Republicans

Obama, Democrats Still Grasping For A 'Populist Pitch' For Education

Jeff Bryant — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:44:16 -0500

Reflecting on last night's State of the Union address to the nation, most opinion outlets are declaring that President Obama is now more overtly resorting to a "populist message" to rally Democrats and appeal to independents who are frustrated with stalemate in Washington, DC.

The consensus opinion on the speech is that the President has now pivoted from conciliatory messages and bipartisanship to drawing "sharp contrasts with Republicans" on the most important issues of the day, with a "combative and populist tone."

This is certainly true of at least three of the "four areas" the White House promised would be covered in the speech -- manufacturing, energy, and "American values."

For sure, populist messages related to the economy were loud and clear -- reviving the nation's manufacturing sector, pressing the case for government intervention, reforming the tax structure so rich people pay more. And these are indeed in sharp contrast to Republican proposals to allow businesses to ship more American jobs overseas, protect big polluters and loan predators, and coddle millionaires who pay less then their fair share for the infrastructure and services provided by the 99%.

The President deserves a lot of credit for taking policy arguments where they need to go -- to clear distinctions based on progressive values versus the Republican devotion to corporate hegemony.

But when it came to the topic of education, the fourth "area" the White House promised to address, the President's remarks were very much more tempered and fraught with compromise.

So yes, it's good that President Obama has found a populist voice that contrasts sharply with Republican approaches to the economy, trade, government regulation, taxation, and other policies. But when it comes to education, he, and Democrats in general, continue to mumble.

Education's Current Policy Miasma

As Education Week's ever-useful Alyson Klein observed, the only "concrete K-12 policy" the President offered in his speech was to demand states raise mandatory attendance ages to 18 to help stave-off drop outs. The specific policy points related to higher ed, were for controlling college costs and linking community colleges into business partnerships.

The rest of the rhetoric was devoted to broad generalizations about teachers and how much they "matter." None of this is necessarily wrong headed, but, as education journalist Dana Goldstein observed, it is particularly "underwhelming."

Furthermore, the rhetoric demonstrates the extent to which meaningful debate about education policy has gotten stuck in a stale status quo of bipartisan talking points. As veteran education journalist Jay Mathews has observed, the President and his likely Republican opponent -- Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney -- can be described as "education triplets."

The president and the two Republicans each have some unique ideas for schools, but by and large they support the test-driven, school-rating, pro-charter-school policy that has ruled the United States for more than a decade, no matter which party controlled the presidency or Congress.

For sure, among people who are most passionate about schools and educating children, debates are quite heated and full of conflict. But very little of that energy seems to resonate upward to the nation's leadership -- at least not in the same way that arguments about economics, immigration, and culture populate the platforms of virtually all major political campaigns.

Some would suggest that that's a good thing, as policy matters concerned with the well being of children should eschew ideology and focus on "what works." But with the crash and burn of No Child Left Behind -- a policy built supposedly on a pragmatic solution to lift all children -- it's a good bet that fewer and fewer people continue to believe that. And Republicans certainly make no bones about pushing populist arguments for education policy (more about that later). So why should Democrats continue to disarm themselves before the fight even begins?

It's not that people don't care about education. According a preview of SOTU in McClatchy "more than four out of five Americans -- 81 percent -- say the president should focus his energies on domestic issues, according to a new poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. That's the highest in 15 years." And education is a major domestic issue.

In fact, according to a recent survey conducted by Rasmussen, 60 percent of respondents cited "education" as "very important" -- that ties other big issues such as taxes and Social Security, and out-polls immigration (49%), national security (48%), Afghanistan (24%), and Iraq (19%).

So there's little reason to neglect populist arguments for education -- and ample opportunity.

Stand Up for School Funding

One populist message that was certainly missing from the President's address was the issue of school funding. States across the country have made the greatest cuts to public education spending since the Great Depression, and the effects have been devastating to schools, teachers, and students.

Seated in the box next to the President's wife Tuesday night was Exhibit A for the case against funding cuts. Sara Ferguson, a classroom teacher from Chester-Upland school district in Pennsylvania, was the President's guest as a representative of teachers and other staff members at her school who continued to keep working for their students when the state cut off funding for their jobs. At Huffington Post she writes:

Public schools and teachers need the basic resources necessary to effectively do their jobs. Our students deserve the best this country has to offer, and we all have a shared responsibility to make sure they receive it. However, too many politicians are balancing the budgets on the backs of students.

Certainly many teachers and parents feel as HelemGyn expressed in comments at Alexander Russo's popular edu-blog that she wished "education funding had had more play in the SOTU since it's a central issue facing state legislatures around the country. A compelling voice on why education needs to be funded adequately is needed now more than ever."

Instead of neglecting the issue altogether, why didn't the President make it an occasion to skewer conservative governors who keep violating their citizen's right to a quality education: such as the Alabama governor who wants to siphon money meant for education to the state's general funds. Or the Tennessee governor who contends that slashing teacher pay and dramatically increasing class sizes will actually improve teacher "effectiveness." Or the Kentucky governor who cut education spending while preserving tax breaks for a Bible-themed amusement park.

This Administration, and Democrats in general, have a golden opportunity to take a strong stand for increasing funds to schools. They certainly make the argument for increasing funds for jobs, businesses, and retirees. That they continue to think it's advantageous to neglect the welfare of school children is confounding.

Take on the Tyranny of Testing

Another compelling populist message missing from the President's address was the role of standardized testing in education. The President gave this issue some due when he exhorted schools to "stop teaching to the test." But as Monty Neil, director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, states, in comments to the Alyson Klein post cited above:

The other populist message still left out of the national debate is the role of standardized testing. Despite the President's exhortation to "stop teaching to the test," How can Obama not get the contradiction between calling on teachers to not to teach to the test and then insist that standardized test scores be a "significant" part of the evaluation of teachers? Clearly if teachers' livelihoods are highly dependent on student scores, they will teach to the test, with all the negative consequence that Obama acknowledges. The contradiction is so blatant as to be absurd.
It is time to stop allowing Obama, Duncan, et al., from glibly skating over these contradictions.
Obama also wants fewer dropouts, but the evidence is clear that high-stakes testing increases dropping out (c.f., National Academy of Sciences report). Further, a school climate dominated by testing is often inhospitable to students, pushing them out of school. Evaluating teachers heavily by student scores will perpetuate that negative environment as teachers, to protect themselves from an irrational policy, try to avoid those students whose scores or school/learning put teachers at risk.

