because it could be used to keep Americans in! He clearly represents the radical, delusional fringe of American politics.
Gingrich: Came across as a cranky old guy, yelling at moderator John Harris for asking questions that would cause him to disagree with other Republicans. He stated that Obama and the Democrats are the problem and accused them of engaging in class warfare. Yet he agreed with the President’s education plan and praised himself for working with Democrats under Reagan.
Cain: Proudly unveiled his plan to revamp the tax system by creating a “9-9-9” Tax Plan – 9% National Sales Tax, 9% flat income tax and 9% payroll tax. I’d love to see the numbers! He maintained that this would “level the playing field” without seeming to be troubled that this highly regressive system would punish the poor and middle class. He supported states’ rights, despite the fact that if the southern states had prevailed during the Civil Rights era, he, as an African-American, probably wouldn’t be a candidate for president today.
Huntsman: Although an anti-regulation, pro-big business Republican, Huntsman refused to tow the tea party line. He mocked Perry and others who question science, refused to agree to sign pledges binding his future actions and opposed instigating a trade war with China. By actually sounding reasonable, it’s doubtful he’ll be around for long.
The main themes of the debate were state’s rights, limited federal government, limited regulation, free reign of the market, reduced taxation and no tax increases of any kind, especially for the rich and the corporations.
There was hardly any discussion of foreign policy in the debate, despite the fact that we are fighting two long and expensive wars, worrying about terrorist threats and seeing major upheavals in the Middle East. Yet with all the talk of the President’s failure on the economy, no jobs plan or even any ideas beyond not taxing the rich and eliminating governmental red tape emerged from this debate.
What we have are candidates espousing extremely conservative beliefs, stressing ideology over practicality, whose only real platform is defeating President Obama and undoing his work.
Which leads us to the President’s speech. Mr. Obama needed to hit one out of the park in order to counter his declining popularity and the nation’s evaporating confidence in his handling of the economy.
He needed to appear strong in the face of what has been regarded by some as capitulation to the right and inability to lead effectively.
He laid out a jobs program containing elements that Republicans have supported in the past and which will at least help create jobs. And of utmost importance, he came across as a strong, energetic, determined, even feisty leader who understands that now is the time to rally his supporters, confront the Republicans’ obstructionist tactics and take the matter directly to the American people. If it wasn’t a home run, the speech certainly was a two-run double off the wall.
The Plan would involve an expenditure of approximately $450 billion. However, the President emphasized that it would be paid for through spending cuts/revenue increases identified by the congressional “super committee” working on the deficit. This may be questionable, but Obama again spoke of the need to increase taxes for the richest Americans, which would certainly help. Let’s hope that this time he goes to the mat for it.
The following are the highlights of the President’s proposed American Jobs Act:
–A payroll tax cut for employees and small businesses to put more money into the hands of workers and lighten the burden for businesses;
–Infrastructure repair and modernization, including an infrastructure bank to create jobs while repairing the country’s dilapidated roads, bridges and schools;
–Funding to restore laid-off teachers’ jobs;
–Summer jobs programs for kids;
–Extension of unemployment insurance;
–Tax credits for businesses hiring veterans;
–Elimination of corporate tax loopholes so that the overall corporate tax rate can be lowered while collecting more revenue;
–Mortgage assistance for those in danger of default.
The President also firmly stated what he will not do. He will not let the economic crisis be an excuse for wiping out regulations which protect Americans. He will not strip workers’ collective bargaining rights. He will not allow the repeal of health care. He will not privatize Medicare, although he acknowledged that some reform is necessary. And he will not let Republicans off the hook; either they work with him to pass meaningful jobs legislation, or he will take his message “to every corner of this country” in an effort to force the Republicans to help solve our problems.
We should be heartened by the President’s strong, clear-eyed plan and challenge to the Republicans, who want to turn back the clock and emasculate government while letting the corporations reign supreme. This presidential campaign will decide what direction America will take. President Obama has finally drawn a line in the sand; now it’s up to us.
Aug
19
Follow the Scientists on Climate Change
August 19, 2011 | 5 Comments
By: Pat Byington
Dr. James McClintock, a renowned University of Alabama-Birmingham marine biologist who has conducted research in Antarctica for more than 25 years, told me the following story.
