Skip to content

How About a ‘Teach-In’ for Change?

Posted by Marvin on April 28, 2013 at 5:19 pm

 

(Before you begin to read, let me bring your attention to the REPLY button at the end.)

Many of us know about teach-ins from personal experience. They were a mainstay of the nineteen-sixties when people had a compelling need to self-educate about important issues of the time. For my contemporaries they were about the Viet Nam War and about fairness for all Americans.

Others, younger, may know about teach-ins from stories related by parents or from novels about a not so long ago time when people yearned for change. And came together to do something about it.

Then teach-ins went away. The War ended and people went about other things–day-to-day stuff.  They needed to return to a time when there was peace and conversation no longer focused on napalm and inequality. People found tranquility in complacency.  Progressives included.

In 2008, change became the watchword of the day and Americans chose up sides. Most saw a need for government policy that attended to fairness. Others felt need to cling to attained advantage.  In some ways 2008 looked like, felt like, 1968. A ‘hope and change’ mantra galvanized sleeping progressives and moderates–even some conservatives claiming the tag of Obamacans.

Five years later, we appear to be experiencing a return to complacency.  Worse, malaise. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are in our rear view mirrors and, again, tired of persistent stress and disagreement, and a draining 24-7 news cycle, there is a malaise among progressives. Among Americans.

Could it be that only the prospect of another ill-conceived, lie-driven war will shake us out of our doldrums?

Teach-ins, for the uninitiated, are informal meet-ups, most often organized around a political issue, typically on a school campus or in a public park, places where Americans feel they can be educated about reality.  The focus turns to truth about war and about fairness.  

Think of Occupy Wall Street as a teach-in.  Bankers characterized it as a throng of no-goods, good-for-nothings, aiming to disrupt the status quo.  Police were assigned the task of dispersal.  The scene, indeed, reminiscent of the ’60s.

Not so much because of who was there; more because of why we were there.  A threat to complacency was taking hold amid the actions of people coming together to self-educate and, given the turnouts, gaining mainstream media’s attention. 

Despite media’s typically imbalanced negative attention to assemblages throughout the country, opposition to the unfairness that characterizes American governance and culture became a rallying cry. 

Why then has such a momentary but energized movement toward fairness, toward progressive ideas, dissipated?

I have arrived at a conclusion that Americans just want to live their lives without the distraction of war. Understandably it drains us. Humans have a natural tendency to seek peaceful coexistence. As long as things appear to be quiet, there will be a momentum toward passivity.  Even if that’s because governments lie to the people about stuff in order to  make the world appear a better, safer, quieter place.

Judy Epstein responded to Quit Your Bitchin’:

    Here’s why I didn’t write. It’s such a big issue and I can’t get my arms around it, and what can we do, anyway, except try to get a different Supreme Court? Hard to get Fired Up about when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain.

Ruth Claire Weintraub offers a sense of optimism, then backs off:

     (Your article) wasn’t offensive at all. I caught a League of Women Voters

meeting on a TV station in Seattle that was about exactly this problem. There is legislation afoot in Washington State to counteract the horrific problem of fair elections, campaign financing etc etc.
   Public financing is the key, of course – NO CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS ALLOWED, reverse Citizens United, end the ridiculous delusion that corporations are persons: all of that and more.

   But putting it all together so that it works? So that it actually happens?

   Hmmm. If it were easy, we’d have done it already, no?

Among the more promising responses was that of Vicki Alspector:

   Rubin and I are passionate about campaign finance reform. We went to a lecture by the president of Common Cause NY. They are doing a lot of work on this. 

   Part of what the apathy is about is the complete and total frustration of our voices being ignored in Mineola, Albany, Washington, etc. I’m more than willing to work for something, but we are outspent and out shouted.

   It’s not about your newsletter, which I am ever grateful to receive, its about the ‘littleness of me’ that I feel I’m experiencing. Burn-out, maybe. We got Obama elected and he puts Social Security on the table. Our own people are fighting us. How can we not be depressed?

   Perhaps we need a success. Occupy Wall Street was great in that it reinforced the whole concept of the 99% fighting for what is good for ALL of us. Even if we occupy the 1% or the 2%, we realize that we are nothing if the entire country fails to achieve what we have been able to achieve.

   I’ve spent most of my adult life working to public education (not working, volunteering) and I see it going down the tubes in a maze of over-testing, under-funding, over-mandating, and being made the scapegoat (even by Democratic candidates) for everything. This is especially true regarding property taxes. (People with little or no information simply blame the school districts when they have no idea of where their $$$$ is going).

    So, yes, I’m disgusted…but I’m not apathetic.

That’s a pretty apt description of those who participated in the teach-ins of the ’60s:

Disgusted, but not apathetic.

 It’s why we have great need to re-direct our frustrations to action. It’s why venting won’t ever get us anywhere. It is why I am advocating a teach-in so all the Judys who ‘can’t get their arms around the issue’ will get self-educated.

Yes We Can! Long Island will not be alone in this effort. Social networking — not a tool of the ’60s — can help us more readily spread the word.  Take a look at a sampling of the  groups forming around the issue of campaign finance reform:

 

The Facebook page of Fair Elections for New York.  Demanding fair elections for all New Yorkers.     Fair Elections New York  

 

The Facebook page of Strong Economy for All  This coalition is made up of NY’s most effective and engaged unions and community organizations.   Strong Economy for All  

The website of Move to Amend-End     Corporate Rule, Legalize Democracy.   Building excitement at the state and local levels about being part of a larger movement, and about the process of movement building itself.   Move to Amend

MoveOn is working together with Fair Elections for New York:  Are you sick and tired of elections and our elected officials being controlled by big money, CEOs, and lobbyists? Do you think that issues like education, health care, jobs, and protection of the environment would be addressed… if politicians didn’t have to raise all their campaign cash from industry groups, companies and assorted self-interested billionaires? …If, instead, they have to depend on the voters? That’s right! Voter-owned-elections! Then you need to come to this meeting, Fair Elections for New York NOW!