There is a small but growing rebellion against the mindless adherence to high-stakes standardized testing in every subject, in every grade, for every child. And just before the President's address, this movement got a huge lift when the governor of the nation's largest state, California's Jerry Brown, called for limits on standardized testing.

Not only did Brown call the tests "too damn long," noting that "second-graders take five days of tests. That's longer than I spent on the bar exam. I think that's absurd." He also called out the whole notion behind testing. "They have this idea that schools are like businesses and if you set the right metrics, you can reward and punish and you get the outcome," he said. "I don't feel things quite work that way."

Democrats ignore this issue at their own peril. While it's understandable that Obama would approach the issue of high-stakes standardized testing with some trepidation -- much of the administration's education policy enforces the testing regime -- he certainly has no problem pointing out the ineffectiveness of basing education on test-taking alone. He simply needs to take the next logical step to limiting the extent of testing.

Time to Draw the Line

Make no mistake about it, Republicans have their populist talking points about education nailed down:
* Creating more competition in the system with private school vouchers, charter schools, and for-profit education ventures.
* Limiting the role of the federal government.
* Allowing states to siphon the federal dollars away from high-needs students to other program areas.
* Curbing the rights of teachers to engage in collective bargaining and have due process (tenure) when their jobs are threatened.
Just to name a few.

So far, the Democrats response to this agenda is unclear.

With the President's SOTU address, we are seeing the populist battle lines beginning to form. On jobs, the economy, taxation, and the social safety net, Democrats look like they are beginning to close ranks and press for measures that are in sharp contrast to the Republican platform supported by the 1%.

Time to make that populist pitch for education too.

Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/jeffbcdm

Republicans Try to Convert America into Pottersville

Leo Gerard — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:20:41 -0500

In the iconic Christmas film, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” an angel offers the beleaguered main character, George Bailey, the stark choice between a hometown named for a cruel banker or one created by and for the middle class.

The banker’s town, Pottersville, is filled with bars, gambling dens and despair. The people’s town of Bedford Falls is made of hope, hard working middle class families, and their homes financed by the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan.

The film’s happy ending is the people of Bedford Falls banding together to rescue George Bailey and the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan that had given so many of them a leg up over the years. Republicans seek a different conclusion. They find middle class cooperation and community intolerable. They want the banker, Henry Potter, with his “every man for himself” philosophy to triumph. In the spirit of their self-centered mentor Ayn Rand, Republicans are trying to disfigure America so she resembles Pottersville.

A building and loan association, like the Bailey Brothers’, uses the savings of its members to provide mortgages to the depositors. Members essentially pool their money to give each other the opportunity to buy cars and homes. At one point in the film, George Bailey explains this concept to frightened depositors who are trying to withdraw their savings during the panic that led to bank runs in 1929.

Bailey urges the townspeople who had crowded into the building and loan office to withdraw only what they need, not empty their accounts. “We have got to stick together,” he tells them, “We have to do this together.” A building and loan doesn’t function without trust and cooperation.

It works well for Bedford Falls. The mortgages it provides help working people move out of the Potters Field slums and into Bailey Park, where homes well kept by their owners increase in value. Despite the success, Potter condemned this practice, saying it was based on “high ideals without common sense.” He criticized the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan for granting a taxi driver a mortgage after Potter’s bank had rejected his application. Potter scoffed at such practices, asking if the building and loan was a “business or a charity ward.”

This is exactly what Republicans do. They describe beloved American programs like Medicare and Social Security as charities – using the euphemism “entitlements.” Like mortgages from the Bailey Building & Loan, Medicare and Social Security are not charities. They’re the American people depositing and pooling their money for the benefit of the American community.

The GOP tries to destroy programs like these that aid the middle class, the vast majority of Americans – the 99 percent – while Republicans protect tax breaks and special perks for the rich – the one percent, the Henry Potters.

This time last year, Republicans demanded extension of tax breaks for the 1 percent, contending tax breaks stimulate the economy.

For the past three months, however, Republicans have fought extension of payroll tax cuts, contending a break benefiting 160 million middle class Americans did not stimulate the economy.

All year, Republicans have demanded an end to programs the middle class created to aid the majority, the 99 percent. The GOP wants to reverse the new banking regulations that were passed in an attempt to prevent another economic collapse caused by risky Wall Street practices. The GOP tried to to rescind the healthcare reform law that prevents insurance companies from terminating coverage when beneficiaries get sick and prohibits the practice of refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Influential Republicans this year have called for repealing laws forbidding child labor, laws guaranteeing minimum wage and laws protecting the environment. They’ve demanded elimination of federal funding for organizations like the Public Broadcasting System that educates preschoolers, Head Start, which provides opportunity to poor children, and Planned Parenthood, which uses 97 percent of its funds to provide general, obstetrical and gynecological medical care to women, many of whom are rural and poor.

Republicans have decided to be the party of Henry Potter, the “meanest man in the county,” a man about whom George Bailey’s father said: “he's a sick man, frustrated. Sick in his mind, sick in his soul, if he has one.”

Like Potter, Republicans deride compassion and community as character defects.

In the Republican world, where greed is good, it was appropriate for Henry Potter to keep the $8,000 in Bailey Building & Loan money that George Bailey’s uncle, Billy Bailey, accidently handed him.

Republicans are attempting to impose that selfish belief system on the selfless American people, people like the citizens of Bedford Falls who rush to the rescue of neighbors.

It won’t work, just like it didn’t in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Republicans will fail in their attempt to make America Pottersville because the 99 percent believe avarice is a sin, not a value. The GOP will fail because greed is not the American way.

Hey, GOP: Give the 99 Percent Some Lovin’

Leo Gerard — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 10:26:16 -0500

MTV needs to stop giving that creepy vampire guy and moony human girl in the “Twilight” series the “best kiss” prize in its annual movie awards because it’s Republicans who truly earned the trophy for the big wet smooches they lay on the 1 percent.

Just think of the GOP lovin’ that went into the Bush tax breaks that gave millionaires more than $125,000 a year and the middle class less than $1,000. Or the arduous embrace signified by cutting the capital gains tax to a rate lower than that on middle class income.