“You work in a scientific lab in the quietest place on Earth —Antarctica.
“There’s a Crack! Boom!
“You rush to the window of your remote lab with a number of
your fellow scientists, and you witness a glacier ‘calving’ a
chunk of ice the size of a house into the water. Adrenaline
permeates the room.
“Ten years ago, that exciting and incredible sight would happen about once a week. It was an event. Something rare.
“Today, at that same lab in Antarctica, the calving glacial ice, the explosive sounds, are a daily occurrence.
“The scientists are almost ‘ho-hum’ about it, barely lifting their heads to recognize the melting ice.”
Such is life in a warming world.
McClintock has spent most of his life searching the ends of the earth for a cure for cancer and other human diseases. In fact, his research team has discovered marine species in the Antarctic that produce compounds active against skin cancer and influenza.
McClintock is not an alarmist. He does not have a political agenda. But he knows firsthand the earth is warming and he understands some of the consequences. Mid-winter temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula where he works are 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they were 60 years ago. That may not seem like a big difference to us non-scientists, but it’s devastating to a delicate polar ecosystem (and other ecosystems).
In fact, this spring, McClintock and his research associates documented an invasion of king crabs that are likely to endanger fragile Antarctic clams, snails, and brittlestars, or perhaps even the sea squirts that he and his colleagues study that could unlock a cure for skin cancer.
This new predator, with its crushing claws, is moving in because of the rapidly warming seas. Once they make their way up onto the Antarctic shelf, an archaic marine ecosystem that has been without crushing predators for millennia will find itself largely defenseless. King crabs could very well destroy McClintock’s living lab.
For McClintock, it’s like discovering someone is about to burn down your home and your life’s work and possessions.
I have always believed the National Academies of Science and the National Research Council motto “Where the nation turns for independent and expert advice” accurately portrays that most venerable institution. As a nation, we have been seeking their advice since President Lincoln established this scientific body in 1863.
Last May, without much fanfare, and little to no attention from the national media, the National Academies released their latest congressionally requested report on climate change. The report, “America’s Climate Choices,” does not pull any punches. It reaffirms that climate change is occurring now and the most effective strategy to combat it would be to begin cutting greenhouse gas emissions immediately.
What makes this report more shocking is that it is not new. As far back as 2005, the National Academies of the U.S., France, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and China have jointly called upon policy makers throughout the world to address climate change.
The message from the National Academies six years ago was virtually identical to the one in 2011. Climate change is real. We need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases. We need to aggressively seek technological and scientific solutions. Delaying will only make matters worse.
And now, more than ever, signs of climate change are growing starker. The extreme weather and floods in the Midwest and south this spring, historical droughts and fires in Texas and Arizona, permafrost disappearing in Russia/Siberia, floods in Pakistan, massive drought followed by flooding in Australia and whole villages in Alaska disappearing because of sea level rise are just a few recent examples.
The climate is changing so rapidly the Arbor Day Foundation is changing its recommendations for when and where you should plant your trees.
Are we going to follow the National Academy of Sciences and countless scientists’ advice on climate change? Are we going to listen to Dr. James McClintock and try to save a place that can lead to cures for cancer?
Or are we going to barely lift our heads and refuse to recognize the climate changing around us?
Pat Byington is publisher of Bama Environmental News. He is a longtime environmental advocate from Birmingham, Alabama, who has served on numerous state and national environmental boards.
This article is reposted by permission of The American Forum
Aug
15
GOP Race All Shook Up
August 15, 2011 | Comments Off
By: Sarah Hackley
With Texas Governor Rick Perry’s candidacy announcement and Representative Michele Bachmann’s win in the Iowa straw poll, the weekend saw a significant restructuring of the Republican race for a nominee to head the party’s 2012 challenge against President Obama.
The Iowa straw poll was widely considered the first real test in the Republican race, a test that Bachmann narrowly won. With 29 percent of 17,000 votes cast, Bachmann beat Texan Ron Paul by a single percentage point. Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, placed a distant third, with only 14 percent. Pawlenty had hoped a strong showing would boost his flagging chances and when he fell short, he abruptly dropped out of the race.
Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and winner of the Iowa straw poll in 2007, chose not to participate, a decision he may end up regretting. An established ‘insider,’ Romney has been up until now perceived as the Republican¹s best bet for beating Obama. In April, he almost tied President Obama in a poll that pitted the two men against each other in a hypothetical 2012 presidential race.
Since then, in the aftermath of the debt ceiling fiasco, the downgrading of U.S. debt, the tanking of the stock market and the new threat of a double dip recession, Obama appears more vulnerable than ever, especially against a candidate like Romney who is perceived to possess economic know-how due to his private sector business experience.
Romney’s problem is that much of the Republican base can’t stand him. In part because of his ever-changing flip-flopping positions on the issues and especially because the health care plan he passed as Governor of Massachusetts served as the model for the hated so-called “Obamacare.”
Still, Romney remains firmly in the top tier of candidates in a restructured and significantly narrowed race, along with Bachmann and Perry.
Bachmann, the Washington ‘outsider,’ is relying more on her willingness to pick a fight with President Obama than on her actual record, a point Pawlenty was quick to make when he was still a candidate during last Thursday’s debate.
“Her record of accomplishment and results is nonexistent. That’s not going to be good enough. The American people are going to expect more and demand more,” Pawlenty said.
But, Iowa Republicans, particularly home-schooling moms and local churchgoers apparently like Bachmann’s scrappy uncompromising attitude, even if it comes with a side of crazy.
Remember, it was an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball where she called for a media investigation of anti-American views in Congress and on the part of then-candidate Obama that brought her to fame.
During the debt ceiling fight, Bachmann insisted that she would vote against raising the debt limit while downplaying the danger of default. She has clung to her position that eliminating the minimum wage “could wipe out unemployment completely.” And on homosexuality, she has said that being “involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle” amounts to “personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement”
Despite her lack of experience, her asinine comments and her migraines, she was still able to win the Straw Poll.
While the nation at large is growing weary of the Tea Party, inside the base of the Republican Party and especially in Iowa, it remains a driving force. Bachmann’s win solidifies her status as a serious contender, at least for now in the ongoing race.
Texas Governor Rick Perry will be going after the same Tea Party evangelical vote as Bachmann, but he brings to the table a Texas swagger, 26 years in elective office and a decade’s worth of experience as Governor of the nation’s second largest state. Perry’s entry shakes up the race and he will likely prove a formidable opponent for both Romney and Bachmann, especially given his well-known ability to rake in the campaign cash.
His small-government, anti-establishment platform coupled with his conservative credentials and his evangelical base may be enough to uproot Bachmann. And, his carefully crafted focus on job growth will likely push him ahead of Romney as the lead Republican ‘job creator,’ particularly in light of Romney¹s record at Bain Capital of firing workers and sending jobs overseas.
Of course, as much as Perry has riding on his supposed role in his state¹s job growth, it might help if he actually had something to do with it. Or, better yet, if that job growth was actually as big as he claims it is.
Neither of which is the case, as we pointed out in the previous post, which takes a close look at the so-called “Texas Miracle,” under Governor Perry. Perry’s abysmal record as Governor will get intensive scrutiny as the campaign moves ahead.
Ron Paul deserves some mention for his strong second place finish in the straw poll. He has a small but passionate following among libertarians in the Republican Party, but the Paul supporters, as committed as they are, represent a relatively small slice of the Republican primary electorate. Paul will continue to compete, but he is not a viable candidate for the nomination.
This past weekend has winnowed the field to three contenders but the lack of a clear frontrunner highlights a party in conflict with itself. While the Republicans are resoundingly unhappy with Obama, no one seems quite sure who or what they want in his place.
It would seem that the ideal Republican candidate would be an anti-establishment, uncompromising, experienced ‘outsider,’ who would somehow be able to eliminate the deficit; start, fund, and win a war with Iran; and fix the economy within a single quarter, all without raising taxes.
Mitt Romney may still be ahead in the national polls, but,
with Bachmann¹s win in Iowa and Perry now an official candidate things change quickly.
Sarah Hackley is a freelance writer and editor based in Austin, Texas. Read more at www.sarahhackley.com/blog