   Thursday, May 9    7pm   Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Central Nassau      

(Corner of Stewart Avenue and Nassau Blvd.)

  

To the many, too many, who share Judy’s feelings that campaign finance reform is ‘too big to get our arms around, and too hard to get fired up about’, I reject that idea. 

I am proposing a Yes We Can! Long Island teach-in so that we can self-educate, so that we can rise above the malaise, so that we can collectively work toward a better future through campaign finance reform.

YWC!LI, working with similar-minded groups, will organize the teach-in.

First we need to hear from you that you are willing-fired up-to participate. 

  • Will you attend a Saturday teach-in for a few hours?
  • What ideas do you have for organizing a teach-in?
  • How many others might you bring with you?
  • Where do you live (so we can locate an event(s) to optimize participation)?
  • Will you donate (you decide the amount) to help defer teach-in costs?

That’s my response to Quit Your Bitchin‘.

 Click here to respond  

Posted in Articles.

No comments

Time to Get Off Our Collective Asses

Posted by Marvin on April 25, 2013 at 5:18 pm

Fair Elections Now Act: 

A Small Donor Approach to Congressional Campaign Finance

There has a been a lengthy history of campaign finance reform in the United States. The general sense of legislation is that, without cfr, money will continue to dominate government policy. Efforts to change the role of money in politics have been primarily focused on primary campaigns.  A brief overview of cfr legislation:

The Federal Election Campaign Act (’72) required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. Amended in ’74 it included limits on contributions and creation of the

Federal Election Commission. It focused on restricting the influence of

hard money donations made by wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations to $1K and donations by political action committees to $5K.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (’02),McCain-Feingold, is a more recent federal campaign finance law. It revised some of the legal limits on expenditures set in the previous legislation; prohibiting unregulated soft money contributions to national political parties–funds given to independent organizations that do not specifically advocate the election or defeat of candidates and not contributed directly to candidate campaigns.

Parts of McCain-Feingold were challenged as unconstitutional by groups and individuals including the the National Rifle Association and by Senator Mitch McConnell. In ’03 the Supreme Court upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold, 5-4. 

In ’06, the Supreme Court announced two decisions regarding campaign finance. In FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court held that certain advertisements might be constitutionally entitled to an exception from the ‘electioneering communications’ provisions of McCain-Feingold limiting broadcast ads that merely mention a federal candidate within sixty days of an election. The Supreme Court held in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life thereby establishing a broad exemption for any ad that could have a reasonable interpretation as an ad about legislative issues.

Also in ’06, the Court held that a Vermont law imposing mandatory limits on spending was unconstitutional, under the precedent of Buckley v. Valeo. The Court also struck down Vermont’s contribution limits as unconstitutionally low, the first time that the Court had ever struck down a contribution limit.

In ’09, the Court heard arguments about whether or not the law could restrict advertising of a documentary about Hillary Clinton. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was decided in January 2010. The Court found that restrictions on expenditures were invalid and could not be applied to Hillary: The Movie.

In ’10, The Disclose Act was proposed in the Senate. The bill’s intention was to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in federal elections and government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections. The bill would have imposed new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties and require sponsors to appear in an ad and accept responsibility for it. President Obama argued that the bill would reduce foreign influence over American elections. Democrats needed at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes to overcome GOP procedural delays, but were unsuccessful.

There’s a lot more to the story of campaign finance reform, but this brief history is intended to provide sufficient motivation you to become more engaged in these efforts.

 

Admittedly, I may be in over my head here, so please share your understanding of cfr legislation to date. As may be necessary, I will update this piece for our members.

 

***********

 

 

Americans for Campaign Reform is a bipartisan community of citizens who believe that public funding of federal elections is the single most critical long-term public policy issue our nation faces.

At a recent meeting of Yes We Can! Long Island‘s board, we concurred.

What is at stake is nothing less than the health of our democracy, the quality of our leadership, and our government’s ability to tackle the serious problems that affect us all: health care, energy policy, education, the environment and the economy.

Americans for Campaign Reform supports voluntary public funding of federal elections through a system which encourages candidates to rely on small donations from a large number of supporters, provides matching funds to maximize the impact of small donations, requires full disclosure of money spent to influence elections, has reasonable contribution limits and provides each eligible candidate with the resources necessary to run an effective, competitive and winning campaign. Such a public funding system should be based on the organization’s principles:

  • Our leaders should be elected by, and accountable to, the voters based on their ideas, ability, experience, and character, not their access to individuals, entities or special interests that can give and raise large campaign contributions. A public funding system should support candidates who can show widespread support by building a base of small donor contributions.
  • No individual, organization or entity should be allowed to contribute to a candidate, political party, or political committee at a level that gives rise to the appearance or reality that such contributions will provide the contributors with undue access or influence and increase the potential for real and apparent corruption.
  • Our campaign finance system must allow every eligible individual to have a meaningful opportunity for his/her voice to be heard and to participate in voluntarily supporting the candidates of their choice. Matching small contributions with public funds in an amount that empowers each small donor should be the foundation of any public funding system.
  • Candidates who qualify for public funds must have access to sufficient funds to communicate their ideas, values and perspectives, and to engage their opponents, so that they can fully make their case as to why they should be elected and, so that the voters can then make an informed choice. After each election, there should be an independent review to identify any adjustments needed to qualifying requirements and funding levels consistent with the goals and principles of the public funding system.
  • The rights of independent and third party candidates must be respected.
  • Changes in society and technology often require elections and campaigns to evolve and adapt to most effectively reach voters. Our campaign finance system should encourage and support such changes to the extent they support the goals and principles of the system.
  • Efficient, effective and independent administration and enforcement of the campaign finance system is necessary to allow citizens and candidates to have confidence in the system and our democracy. Recognizing the problems inherent in Members of Congress administering and enforcing the system that governs their own reelection, there must be an independent, non-partisan commission to administer and enforce the law and make appropriate adjustments to the rules, including qualifying and funding levels.