The GOP is a faithful lover to the 1 percent, steady and true. Last week, Republicans found themselves confronted with a choice between raising taxes on the 99 percent or on the 1 percent, and the GOP spared the millionaires. The GOP’s fidelity to the 1 percent is so strong that Republicans wavered on their promises – never raise taxes – and principles – tax cuts don’t have to be offset. As a result, the 99 percent is beginning to feel more than a little spurned by the GOP.

Since the days of the Bush breaks in 2001 and 2003, Republicans consistently have said that tax reductions stimulate the economy and the lost revenue needn’t be offset. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, asserted, for example: “You should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.” The GOP didn’t pay for the Bush breaks, a decision that dramatically increased the deficit, which Republicans now say the 99 percent must pay by suffering slashed government services.

Similarly, Republicans have loyally upheld their solemn pledge to lobbyist Grover Norquist to never, ever raise taxes. Last year, for example, they GOP refused to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, contending that would be a tax increase, not the end of rates intended to be temporary.

To recap: The GOP vowed never to raise taxes. The GOP defines an expiring temporary tax cut as a tax increase. And the GOP believes tax reductions don’t have to be offset.

To serve the 1 percent, however, Republicans discarded all of that supposedly sacrosanct philosophy during last week’s struggle over extending the temporary payroll tax cut. Congress voted last December to decrease for one year the payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, putting an extra $1,000 in the hands of 160 million workers during a recession to pay bills.

This fall, President Obama and the Democrats proposed extending the cut another year, enlarging it by dropping the rate to 3.1 percent, and expanding it under certain circumstances to employers, who pay a matching amount. That would give the average family an extra $1,500 to spend, which would, according to Moody’s Analytics, inject as much as $120 billion into the economy and create 750,000 jobs.

Initially, the GOP opposed extending the tax cut – even though that would seem to violate their principal that restoring previous rates is a tax increase. Norquist must have taken to task the anti-payroll-tax-break Republicans because by last Tuesday, the GOP changed its mind.

Still, Republicans insisted, this tax cut would have to be offset – even though that demand violates their principal that tax cuts don’t need to be paid for.

Democrats proposed offsetting the cost of the extension with a 3.25 percent surtax on 350,000 millionaires and billionaires – the 1 percent.

That confronted lawmakers with this choice: Slightly increase taxes on the nation’s richest 350,000 or raise taxes on 160 million workers by allowing the payroll tax break to expire.

In the U.S. Senate, Democrats and one Republican, moderate Susan Collins of Maine, voted to give the 160 million the break, for a total of 51 votes, more than half. Every other Republican in the Senate sided with the nation’s richest 350,000, providing enough votes to defeat the tax break for the 99 percent – not by a majority but by filibuster.

Republicans then proposed instead to leave the tax at 4.2 percent and offset the extension by freezing the pay of federal workers through 2015 and slashing the federal workforce by 10 percent – a total of 210,000 public servants.

That would spare the wealthy and instead make federal workers pay, and kill jobs during a period of prolonged, painfully high unemployment. Democrats defeated that.

The payroll tax break is set to expire Dec. 31.

Where’s the GOP lovin’ for the 99 percent?

The GOP vote against extending and expanding the payroll tax break felt like a kick in the ass to the 99 percent. The Republican proposal to make middle class federal workers – instead of the nation’s wealthiest – bear the cost of extending the tax break seemed like the GOP was once again kissing the 1 percent’s ass.

The 99 percent is beginning to suspect the GOP will never treat them any better than Newt Gingrich treats his wives. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans told New York Times/CBS News pollsters in October that they believe Congressional Republicans favor the rich.

Hey, GOP, are your right wings just too short to embrace the 99 percent?

Giving Thanks for the Occupation, Election, Demonstrations

Leo Gerard — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:29:51 -0500

I want to thank you, thank you
Thank you, thank you,
Thank you, thank you,
Thank you, thank you. ~ Natalie Merchant, “Kind and Generous”

This week’s holiday mandates giving thanks. For many Americans, that is complicated by the harsh years since 2008.

There’s the bitterness of lost jobs, foreclosed homes and diminished opportunity. There’s the resentment over bailing out Wall Street, then watching banksters grant themselves sensational bonuses while denying Main Street loans to save businesses. There’s the fear generated by county club conservatives demanding draconian cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

It’s hard to muster gratitude while suffering, to feel appreciative while dreading a meaner future.

The past two months, though, produced glimmers of hope -- the occupation, the election and the mid-November demonstrations. These events suggest empowerment of the 99 percent and emergence of change. They’re reason for thanks giving, especially by those formerly in the middle class who will for the first time experience this holiday without the traditional feast.

Change began in September with the launch of Occupy Wall Street. Previously, the disaffected had rallied and protested. The newly-homeless had held signs. The jobless had marched on Wall Street, the epicenter of the economy’s crash. But this was different. These rabble-rousers didn’t protest and go home. They dug in. They offered no end date for their cries for justice. Like the sit-down strikers who inhabited the General Motors plant in Flint, Mich. for 44 days in 1936 and 1937, these protesters are determined to stay as long as necessary.

The New York occupiers’ gumption and message – “we are the 99 percent” -- inspired a movement worldwide. Activists encamped in more than a 1,000 cities. And when police tried to rout them, the occupiers defied the official oppression, just as the sit-down strikers did. Emblematic is the 84-year-old Oakland, Calif. protester who said after police pepper sprayed her in the face that the experience energized her.

Before this movement began, country club conservatives had confined political discussion and concern to government deficits. No one acknowledged the unemployed, the impoverished or the foreclosed on – except to condemn them. The occupations changed this. Suddenly, the media talked of the problem of sharply higher income inequality and wrote about highly profitable corporations dodging taxes. Abruptly, politicians recalled the agony of joblessness and homelessness. Amazingly, there was new emphasis on polls showing massive majorities opposing austerity for the 99 percent and supporting higher taxes on the 1 percent.

For those of us in warm homes, Natalie Merchant’s words send a perfect message to those encamped:

“For your kindness, I’m in debt to you,
And I could never have gone this far without you,
For everything you’ve done,
You know I’m bound – I’m bound to thank you for it.”

On Election Day, the majority put the 1 percent and their purchased politicians on notice. The problem for the 1 percent in a one-person-one-vote democracy is that they’re outnumbered. In referendums on Nov. 8, the majority rebuffed attempts to restrict the ability of citizens to vote and to collectively bargain.

Mainers reversed a Republican attempt to limit balloting. The majority there restored Election Day voter registration – a right they’d exercised without problem for 38 years before the state’s GOP-dominated legislature and GOP governor passed a law eliminating it. The 60 percent vote for reinstatement served as public censure to Republican lawmakers nationwide who have worked to suppress voting.

In Ohio, citizens reversed a Republican attempt to sharply constrict the right of public employees to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. Ohio citizens affirmed their belief in unionization as a way to move workers into the middle class. The vote was 61 percent in favor of union rights, a margin that chastened country club conservatives, including Ohio’s GOP Gov. John Kasich, who said afterwards that he would “pause” to reflect because: "The people have spoken clearly. You don't ignore the public.”

To the voters in Ohio and Maine:

“Oh, I want to thank you for so many gifts. . .
I want to thank you for your generosity . . .
I want to thank you, show my gratitude. . .” ~Natalie Merchant

The following week, two demonstrations reinforced the election’s message of hope for the 99 percent. On Nov. 16, two dozen millionaires climbed up Capitol Hill and told Congress they wanted their taxes increased. Really. The following day, on the two-month anniversary of Occupy Wall Street’s birth, activists and unionists took to bridges nationwide in demonstrations for jobs.

The rich guys, the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, told Congress to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich to help balance the budget. This group of 200 members of the 1 percent offered a solution very different from the Republican austerity demand that had dominated discourse for months.

Similarly, the protesters who occupied bridges across America sought federal investment in infrastructure to create jobs, which would help relieve the recession. Jobs, not cuts.

To the Patriotic Millionaires and the protesters,

“Oh, I want to thank you, thank you,
Thank you, thank you,
Thank you, thank you. . .” ~Natalie Merchant

Because of them, because of wise voters in Ohio and Maine, because of the Occupiers, there’s reason for gratitude this Thanksgiving.

No Country For Young Children

Jeff Bryant — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:58:50 -0500

When you call yourself a "historian," you create the implication that you can speak authoritatively about, well, history. But last Friday, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich defied that common sense.

Speaking at one of America's top institutions of learning, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Gingrich, who had earlier in the week bragged about being paid millions to be a "historian" for mortgage behemoth Freddie Mac, boldly declared that laws preventing child labor are "truly stupid."

In outlining a plan to fire janitorial staffs in public schools across the county and then hire poor children to clean the schools, Gingrich claimed that laws preventing poor kids from going to work "before you're 14, 16" are actually obstacles standing in the way of rescuing children who are "in a school that's failing with a teacher that's failing."

What "professor" Gingrich has overlooked is that there are historical reasons why America has child labor laws.

Most civilized countries have enacted child labor laws because history has proven that putting children into work situations at a very early age tends to exploit them, subject them to abuse, and endanger their education, rather than enhance it.

But you don't even need to delve deeply into a history lesson to find examples of how subjecting children to spending long hours of manual labor might not be the best way to improve their academic attainment. All you have to do is look at government policies that currently allow businesses to exploit child labor.

Child Labor Laws Need Strengthening

In America today, hundreds of thousands of children work in the agricultural industry due to a loophole that does not hold corporate agribusiness to restrictions on age and hour requirements that apply to all other enterprises.

According to a report from Human Rights Watch, child farmworkers as young as 12 years old often work 10 or more hours a day, five to seven days a week. Some start working part-time at age 6 or 7.
These children work under blazing sun or through intense rain, in close proximity to sharp blades and dangerous equipment, and with repeated exposure to harmful pesticides.

For far less pay than minimum wage, many of these children are made to work with inadequate food and water, without basic protective clothing like shoes and gloves, and little or no access to medical care or even toilets. Sometimes they're mistreated or beaten by an overseer if they don't maintain their "productivity."

Let's be clear that we're not talking about children working weekends on the family farm here to earn money for the prom. What we're talking about is a cost-effective cog in the big agriculture machine that provides fruits and vegetables to your grocery store.

And the consequences to these children are not good: Children who do agricultural work suffer fatalities at more than four times the rate of children working in other jobs. They also drop out of school at four times the national rate.

The Conservatives' War on Children

So obviously the only thing "truly stupid" about Gingrich's comment about child labor laws is the comment itself. And if we need to make any changes to child labor laws, it should be to toughen them -- especially as they apply to the agricultural industry -- not weaken them.

Gingrich has a reputation for making these sorts of outlandish statements, believing that it makes him appear "unconventional." "You're going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals," he warns us.

But you'd be mistaken to dismiss his attitude as a "maverick" statement made by an "outsider." Notice for instance that although Gingrich is, according to most recent polls, the current frontrunner in the field of candidates vying for the Republican party's nomination not a single one of his opponents, as of this writing, has denounced his position on child labor laws. So one can assume a Republican unified front on this issue?

In fact, the conservative push to eliminate protections for children is not limited to the presidential circuit. Witness another cruel stupidity -- this coming from Congress.

Pizza Is a Vegetable

At a time when child obesity has reached epidemic levels in America, our nation's lawmakers just passed legislation to exempt public school districts from limitations on how many starchy foods they are allowed to include in cafeteria meals, which are a mainstay, especially, in the diets of poor kids. One key to maximizing the starch quotient was to maintain the standard that classifies a slice of cheese pizza as a vegetable.

Politicians of all stripes were insisting the measure go through because current restrictions "cost too much." But there's a reason why leading food industry lobbyist for the likes of ConAgra Foods Inc. and Schwan Food Co. called this "an important victory." And it's got nothing to do with concerns for children.

In fact, at the same time lawmakers were doing the bidding of their corporate funders, a new study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that children between 12 and 19 years old performed poorly overall on a set of criteria for ideal cardiovascular health. "Diet in particular was a problem."

It's Not Just Conservatives

However, it's too easy to blame conservatives alone for the increasingly callous treatment of children in US policy making. Because American society as a whole is increasingly abusive to the youngest in our society on a systemic level.