Fair Elections Provisions:

1. Candidate Qualifying and Seed Money

Candidates seeking to participate in Fair Elections collect a set number of qualifying contributions of $5-$100 each from their constituents plus a baseline of $50,000 or more

in total contributions. Contributions provide seed money to jump-start the candidate’s campaign and are limited to residents of the candidate’s home state.

2. Primary Funding

Qualifying candidates receive a Fair Elections start-up grant to launch their campaign and additional matching funds of $5 for every $1 raised from their constituents in contributions up to $100 each. Matching funds are capped at a competitive spending threshold, consistent

with historic spending levels and media market costs. Qualifying candidates may raise additional unmatched contributions up to $100 each on an unlimited basis.

3. General Election Funding

Participating candidates who win their party’s nomination are eligible to receive competitive public matching funds in the general election, supplemented by $5-to-$1 public matching funds on in-state donations of up to $100 each. A competitive spending limit on public funds is observed. Qualifying candidates may raise additional unmatched contributions up to $100

each on an unlimited basis.

4. Discounted Airtime and Public Debates

Participating candidates are eligible to receive discounted media rates for campaign communications in the run-up to the primary and general election campaigns. Media vouchers are also provided to participating nominated candidates for use in the general election. Candidates agree to take part in public debates.

5. Administration and Review

An independent office of the FEC will be charged with administering and updating the program. A five member board of Presidential appointees will lead the office, with four members recommended by House and Senate party leaders and the fifth member by consensus of the original four. Qualifying requirements and funding levels will be subject to review and amendment after each election to ensure viability over time.

Summary of Fair Elections Provisions

1. Cost Estimate
The estimated cost of the Fair Elections program for House and Senate elections is $700-$900 million per year,depending on the level of candidate participation.

2. Funding Mechanism
The Senate bill calls for funding from a 0.5% surcharge on government contracts in excess of $10 million, not to exceed $500,000 per contractor. House bill funding comes from 10% of the proceeds of broadcast spectrum auctions.

A Small Donor Approach to Congressional Campaign Finance

Contribution Limit for individuals
House: $100 primary; $100 general
Senate: $100 primary; $100 general

***********

The question I put to our members is: Do you feel strongly enough about campaign finance reform to get involved? 

With sufficient positive response, YWC!LI will organize a meeting to highlight campaign finance reform and discuss measures we might take to support a range of efforts currently taking place.

Governor Cuomo emphasized in his State of the State address that New York needs to completely overhaul its campaign finance system–as quickly as possible:

We must enact campaign finance reform because people believe that campaigns are financed by someone else at exorbitant rates.

 His plan has been, to date, mostly rhetoric. Progressive New Yorkers need to hold our governor’s feet to the fire.

Organizing for Action (until recently Obama for America) has put its support behind the governor’s initiative.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has gone on record:

This is about empowering real people in the political process and making sure that voters are the ones deciding an election — not the corporations, special-interest groups, or lobbyists.

Currently, individual donors in New York state can do essentially whatever they want in terms of making political contributions (in excess of $10K). Cuomo has asserted a willingness to implement a matching funds system similar to that of New York City.

While this may seem like a small step, such action could lead to overturning the Court’s Citizens United decision via constitutional amendment. That would be a change welcomed by President Obama. And me. And you?

Gotta start somewhere. Let’s hear from you.

 


Posted in Articles.

No comments

Guess Who’s Going (Not) to Jail

Posted by Marvin on April 21, 2013 at 11:13 am

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is going to go to jail.  It’s a given. He, with his brother, killed five people this past week in Boston, Massachusetts. Together they severely injured almost two hundred others.  They brought Boston to a standstill.

Donald Adair will not be going to jail. He killed fourteen people this past week in West, Texas.  He severely injured almost two hundred others. He brought West to its knees.

Quite the parallel.

Yet the outcome for these evil-doers will be, most assuredly, totally different.

In the former case, there are videos, an abundance of physical evidence, eye-witness accounts to support conviction. That criminal activity occurred is a given. There is no question that there was a series of acts of terrorism. The only debate will be about whether the Tsarnaev trial will be held in a federal or a military court.

In the latter case, it is being said that there is no indication of criminal activity. There is no suggestion that it involves terrorism.  The only question is whether there will be a trial at all.

Dzhokhar  and Tamerlan Tsarnaev bear responsibility for their heinous deeds in Boston.

Donald Adair bears responsibility for the explosion in West, Texas. The town’s mayor has called it ‘a tragic accident’.  He is half correct. It is tragic. Was it an accident?

The fertilizer plant was inspected by OSHA in 1985 and, at that time, its owner was cited for the improper storage of anhydrous ammonia and fined $30.  OSHA has also cited the plant for violations of respiratory protection standards, but did not issue a fine.

Go figure.