From the outset, young children in the US are handicapped by a system that neglects their most basic needs. Nearly five years ago, before the onset of our current recession, UNICEF the U.S. ranks 20th out of 21 industrialized countries in child well-being. One doesn't have to imagine how much worse the condition of children has gotten.

More recently, a new analysis of data from Gallup found that one in four California families can't afford food for their kids.

As New York Times columnist Charles Blow recently lamented, we have done a "poor job" of taking care of our children. As evidence he points to America's near-bottom ranking on a "Social Justice” scale that analyzes metrics of basic fairness and equality among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Two metrics that are especially striking are the US's low ranking for child poverty rate (bottom five) and expenditure on pre-primary education (bottom ten).

End Early Childhood Education?

Our nation's neglect of early childhood education is especially critical in light of the effects that schooling in the early years have on long-term success in adulthood. Another recent analysis, this one from the Pew Economic Mobility Project, notes that a study from France found that increasing the number of years of early childhood education from two to three increased monthly income of those individuals later in adulthood by almost 13 percent.

Yet funding for early childhood education in the US has been spiraling downward for years. In 2009-10, states spent $30 million less than in the previous year, giving $700 less per child than what was spent in 2001-2002 and enrolling only 26 percent of 4-year-olds nation wide.

From 2010-11, ten states eliminated all early childhood programs. And for 2011-12, Texas, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, Michigan, Georgia, and Illinois are all making significant cuts to early childhood programs or eliminating them altogether.

Schools Favor Testing Over Teaching

Things don't necessarily get much better for children once they get into kindergarten and elementary school. If they are fortunate enough not to attend a school that isn't in a "shameful" state of disrepair, or attend classes that arepacked with over 40 or 50 students per teacher, then they are still increasingly apt to encounter an approach to education that is deeply hostile to their creativity, their motivation to learn, and their need for broad and diverse learning opportunities.

Due to the deeply entrenched and strictly enforced standards and accountability movement -- a darling among many of both Republican and Democratic political persuasions -- schools are increasingly restricting children's learning opportunities.

Because this approach to education places so much emphasis on how kids score on standardized tests of math and English language arts, many schools -- particularly in Florida -- that once may have offered a school band, a drama program, a school newspaper, or a television station, now frequently cut those programs to increase the focus on testing.

Just this week, there was yet another example of an elementary school, this one in Dallas, withholding opportunities for kids to learn science and social studies in order to focus exclusively on math and reading scores that would earn the school an "exemplary" rating.

Unbeknownst to parents, "the students learned only math and reading for most of the school year, while teachers were pressured to fabricate grades for science, social studies and enrichment courses like music. Some of the grades were given by teachers who had never taught the subjects."

These are not isolated incidents. In states as large as California, significant percentages of elementary teachers report that "they spend no more than one hour on science instruction per week," and "districts report that they have no staff members dedicated to elementary science."

'Extreme' Is Now Mainstream

Of course, many who are pushing policies that are harmful to children claim to be actually acting in children's interests. Many who want to cut government regulations protecting children and cut funding children's education say they are doing it so that future generations aren't saddled with massive government deficits. And those who press a "reform" agenda in education focused on "accountability" for math and reading test scores insist that it's all in the interest of making sure children achieve "measured progress."

These are nonsense arguments. What is hurtful to children today is even worse for their future, because the abuses harm their development and hence their capacities to take on whatever challenges the future may bring -- balanced budget or no.

So say what you will about "crazy Newt." But keep in mind that the extreme positions he and his fellow Republicans hold on the treatment of children are in fact becoming more mainstream all the time. If you doubt this at all, ask young people themselves.

Now that the generation that grew up with these increasingly punitive policies toward children is old enough to speak out with force, is it any wonder that you see many of them at the frontlines of expanding street protests in the Occupy Wall Street movement?

But then, you see how we're dealing with that . . .

[AUTHOR DISCLOSURE: Human Rights Watch is a client of mine.]
Follow me on Twitter: @jeffbcdm

Republicans Cheer That Labor Leaders Murdered In Colombia

Dave Johnson — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:50:54 -0400

Hundreds of executions in Texas -- Republican crowd cheers.

An uninsured person in a coma -- Republican crowd shouts "Let him die!"

And now, labor leaders murdered in Colombia -- Republicans say "A good start..."

See the comments under an article at The Hill about how many labor leaders have been killed in Colombia -- 15 since the US signed on to a treaty: AFL-CIO President Trumka sends list of killed Colombian labor leaders to Obama - TheHill.com

Republicans are swarming the comments. Example:

What do you call a list of 22 dead labor leaders?

A good start…
BY TEA PARTY PATRIOT�on 09/26/2011 at 15:35

And trust me, it isn't just this one comment over there... go see before they take it down. (Never mind you can see some of them preserved here: http://yfrog.com/nxx0rp and here http://yfrog.com/kgf13jp)

so Columbia is doing a good job of getting rid of vermin why is this cause for concern?
BY HOLYMAN on 09/26/2011 at 15:35

Another:

I wonder if those killing the labor slugs in Colombia can outsource that work here.
BY CANUCK on 09/26/2011 at 19:00

Another:

Could we get them to do it here? There are more than enough union thug bosses already.
BY DAVID on 09/27/2011 at 10:52

See Terrance Heath's post, Death's Own Party

On Speaking To Power, Or, When Sanity’s Gone, There’s Always Satire

fake consultant — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:20:32 -0400

So everybody’s hearing the news, right?

There is a tentative debt ceiling deal, and this Administration and Congressional Democrats seem to have won everything they wanted: Republicans get to have multiple “we don’t approve” votes before 2012 on raising the debt ceiling, there won’t be any new revenue, there’s going to be another “hostage-taking” event around Christmastime, for many Democrats the issue of the Ryan Budget and the dismantling of Medicare is likely off the table for the 2012 electoral cycle, and the Administration seems to have figured out a way to not involve itself in shaping the way that entitlement reform will work out.

All in all, it’s some pretty slick negotiating, and I’m sure this Administration and Democratic Congressional leaders must be very proud.

Even on bad days, however, you gotta have some fun, and that’s why I’m encouraging everyone to take a minute today to say #thanksalot.

“This is tremendous, Don, just tremendous. The atmosphere heavy, uncertain, overtones of ugliness; a reminder in a way of how it was in March of 1964, at Miami Beach, when Clay met Liston for the first time and nobody was certain how it would turn out.”

--Howard Cosell, from the Woody Allen movie “Bananas”

There are a thousand other people today who will detail exactly where this went wrong, but I’m all about at least sending some kind of message; in order to say “thanks a lot” I’ve been Tweeting satire to the White House, and I’m hoping you’ll take some time today to do the same thing, using the #thanksalot hashtag.

“But I don’t Twibble, or Twister, or whatever they do on twitter”, you might say “and I don’t really get how it works”.

No problem.

If you want to send a message to a twitter user, you just put an “@” in front of their name, as in @whitehouse, usually right at the beginning of your message.

Hashtags are keywords that allow for lots of similar messages to be located, all together; when you put an “#” in front of a “word” it becomes a hashtag, as in #thanksalot or #arentyoutiredof. Popular hashtags become “trending” hashtags, and that’s one way how you make a big public statement on twitter (“Retweeting” someone else’s message is another way it’s done; retweeting and the sending of hastagged messages often occur symbiotically.)

Just to get you in the sarcastic spirit of the thing, here are some of the Tweets I’ve sent so far today:

@whitehouse Obama visits fallen building, a collapsed trench, and Carlsbad Caverns; says he'll "never cave" on debt deal. #thanksalot

@whitehouse republicans propose "logan's run", obama seeks reasonable compromise. #thanksalot

@whitehouse offers 1 Wet-Nap for each American thrown under bus yesterday; Republicans protest new "entitlement" #thanksalot

@whitehouse Prozac pill commits suicide; says in note that White House caving once again is "too depressing" #thanksalot

@whitehouse To avoid uncertainty in December, Obama Administration announces today they're caving on Bush tax cut extension #thanksalot

@whitehouse Dec. 23, 2011-Boehner: "We'll agree to revenue increases when both houses have a clean vote to repeal Obamacare..." #thanksalot

@whitehouse Dec 25, 2011-Administration announces entitlement compromise: cat food now food stamp-eligible #thanksalot

@whitehouse Obama Administration announces they prefer to negotiate with hostage-takers: "It makes us feel less guilty..." #thanksalot

@whitehouse Obama Administration "feels America's pain", announces nationwide program to distribute K-Y after debt deal #thanksalot

@whitehouse is there some sort of political viagra that could make obama "stand firm", just once? #thanksalot

At this point it looks like the only way this stinker goes down is if House Democrats vote against this bill and take the “Debt Ceiling Sword of Damocles” that the President has placed over their heads and put it right back on his, forcing either a 14th Amendment solution or a “clean” debt limit increase; if they do they not only stop this next hostage-taking dead in its tracks, but they create, for this Administration, the same level of fear that the Tea Party has today, and if that happens, then we move into the next stage of debt reduction negotiations from a position of strength.

If they fail to stop this deal, then when Medicare gets whacked in December the Democrats become co-conspirators – and at that point, for a Congressional Democrat up for reelection in ‘12 it’s gonna be either go down with all the other incumbents or run against Obama.

And at that point, the most interesting political question might be: did Obama depress turnout enough to cause Democrats to lose even more seats in Congress, or, when the details are better-known, is there going to be a huge “throw out all the bastards” vote that hammers Republicans just as ferociously as it does Democrats?

And what about Michelle Bachmann?

I don’t know, but it should be quite a soap opera between now and then, so stay tuned, make sure to say #thanksalot…and then do it a few times more…and most importantly of all, try to have as much fun in a bad situation as you can.

After all, as long as it’s happening to everyone else, it’s still comedy; until it finally does hit you…it’s not yet officially tragedy.

Shadows and Light

Richard Eskow — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:51:36 -0400

Want to be a cynic? You've got plenty of material to work with, that's for sure. But if you want to be an idealist, a practical idealist who can get things done, cynicism would be a tragic mistake. Lately all I've been hearing — and, frankly, most of what I've been saying — has shed too much heat and not enough light.

Here's the cynical view of what's going on in Washington right now: This whole "debt ceiling crisis" isn't real. Choose your metaphor: It's a Wild West show for gullible rubes, a Kabuki dance, an Indonesian puppet play that's nothing more than shadows on a dirty screen ...

That last image is ideal for the cynically minded. Matchstick puppets dance before a candle or a naked lightbulb, casting images on a bedsheet to enact an ancient epic of good over evil. But they're really only pieces of wood in the hands of puppeteers, masters of illusion who use light and shadow to bring life to dead dolls and make them seem larger than they are.

Or maybe you prefer the Wild West metaphor. That's the one where our politics is a show, a traveling theater troupe that draws in the townsfolk with melodrama just to sell them snake oil. Each player's a selfish actor who only cares about getting top billing on the marquee. They'd burn the theater down to light a producer's cigar if that's what it took.

When Frank Zappa said "politics is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex," he was aiming too low. The financial system of big banks and mega-corporations makes the military-industrial complex look like a Mom and Pop grocery store.

The cynical reading of this debt ceiling crisis is this: The Republicans pretend they want to cut the deficits, but their plan would actually extend their decade-long record of making them bigger. Democrats in Congress proclaim their unwavering support for Social Security and Medicare, but they refuse to rule out specific cuts. And the President secretly wanted this crisis so that he could resolve it with a 'grand bargain' that life him "above left and right," even if that leads to hurtful and unnecessary cuts.

In the cynic's view, each of them is acting out a melodrama or a ritual, a script they've written for themselves out of vanity and self-interest. And each of them is ready to burn the theater down to get top billing.

The problem with this cynical interpretation isn't that it's wrong. On the contrary, there's a lot of truth in it. But it doesn't reflect the whole picture. Yes, each of our national politicians is capable of acting with shocking selfishness. Each of them has sometimes kept on playing their self-assigned role long after the scene has changed. And we've seen all of them do it this week.

Over the last few years I've seen cold-hearted betrayals and delusional thinking where I would've least expected them. Politicians in both parties have done infuriating and foolish things. I'd be lying if I didn't admit to getting angry with most of them from time to time. But it would be wrong to dismiss them, disparage them, resent them, or give up on them, even when they're at their worst. To paraphrase Jessica Rabbit: They're not bad, they're just drawn that way.