Anhydrous ammonia is a gas with suffocating fumes that is used as fertilizer.The chemical is not considered an explosion risk when in the air as a gas; however, it can explode in certain concentrations inside a container. It can rapidly cause dehydration and severe burns. Exposure to high concentrations can lead to death. When released, the vapors initially move close to the ground causing greater risk for exposure.

 

When the explosion occurred at the West Fertilizer Corporation plant days ago, there was a permit to store nearly 54,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. Ignoring reality, company officials filed an emergency planning report with the EPA stating that there was neither risk of fire nor hazard of explosion at the plant. A second worst possibility was a potential leak from a broken hose used to transfer the product that would not result in any injuries.

 

Given that anhydrous ammonia has a lengthy commercial history of causing large numbers of deaths, why was the plant permitted to be built (and remain) in an area nearby town?

 

Seven years ago the EPA fined the plant $2,300 and told the owners to correct identified problems.  The company certified that it had fixed the cited deficiencies which included a failure to file a risk management program plan on time. One year later West Fertilizer Corporation had a complaint filed against it by local residents concerned with a persistent, lingering odor of ammonia. The company’s report to the EPA responded that  not even a worst-case scenario would be dire.  Perhaps there might be a brief release of ammonia gas that would not kill or injure anyone.

 

Tell that to the people of West, Texas. Those lucky enough to still be alive.

 

Donald Adair, owner of West Fertilizer, has expressed his “heartfelt sympathy for those affected.”  He has pledged to help solve what caused the blast and prevent it from happening again in any community.

 

By that standard should the Tsarnaev brothers be permitted to offer an apology and pledge to make amends for the lives taken, the bodies maimed, the families destroyed in and around Boston?

 

In Watertown and surrounding towns people have returned to their homes.  The dead and the injured have been accounted for.  Some will be buried this week. Some will remain hospitalized; others, more fortunate, will be returning to their loved ones.

 

In West, rescuers continue to search for bodies amid the rubble. Its residents, forced to evacuate their town, have not yet been permitted to see what remains of their homes, of their friends, of their community.

 

The Tsamaevs will rightly be accused of extremist ties. The surviving brother will be tried, convicted, and sentenced.

 

Donald Adair will likely not be accused of anything. If there is a finding of neglect, the West Corporation would be sued. It may very well cost Adair his livelihood.  It will not cost him his life.

 

Go figure. 

 

Posted in Articles.

No comments

The Sad Simple Reality

Posted by Marvin on April 18, 2013 at 6:54 am

The weapons industry is in business to sell guns and bullets.

The NRA and its like are agents of the immensely profitable weapons industry.

The NRA has come to own elected officials.

Elected officials fold to corporate pressure and sell out the people.

Corruption wins. People lose.

That is why what happened today happened today.

Everything else is just noise.

Posted in Articles.

No comments

Don’t Hold Your Breath. Conservatives Remain Arrogant and Self-Deluding.

Posted by Marvin on April 13, 2013 at 7:13 am

David Brooks’ ‘contribution’ to this morning’s New York Times is a shallow, transparent, and fraudulent piece of journalism.  His op-ed offers an embarrassingly foolish response to President Obama’s proposed budget.
Progressives have a reasoned argument when it comes to criticizing the president’s framework.  The Social Security piece is, for many, most troubling since almost everyone agrees that Americans’ prepaid, earned pensions are irrelevant to the federal budget. There are numerous alternatives to ensure the system will remain solvent. The Medicare piece is more complex, but there are solutions to its systemic difficulties that work well enough for most people.
Our president anticipates, my take, that his proposed budget framework will likely be rejected because it includes increased taxes for those Americans who have benefited the most from an economic system that assures their well-being with a high degree of permanence.
Brooks this day has crafted a piece that totally dismisses the revenue side of the budget. It simply ignores the need for income. Unimaginable. It would be as if families, are expected to examine their household budgets without giving any thought to increasing income.  Of course, for fixed income families, aging out of the job market and with insufficient saving/investment to play with, the only choice is cutting back.  For others, a second job, requesting a raise, having a spouse return to work, and relocating the family would be in the mix.
Brooks, a trickle-down fellow at heart, makes no mention of raising revenue. It does not even occur to him.
Brooks’ op-ed is entitled Bold on Both Ends. Where’s the both?  That is why the Obama framework will most certainly be rejected by the frighties. They will only admit to one way of solving the deficit/debt problem.  Lower taxes, reduce government. That’s why I was little troubled by the passing of Margaret Thatcher.  She and Reagan perfected the ‘starve the beast’ approach to governance. In the tradition of Thatcher-Reagan, Brooks advocates a solution based solely upon transferring existing funds from one government pocket to another. That’s it. End of story. Read his lips–Now new taxes.
Brooks causes me to see red.
Washington still can’t seem to devote enough money to address the challenges faced by the less-educated and ease the segmentation of America. ‘Segmentation’ is Brooks’ way of ignoring growing economic inequality in the wealthiest country in the world. He can’t bring himself to pen a phrase that suggests that the wealthiest Americans have done super well, thank you, by any measure over the past decade.  He is incapable of processing that returning the economy to a more healthy state requires the infusion of money in the short term.
That’s true even after you account for the domestic programs that are outside the discretionary budget and have their own funding stream, like the new early childhood initiative. Brooks conveniently avoids the term ‘entitlements’ because Social Security would work against his thesis.
I generally come to celebrate, not criticize, Obama’s budget. Kind of has the ring of coming to praise Caesar, not bury him.  Obama has the guts to take on special interests in his own party. How about you, Brooksie? When will you face the facts and take on your frighty brethren?  The budget crisis will not be resolved by cuts alone.
The president works hard to reduce inequality. He understands that entitlement programs represent a fundamental threat to the sustainability of the welfare state.  He understand that politics can only work if the president transcends his base and builds a majority coalition.  Now we know with total certainty that Brooks is a shill for the frighties.  They are not even part of the equation.  How can he, in good conscience, write a column that totally omits Boehner and Cantor and McConnell from a piece entitled, Bold on Both Ends ? 
But being moderate means throwing away ideological blunders and facing reality. Reality? Whose reality? There are two sides to a budget–expenditures and revenues.  How can Brooks pretend that the latter is not even worth mentioning?
This debate is organized around the following trade-off: more revenue in exchange for more spending cuts. Brooks call this the president’s kabuki dance. Well, at least he was able to mention ‘revenue’–if only to emphasize its irrelevance.
Republicans feel as if they’ve already given away the store on new revenue, so they are not going to be compromising.  President Obama needs to show Democrats that this is the endpoint, not a starting point, for a further rightward drift.  It’s so simple. A single-sided equation. There is no such thing. Second graders are taught that.  But Republicans dispense their own kind of mathematics. Equivalence is undefined term.
Ultimately, Brooks reveals his hand: The debate would be organized around a different trade-off–not a balance between taxing and spending (there’s Brooks’ one-sided equation for all to see) but a balance between greater discretionary spending in exchange for structural entitlement reform.  In other words, in a frighty budget there would be zero new revenue. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Gournisht. Nuttin’. The economic predicament of our country can be addressed by taking money from entitlements and using the ‘savings’ to pay for discretionary expenses–education, health care, infrastructure.
Republicans would get structural entitlement reform.  Chained CPI for Social Security. Democrats would get crap if Brooks were to have anything to say about the budget.
This deal wouldn’t represent the moderation of the mushy middle. Brooks’ way of saying that there is no place for negotiation or compromise in forging a budget.

 

Party leaders could postpone the debate about tax revenues. They could accept higher deficits short term. They could embrace a deal-making framework that would direct attention toward urgent needs: discretionary programs for now, structural entitlement reforms that accumulate over time. Like reducing payments to the elderly and the frail.

 

Brooks’ math does not hold up.  If you are going to write an editorial about solving the budget crisis, at least make an attempt to appear to be fair.
His adherence to the Cheney doctrine, deficits don’t matter, is appalling. It exposes Brooks to be a fraud. Equations, by design, are mathematical statements that assert the equality of two expressions. The man knows only one side of the equation, the expression cut spending. The frighty side. There would be plenty of time to talk about raising revenue in the future. Like after he has passed his estate on to his heirs. After reading his op-ed this morning, I can’t wait to read about that.
Brooks is increasingly willing to evidence that he is a Republican shill. I understand that the Timesneeds to provide a counterpoint. But Brooks is so blatantly partisan. Summarize his contributions in this way: He provides advice to the Republicans that he believes will help the Republicans, and advice to Democrats that he believes will help the Republicans.
Since introducing his op-ed in a decade ago, his arguments have become increasingly dishonest. He was among the first conservative thinkers to advocate war against Iraq for  a decade to concede that his side had gotten things dreadfully wrong. He had also put his finger on the central failing of the war hawks–their arrogance and self-delusion.
It’s time for Brooks to step up again to concede that the conservative economics strategy is again dreadfully wrong and attribute it to Republicans’ arrogance and self-delusion.
Let’s not hold our collective breath. Brooks is a shill for the right wing. He wants NY Timesreaders to think he’s more intelligent than the average frighty. Bur more and more there’s no idea so stupid for which he’s not willing to hide the bankruptcy of the current brood of Republicans.
To read Brooks’ entire op-ed: Bold on Both Ends

Posted in Articles.

No comments

Interested in Joining Yes We Can! Long Island ?

Posted by Marvin on April 8, 2013 at 9:39 am

Some of you visiting YWC!LI’s blog may not be receiving our newsletter.  The online newsletter includes additional information including Your Voices and provides heads-up for local events.

Learn more about our goals and activities by clicking ABOUT at the top of the home page.

We have not collected dues since the beginning of the recession; membership is free.

You can subscribe by entering an email address at the top, right of the blog home page. Typically, our newsletter is published two or three times each week.Members are encouraged to contribute pieces to be shared with membership and to comment on pieces we publish.


Posted in Articles.

No comments

Offering a Response to ‘We’ve Got it Backwards’

Posted by Marvin on April 7, 2013 at 3:16 pm

President Obama will reveal his budget in a few days.  The basic outline of his attempt to get a balanced budget done will be bashed by the many–particularly the most progressive Dems and the frighty GOP element. The lefties will exhaust themselves over proposed changes to future Social Security payments and the like.  Frighties will dig in their heels given the need for increased revenue.

Unfortunately, any public negotiation will be more a charade than an attempt to reach agreement.  This morning’s NY Times front page highlighted the growing number of congressional aides who, having served on budget and appropriations committees, have turned to selling their wares on K Street.  How to get rich in one easy lesson:

Become a lobbyist while selling out your country.

It opens the doors that allow one to make the case. What doors? How do we get in the room?

Many of (the) lobbyists have already saved their clients millions–in some cases, billions-of dollars . . . by extending certain corporate tax perks, provisions that were adopted as part of the so-called fiscal cliff legislation in January. Notice the article is responding to a single instance in identifying the work of aides who later became lobbyists who helped financial firms save $11.2 billion in tax deferments and helped secure a $222 million tax benefit that is shared with the liquor industry.