I suspect that most of the country's leaders, especially those outside the radical cult of corporate conservatism, also want to do good. That impulse may be stronger or weaker in any given politician but, like most of us have done at some point in our lives, they've probably rationalized their behavior with an epic script that casts them as a hero. And it gets increasingly unreal: "Liberals" want to cut Social Security. "Conservatives" would deepen the debt. "Pro-business" politicians would hurt all but the biggest and most powerful businesses.

But if they're drawn that way, who's drawing them? More than ever, the corrupt hand of corporate America holds the pen. Corporate power has weakened the voice of the people in Washington, and made the always-compromised game of politics more compromised than ever. The media buy into the myths and narratives of the corporate crowd, confusing and dividing the public in a way that prevents them from responding effectively to this corporate takeover.

But the public holds a pen, too, and we haven't used it enough. I wish the President didn't think it was a good idea to cut Social Security. But consider this: There were stories (later confirmed) that he intended to announce Social Security cuts in his State of the Union address. Instead, thousands and thousands of citizens took the time to call and write their Senators and Representatives and the White House. As a result, those plans were shelved.

The reasons for this reversal don't matter that much. If we're going to feel disappointed in the President's approach to Social Security, we should also be grateful that he responded the way he did. A different President wouldn't have felt the pressure but, whatever the reasons, this one did.

The same thing's true on Capitol Hill. The Democratic leadership felt the pressure of its base during the health reform debate, so it tried harder than it otherwise might have to pass the public option. It succeeded in strengthening provisions for community health clinics and other valuable services. As long as the Progressive Congressional Caucus keeps speaking for the right policies (and the majority's opinion) on economic matters, it deserves high praise.

Even the Republicans are not without the possibility of redemption, as crazy at that may sound to some. Sen. Jim Bunning supported the derivatives bill. Sen. Tom Coburn was a profile in courage for defying his party and issuing a scathing report on Wall Street with Democrat Carl Levin. And several Republican Senators crossed the aisle to support some truly important and tough bank regulations. In the end Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins braved the wrath of their own base to vote for the final bill. And together, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders took the first step toward achieving transparency at the Federal Reserve.

Why did these Republicans act? Because citizens demanded it. And maybe, just maybe, because some of them want to do the right thing, too, when they can. (Ron Paul certainly acted out of conviction.) If there's one area where conservatives and progressives should be united, it's in reforming our broken financial system.

The President defended stimulus spending clearly and forcefully this week, explaining that employment at the state level is falling because stimulus funds for states have run out. In a rational world, that kind of thing wouldn't require an explanation. But it does, and he provided it.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared to bring the heat down on any politician who's doing the wrong thing. That's exactly what we should do - along with rewarding them when they do the right thing. But it can be tough, at least for me, to bring the heat without getting burned myself.

An Indonesian puppet show is an interplay of light and shadow. Corporate America's endgame is the dismantling of our social contract, and they're playing dirty to get there. A little cynicism can be a good thing, if it makes people angry enough to do something about it. But too much cynicism leads to despair. The right balance of the two should lead to a mobilized and active citizenry. Sometimes it takes anger to enlighten us and idealism and hope to project us onto the field of action.

If we want to rewrite the drama unfolding all around us, we'll need the shadows - and the light.

______________________________

(This Thursday and Friday are call-in days for defending Social Security, and there's even a toll-free number - 1-866-251-4044.)

Obama Wants To Attack The Middle Class? Take Congress Hostage!

fake consultant — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 13:35:39 -0400

By now you have heard that President Obama has chosen to throw Social Security and the Medicare and Medicaid Programs over the side of his proverbial fishing boat as bait to see if he can get Republicans to give him another really lousy compromise, much as he did last December when he gave up billions upon billions of deficit reduction in order to help Republicans preserve tax cuts for billionaires.

And it looks like the President doesn’t really lose if you or I get hurt here: in fact, it seems that, in his eyes, it’s to his advantage to fight against his own base as he seeks to be “the adult in the room” in the runup to the ’12 election.

So we’re going to have to find a way to put The Fear on this guy – and I think I’ve got a plan to force this President to listen.

And it works like this: if this President ain’t gonna be moved by our message…we do it by holding the rest of his Party hostage.

"You've got to put the points on the board. Good effort and style aren't enough. Everyone loves the Chicago Cubs, but no one expects them to win. Be more like the New York Yankees."

--Greg Swienton, COO of Ryder Systems, advising Army NCOs at a leadership seminar, July 2009.

First things first: let me tell you how the hustle is potentially going to go down.

Republicans are going to try to force Obama to offer up 100% cuts in spending, with no new money coming in to Government at all, or they’ll let the whole “debt default” thing come crashing down, which looks like The Best Thing To The Tea Party Ever – and based on past history, this is a deal that Obama, around 11:56 PM on August 1st, will be willing to take.

The two most likely ways to cut spending and get results in the trillions of dollars are to change the connection between increases in your future Social Security benefits and the cost of living (which guarantees that you and I will forever be behind the inflation eight-ball), or to cut the payments coming out of Medicare or Medicaid, which is going to stick it, immediately, to medical service providers, the poorest of the poor, your Grandma and Grandpa (or, maybe, you), and the disabled.

It is rumored that both of these approaches have been put out as options by the President. It is also rumored that, in return, he wants some amount of revenue increases – but it’s also rumored that he went from seeking a dollar in cuts for each dollar in new revenue to something that looks more like $6 in cuts for every $1 in new revenues – with lots more time available for Republicans to play chicken and get even more.

So if the President is not going to put a stop to all this, I think we, ourselves, are going to have to step up and get it done.

What I’m going to propose is brutal, unfair to many of our friends, and vindictive to the point of risking an even worse situation than we have now…but these are desperate times, and I suspect it’s now time for desperate measures.

So here’s what I think we have to do:

Now, today, before this gets any farther, we have to call every single Democratic Member of Congress, House and Senate, friend and foe, and deliver this message:

“I don’t care what you ever did for us before, we are not going to let you do this to us now. We cannot stop Barack Obama directly – but we can do this.

We can target Congressional Democrats.

Each and every one of you, as a group.

And with that in mind, you are now on notice: if you allow this President to make a deal that includes any cuts, adjustments, alterations, or anything else, to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, and you don’t get at least a dollar of new revenue for every dollar of cuts…then you are done.