A short time ago, we learned that Mary Schapiro, former chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission, accepted the position as managing director and chairman of governance and markets practice for the Promontory Financial Group, which specializes in providing consultancy services for banks and other financial entities.

My contention remains that it is not the lobbyists who are to be condemned.  They have every reason to feed their families and exercising their constitutional rights.  It is the history of Congress and the Senate–the orchestrators of corrupt and dysfunctional tax policy.  The Times lists congressman whose former aides have gone on to work as tax lobbyists.  At the top of the list: Baucus, Grassley, Schumer, Reid.  Well, there’s the bipartisanship we’ve been hoping to see!

Finance panels pretty much decide how the government will raises the major share of federal revenues and will expend almost half of that amount. Baucus, a prime example, last month blocked the Democrats’ budget proposal for the coming year.  It seems he has a problem with one trillion in new revenues. Not surprisingly, when he was a leader among the Blue Dogs, he pushed hard for the Bush tax cuts which disproportionately favor the wealthy.  It is such generosity that has Americans digging their way out of the debt and deficit mess.

How great is the corporate advantage over that of everyman? Just count the number of lobbyists, factor in their access, and multiply by corporate dollars that pay their salaries (several times greater than their former government pay) and dangle the incentives.  It is not just a symbiotic relationship between legislators and lobbyists that greases the skids.  Four former aides to Mr. Baucus said that their ties to him heightened their appeal to clients.

Temper this with a requirement that former government employees have to take a one year hiatus before they can accept a lobbying job.  I doubt very much they sit home clipping coupons during the interim.  There is the usual array of liaisons that serve as pre-employment training, a time for interviews and adjustment.

 

Imagine the agenda for a workshop for former aides/future lobbyists.  A hand-out would certainly include the game plan for fighting the Affordable Care Act.  Who are the key players that need our assistance? What are tax the implications for a particular industry? What incentives might be divined for insurance companies and related industries?

 

You’ve got to laugh when former Sen. Packwood acknowledges his former aides’ access to Congress while doubting, in the very same breath, that they have much influence on regulation and tax policy.

 

Here’s my little secret.  Promise not to tell anybody? I’ve decided to fight back for my own needs and wants.  I am going to hire a federal lobbyist to protect my Medicare and Social Security.  I am going to hunt down an experienced State legislator to fight in Albany to preserve my pension rights.  I am going to recruit a small army of lobbyists willing to provide insider information that will advantage my IRA portfolio.

If only I could find a corporation willing to provide the cash and the related goodies that would enable me to hire my very own lobbyists. Here’s the good news for you: Just for your keeping my plan our little secret I will convene a workshop to share my experiences with you.  We’ll meet at my new office on K Street; let’s say a year from now.  I’ll fly you down, pick up the tab. But remember to keep your word.  This must remain our little secret.

(italics are from NY Times, April 7, 2013)

************

You and I know very well that our little scheme is not going to work.  In fact, it will very likely land us in the pokey.  But there is something we can do about the situation.  Lacking industry-scale buckaroos to toss around, we need to coalesce around a few key principles.

It begins with campaign finance reform.  It means electing people to office who have the strength of character to forego their personal fortune, who understand what is meant by building an economy from the middle out, who are committed to the ninety-nine percent who lack the resources to screw the rest of the people (not that we would ever go there).

There’s a new group, Strong Economy for All, a coalition of unions and citizen action committees committed to fair taxes and fair budgets, more jobs and better wages, investment in education and higher education for the future, a strong safety net, and public financing of elections.Sounds like a pretty good set of goals to me. Click here: Strong Economy for All

Yesterday I had a chat with Charles Khan .  Some of you will recall him from his role on Long Island with Obama for America. I learned about a group called fairelectionsny.org. Its website promote its goal:  Don’t just worry about the impact of huge campaign contributions on elections in New York. FIGHT BACK.  Click here: Fair Elections New York

The Fair Elections for New York campaign is calling on state legislators to pass a comprehensive reform package, including public financing of elections. These reforms are intended to put the process back in the hands of voters and are proven to increase small donor participation in campaigns. We have an historic opportunity to give New Yorkers the campaign finance system they deserve and want.

Your choice is clear. Join me in my corrupt attempt to hire lobbyists to serve my personal interests while screwing you–or contribute time and energy to a group that will give everyday people a chance of leveling the playing field on the key issues and policies of our time.

If you can manage the time, you can attend a local meeting this Wednesday evening. Hope to see you there.

  Fair Elections house party in Merrick

50 Loines Avenue Merrick, NY 11566
Wednesday, April 10    7:30 pm
 

Just in case you need a bit more motivation to get involved, watch this video on corporate spending and corruption: How did people lose control of the economy to corporations?

Posted in Articles.

No comments

The Problem: We’ve Got it Backwards

Posted by Marvin on April 5, 2013 at 4:00 pm

I am going to tell you something you already know. It’s about values that you and I hold dear. And it’s about fighting back.

Each and every day it becomes increasingly evident that the gun lobby is winning the battle over gun rights. The president and vice-president have traveled the country to inform and motivate public opinion that favors reasonable restrictions on gun ownership–per the Constitution and as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Rather than the Connecticut holocaust resulting in laws to limit senseless killing, lobbying efforts on behalf of the gun industry was ignited.  In the months since the murder of innocents, any cinders of hope for advancing civilization have lost their spark.  It took moments for the industry to get in gear, to seize a welcomed opportunity to multiply the sale of guns throughout America. At best, attempts to improve things have been reduced to smoldering embers.

 

 

The situation has worsened despite agreement among neverbefore numbers of Americans that gun control needs to happen.