We will immediately stop giving any Democratic incumbent even one dollar of donations, we will not help you win elections by volunteering – and we will vote for any candidate that’s running against you in the next primary.

Even if it’s not your fault.

That’s how serious we are, and that means you better figure out, right now, how to stop Obama from caving…because now, it’s all on you.

If Obama slips on the stairs and his pen accidentally signs the bill…it’s now your fault.

If Obama puts his pen back in the desk set upside down, and there’s an open window in the Oval Office, and an errant breeze drags the bill across the upside-down pen… it’s now your fault.

So what you better do is you better go make sure there aren’t any roller skates on the stairs at the White House, and go close the windows, and do whatever you have to do, because now, you, and every other Congressional Democrat…all of you, together…are going to be held responsible for what happens.”

And then we gotta stick to it – even if it costs us Jim McDermott and Raul Grijalva and Barney Frank, all on the same day.

We have to show that we will bring even more wrath and destruction than the Tea Party – and we have to be ready to support new Democrats who rise up to oppose the current ones.

And consider this: Labor is already making the effort to recruit and train Progressive candidates, and there are lots of opportunities to partner with unions who would presumably love to have some new partners of their own.

The next negotiating session between the President and Congressional leadership is Sunday, and that means we need to move fast if we want this to work – but Sunday is unlikely to be the last day of negotiations, and after that is when we can really crank up the pressure on Democrats.

Is this unfair to our friends?

Yup.

But that’s too bad, because we have been unfairly taking hits from our friends and Republican bullies alike for three years now - and the only thing that’s going to make it stop is if our friends fear us more a whole lot more than they fear Republicans.

And if you don’t think this can work…well, guess what? The LBGT community got “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal passed when Republicans said they would never let it get through Congress – and then the LBGT community told Democrats that if repeal didn’t pass…the gAyTM was gonna be forever closed.

And then, mirabile dictu, repeal passed, in a lame-duck Congress, even when virtually all observers had said it had no chance.

That is the power of The Fear, and if we want to win this fight, we need to be the ones putting The Fear on our Democratic friends, not the other way around.

So get up, grab the phone, and start reminding the nearest Democrat that unemployment, in this economy, really, really, sucks – and there’s no reason in the world why they can’t be just as unemployed as anyone else.

It’s time for hardball, folks – and in this fight, we need to be the ones with the hardest balls.

Because if we’re not…the terrorists win.

Hutchison and Sessions Attempt to Kill Social Security

Josh Rosenblum — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:53:31 -0400

Retiring U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-No Shame, TX) today unveiled a plan to steal Social Security from Americans by cutting their benefits and lying to them about it. In a release and fact sheet with more holes than a piece of swiss cheese in front of Dick Cheney on a hunting trip, Hutchison claims not to cut any “core benefits” in Social Security, but cutting those benefits is exactly what she does, and she cuts them by at least 13% or more. She gave her bill the great, blatantly full of rodeo bull manure title of the Defend and Save Social Security Act. This bill wouldn’t save and defend Social Security in the least. Even the most casual observer can tell the bill would more aptly be named the Attempted Murder of Social Security Act.

Hutchison wrote a letter to Vice President Biden’s deficit commission too. In it she said “I am concerned that Social Security reform must be part of the debt ceiling.” Leaving the bad grammar in that sentence aside, Social Security hasn’t contributed one penny to the deficit since by law it cannot do so.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (CA-31), Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus and a champion for Social Security said “Social Security has never added a dime to the deficits but Senator Hutchison’s plan would force massive benefit cuts on retired Americans in an effort to reduce the deficits created by the unfunded Bush tax cuts, the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic recession.”

Becerra’s office also said:

According to the Social Security Actuary, Senator Hutchison’s plan would result in the following:

No COLA this year
Cuts in COLA benefits in future years affecting current seniors: $408-$540 per year
Cuts in benefits by raising the retirement age: $2,000-$2,700 per year
Total cuts in future benefits per middle income worker: $2,400-$3,600 per year

Last week Pete Sessions, chairman of the Republican House campaign committee released a plan that would privatize Social Security, just a few years after the stock market collapsed, and just six years after fellow Texan President Bush released a privatization plan that sunk so gloriously it made the Titanic look like a tea party. Sessions’ privatization scheme is a gift to Wall Street’s greediest players, who he’s depending on to raise money for his candidates. His bill is called the Savings Account For Every American (SAFE) Act. The only thing safe about it would be a bet that it fails.

I once knew a Texan from El Paso whose demeanor was the same as Hutchison’s and Sessions on these bills. He smiled like a happy little kid when he spoke to anyone who might help him out. He’d talk about how he wanted to work hard, then go skip out on any promises he’d made. I finally realized that almost every time he showed that smile, he’d be lying right through it and didn’t care one bit. Sessions and Senator Hutchison are smiling that lying smile on Social Security. They’re talking about saving the program that in reality they want to kill dead. But thankfully their aim stinks and Americans know it.

Today Gallup put out a new poll in which 66% of Americans say they’re worried about not having enough money for retirement. So while the vast majority of Americans worry about having enough money to live out their golden years these two Washington politicians with Wall Street friends put out bills with great names that strip Americans of their retirement security. No wonder so many of us are worried.

108 miles southeast of Dallas is Anderson County, which has a life expectancy of 69.8 years for their men. 18 Texas counties have life expectancies of under 72 years for males. Most Americans are not living longer, and according to a study from the University of Washington “large swaths of the United States are showing decreasing or stagnating life expectancy.” So why introduce a bill that increases the retirement age for Social Security?

For the 2012 election cycle, every Republican running for office who takes a dime from the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) that Sessions heads should be asked by voters and their opponents whether they support their campaign chief’s plan to privatize Social Security.

Most political candidates know that Americans don’t want Social Security privatized or benefits cut. But Republican and Democratic candidates must take the right position on these issues or face the wrath of the voters. So make sure to ask Republicans who take any money or advice from the NRCC if they support their campaign chief’s Wall Street plan to privatize Social Security and his Senator’s plan to take away our benefits. If the candidates don’t take a stand, that’s as good as saying they support privatizing Social Security and cutting our benefits.

If they’re going to kill Social Security, they’re going to have to get it by voters, not just by Wall Street, and they should know better than to think so poorly of all of us who don’t work on Wall Street.