Here’s where we’ve got it backwards. Lobbyists, like welders and teachers, are hired to perform certain functions that further the interests of a particular entity or industry. I am not justifying the obvious differences. I am highlighting, unfortunately, how our culture works.

The problem is a constant stream of sleazy politicians who court the the interests of lobbyists;

who take office with their palms open, facing up; who should be incarcerated before the lobbyists who are merely plying their trade on behalf of employers who enjoy bottomless resources.  There are lobbyists for good causes and organizations.  There are lobbyists for dastardly ones.  Guess who’s winning?

Elected officials are taking bribes of one sort or another left and right. Those who do are no better than drug dealers or inside traders or the mafia. We have high-ups leaving government jobs to serve the interests of the very same entities they had been employed to monitor, to investigate, to prosecute.  We have representatives who take vacations under false pretenses, shack up in the jungle, only to return to ask a cuckolded spouse to run his campaign for re-election.  We have a Justice whose wife lobbies on behalf of an industry whose interests upon which the Supreme Court will be ruling; senators whose spouses work behind the scenes to enhance the elected spouse’s positions.

Too often they get away with their doings because they find themselves–in one way or another–with lifelong tenure. There is the more obvious situation of life-long appointments for justices; there is the more subtle permanency derivative of gerrymandering.

That is why campaign/election reform is the only meaningful way to return democracy to democracy.  

It is the only sustainable way to elect and appoint legitimate representatives–executive, legislative, judicial–who will perform as Americans are entitled to expect of them.  We have been taught in the elementary grades fairy tales of how the nation was founded; in high school about how America is the icon of democracy throughout the planet.  Many of those stories are severely tarnished or wholly concocted by certain interests. I had to laugh (sadly) reading this week about the enormous gap that exists between the oft-told caccomplishments of Ponce de Leon and the reality of the Fountain of Youth.

If only many of the history lessons we were fed were more fact than fiction.  When people say America is the best country, there should be no argument.  However, that does not suggest our country is often enough a place of fairness, equity, and honesty.  History demonstrates that every long-term institution eventually screws up.  Think about the downfall of empires. Think about local governance. Think about this State’s legislators.  Think about the politicians who are locked into positions–because they are on the take rather than remaining vigil and committed to certain standards or values or constituencies.

Not so long ago, during a moment of particularly grueling frustration following the breakdown of America’s financial system, Senator Durbin proclaimed, The banks own this place. That may have been the single truest bit of political wisdom uttered by an elected politician in a very long time. It was true in the moment and is increasingly valid today.

Few–on both sides of the issue–will contest that corporations are running the country. They had control before the Court’s Citizens United decision and will continue to use vast financial advantage to hand-pick candidates for office–beginning with the presidency (you know which one I’m alluding to) and working the way down the political food chain to federal commissioners and local perks.

This  is not, necessarily, a hopeless situation. We do live in a democracy and enjoy freedoms and rights guaranteed to its citizens. There are groups out there focusing on these basic elements of democracy and have, too often, achieved some degree of success despite the lack of awareness and/or support of the many.

Move to Amend is a coalition of hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of individuals committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, not corporate interests.

Move to Amend is fighting for an amendment to the Constitution to unequivocally state that inalienable rights belong to human beings only, and that money is not a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment and can be regulated in political campaigns. The values that MtA stands for are accountability and responsibility (personal and organizational), transparency, community, and anti-oppression–within ourselves, communities, work places, policies, and representation.

There is no time better than this moment to visit MtA‘s website, give thought to its mission, and let them know you are with them.    Click here:

Move to Amend

Today’s New York Times includes an editorial, Rewrite the Second Amendment, informing readers that the United States is one of three countries (Mexico and Guatemala being the others) that assure via constitution one’s right to bear arms.  Of the three, only the United States does not have an explicit restrictive condition on that right.  Boy, do I wish I had realized that during debates over the past few months.

The writer poses, What would happen if our right to gun ownership were explicitly protected and balanced against a concern for public safety? 

He presents a brief argument in favor of legislation, concluding even an uncontroversial constitutional amendment requires a minor miracle. . . The alternative is more violent rhetoric–and more deadly violence.

Meanwhile, as average Americans go about their daily routines of family and finance, the lobbyists are out there doing their jobs–like termites eating away at the most fundamental structures of democracy. Lobbyists would not be successful without the willing cooperation of elected politicians who continue to demonstrate greater concern for lining their own pockets and assuring their own re-election.

Times editorial

Posted in Articles.

No comments

The Terrible Winter

Posted by Marvin on April 1, 2013 at 9:38 pm

It’s April.  Most often heard phrase, This has been the longest winter.

Began with Sandy.  Followed by Newtown.  And this winter does not seem to want to say goodbye.

2012-2013 will be remembered as the terrible winter.

To help us remember, a videography of Sandy’s devastation to, and the recovery of, Long Beach has been made.

 Our Time with Hurricane Sandy:  Videography by Christina Tisi-    Kramer

At once, heart-wrenching and reassuring.

For some reason I recalled a line from an old Woody Allen movie:  God does not see me as an atheist.  He sees me as the loyal opposition.

Gotta be a reason. Trying to figure out the connection.

It’s

April. Soon we’ll be warm and we’ll play at the beach and we’ll walk the boardwalk.

And we’ll remember.

Posted in Articles.

No comments

Tikkun Olam: Repairing the World

Posted by Marvin on March 27, 2013 at 8:28 pm

During Passover, reading the  Hagaddah is, in itself, a journey. There are parts of the story that defy explanation. How, for example, could it have taken Moses and his people forty years to emerge from the Sinai Desert?  The desert occupies a total of 23,000 square miles–less than have the area of New York State. Wandering for four decades? If anyone could have used a GPS it was Moses.
But that’s the small stuff. A big idea that is explored in the hagaddah is the notion of tikkun Olam.  Like Levy’s Rye, one need not be Jewish to find value in this tradition. The meaning of tikkun olam is repairing the world.  In the context of our time it readily translates to in the interest of public policy that protects those who are of greatest need.  In biblical times–it meant freeing slaves. More recently in America–it meant freeing the slaves.  In contemporary America–tikkun olam is the spirit behind economic and racial equality, voting rights, womens’ rights, gay rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps.
So much of what Congress continues to be hung up on is central to a commitment to repairing. It has become increasingly apparent which party has a social GPS and which one lacks a moral compass. Far more often, Democrats apply the tenet of tikkun olam–acts of repair by and for people. The focus is on acts of social responsibility.
The phrase tikkun olam was used to refer to the great social action work of the 1950s. Over succeeding decades, the phrase remains central to the goals and actions of social action programs. Some involve acts of charity; others acts of kindness.  The concept is intertwined with a sense of human responsibility for fixing what is wrong with the world. In no way, shape, or form does tikkun olam apply to corporations.  Hence, it does not apply to the Citizens Uniteddecision,to Paul Ryan’s budget, or to the Republican platform.
Repairing the world underscores humanity’s shared responsibility to heal. What we have witnessed time and time again since the 2008 election is that the world will not heal by itself. It will not miraculously clot to stem bleeding; nor form a scab to protect against infection.

Healing is passive. Repairing is active. The phrase repair the worldassumes the need for people to come together to take action.
Consider Congressman Rob Portman, briefly a very conservative presidential wannabe in 2012. A short time ago, Portman announced that he has a gay son and could no longer justify his opposition to same-sex marriage. His spokesman explained that Portman has undergone a change of heart.  Of course he has–it’s his own flesh and blood.  But to my mind while Portman may have had a change of heart, but I doubt very much that he has had a change of mind.
While publicly supporting giving gay men and women the right to marry, his announcement reinforces the greed, selfishness, and arrogance of frighties like Portman:  I’ve come to the conclusion that for me, personally, I think this is something that we should allow people to do, to get married, and to have the joy and stability of marriage that I’ve had for over 26 years, that I want all of my children to have, including our son, who is gay. 
 
Until it became a personal need, Portman had been fully aligned with his privileged GOP brethren who see the world only in their own terms. That may be what prompted a spokesman for John Boehner to intervene: While Mr. Boehner respects Mr. Portman’s position, the speaker continues to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Suppose Portman’s son had declared that he had changed his religion from Methodist to Judaiism or Islam or Buddhism.  Suppose Portman’s son had informed his father that via some miracle he was now actually African or Latin or Asian.  Suppose Portman’s son announces his intentions of adopting a child. What I propose is that while Portman may have had a change of heart–but I resist the notion that he has had a change of mind.
That is precisely why Republicans have been talking of the need to change their message. But that would require a change of messengers.  This group of frighties is incapable of changing their minds–at least collectively–unless something very personal and very threatening happens to challenge their very personal existence–like needing to live on food stamps or rely on Medicaid.  They have no sense of tikkun olam, no interest in healing, and–based upon their actions–no intention of repairing the world.
Continued obstructing, filibustering, and refusing to hold hearings on nominees is the GOPs carefully crafted passive strategy when it comes to doing what might somehow be conceived of as supportive of President Obama.  It is the Republican majority Congress and a GOP-filibustering Senate that allow our country’s needs to go unattended.  It is the strategy that Mitch McConnell proclaimed in 2008 and that the likes of Eric Cantor will carry on tomorrow.
Tikkun olam is a practice followed not because it is required by biblical law, but because it is a mainstay of social harmony. It is central to democracy, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Tell that to Eric Cantor as he reads from the hagaddah..
***********
Steve Bob, co-founder of Rabbis for Obama, expresses it this way:
President Obama has pursued tikkun olam in countless ways. He’s fighting to restore fairness for families, making sure we all play by the same rules, that hard work pays off and that responsibility is rewarded. He’s taking unprecedented steps toward equality for women, gays and lesbians, and for long-marginalized groups. And he’s isolating Iran and taking terrorists off the field – including more than half of al-Qaida’s top leadership. General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden isn’t.

The list goes on. Doubling fuelefficiency standards, as the president did, not only saves us money at the pump, but it also to makes sure we live in a world with cleaner air to breathe, and in a country less dependent on oil from foreign countries who aren’t friends of America and certainly not of Israel.

A little while ago, many young Americans couldn’t get health insurance. Maybe their job didn’t provide it or they couldn’t afford it. Insurance companies often dropped young adults after they turned 18 or graduated from college. President Obama reformed health care, letting young Americans stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26. In just one year’s time, more than 2.5 million young Americans no longer have to worry about being bankrupted by medical bills. That’s some serious change for our next generation. That’s tikkun olam in deeds, not just words.

President Obama clearly doesn’t just talk about values like fixing the world or standing up for what’s right. He believes in them and he lives them.

*********
The Passover holiday has shown, once again, how genuinely and naturally Barack Obama feels about repairing the world. He speaks from the heart of responsibilities like tikkun olam because he subscribes to the values of social responsibility.  He speaks of a collective obligation to leave the world a better place, reminding us that everyone who wants the best for their children and their neighbors’ children shares in the obligation to repair the world.
Tikkun Olam is a commitment many Americans share. But not enough.

Posted in Articles.

No comments