media

Shutdown and Hostage-Taking -- It Is NOT Both Sides Doing It

Dave Johnson — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:43:37 -0400

One side says, "Never mind the deal we just agreed to, cut this or we'll shut down the government" and the other side says, "This isn't fair, and it hurts people. We can't keep agreeing to pay these ransoms, this has to stop!" Is this "both sides squabbling?" Is this "Congress can't get its act together?" Or is this a group of hostage-takers using media obfuscation of what is going on as cover for a radical strategy to turn people against government and democracy, while the "other side" tries to stop them?

So here we are, another fight looms over shutting down the government. This time the Republicans have taken disaster relief hostage and are using it as a lever to demand we cut even more of what We, the People do for each other, so that the big corporations and the wealthiest 1% can have even more wealth and power. Many in the media are reporting this as "both sides squabbling," but this is not what is happening.

Democracy depends on the public being informed so that they can hold their representatives accountable. So the media has a responsibility to correctly identify, in clear terms, just who is doing what. "Both sides do it" tells people not to bother to vote, that government and democracy don't work, that you should just tune out and leave it to the plutocrats to run things. Stop it!

"Blame Both Sides" Reporting

The Chicago Sun-Times, in "Government on brink of shutdown again," blames "Congress," calling it "bickering" and "posturing."

More "blame both sides" reporting is found in today's Progressive Breakfast, which highlights this New York Times story, "Flood Victims Getting Fed Up With Congress." The story says the current hostage-taking is "a dispute between Republicans and Democrats in Congress over money for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,"

“Neither side wants the other side to get credit for doing anything good,” Mr. Golembeski said. “Elections are coming up.”

Neither side wants the other to get credit. Nice.

“Members of Congress are playing with people’s lives, not just their own political careers,” said Martin J. Bonifanti, chief of the Lake Winola volunteer fire company. “While they are rattling on among themselves down there in Washington, people are suffering.”

Dear N.Y. Times, "members of Congress" are not doing this. ONE PARTY is doing this. The story offers nothing to counter the quote.

“Members of Congress are intelligent, but they have no common sense,” Ms. Swithers said. “They fight too much. They should be put in a corner and take a timeout and start working together as a team. I’m so sick of hearing Republicans this and Democrats that.”

Dear N.Y. Times, This fight is not "Republicans this and Democrats that." It is Republicans taking disaster relief hostage and using the suffering of the people you quote as a lever to gut such programs as green energy development.

Norman Ornstein writes about this problem, in "What ‘The Washington Post’ Doesn’t Understand About the Looming Government Shutdown":

One of the biggest problems of reporting on our dysfunctional politics has been the reflexive tendency in “mainstream” media to balance, via what is increasingly false equivalence. A glaring example was a front-page, above-the-fold story in Saturday’s Washington Post by Lori Montgomery and Rosalind S. Helderman, titled (in the print edition, though not on the web), “Gloom Grows as Congress Feuds.” The story was about the looming showdown, and possible government shutdown, over disaster relief funding. The piece makes sure to include a comment from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor blaming Democrats, ends with a comment from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blaming Republicans, and includes a comment from an independent analyst blaming both.

If you reflexively "blame both" you are not informing the public and you are not serving democracy. There are people who will want to vote for the ones who are trying to help We, the People watch out for and take care of each other. And there are people who will want to vote for the ones who have a strategy in play to eliminate government so that the biggest corporations and wealthiest few can use their wealth and power to have their way. But our media are not letting the public know who is doing what.

Blaming "Both Sides" Is An Anti-Government Strategy

In Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, retiring Republican Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren explains why Republicans try to make government dysfunctional while pushing the "both sides do it" narrative. They do it on purpose as a strategy to make people hate government and democracy,

Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.

[. . .] A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

They do this on purpose, to turn people against government, and then when people are disgusted and looking the other way they can just grab the loot—your savings, your retirement, your wages, your common wealth, your rights.

What Can We Do?

There is a session titled Taking Back the Media: Embracing New Media and Using it to Our Advantage at the Take Back The American Dream conference next week. Nicole Sandler, Timothy Karr, Sam Seder and Cliff Schecter will be speaking about how to overcome the corporate-media lock on information.

Our Modern Family

Alan Jenkins — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:35:17 -0400

On Sunday, the sit-com Modern Family won a well-deserved five Emmy awards, including one for best comedy series. I’m a fan of the show, but can’t help thinking that it is a double-edged sword.

The show depicts three inter-connected families who reflect a rich, 21st century American reality: a gay couple with an adopted Asian-American daughter, a spring/autumn marriage between a Colombian immigrant with a son and her much older Anglo husband, and a white heterosexual couple with three very different kids. Part of the brilliance of the situation, of course, is that they are really just one family; the older husband is the grandfather of the Asian-American daughter, the step-father of the Latino son, and so on.

And the beauty of the show, beyond its smart writing and inspired acting, is that it largely portrays the family’s diversity as unremarkable. They are mutually flawed and hilariously dysfunctional, but their problems and misadventures are mostly universal ones. Mostly.

When he accepted his award, the show’s producer, Steve Levitan, told of being approached by a real-life gay couple who wanted to say thanks. “You’re not just making people laugh,” they said, “you’re making them more tolerant.”
This is profoundly true. Television has the power to bring new people into our homes and lives, to make us know and even love characters and situations that may have seemed foreign or frightening. It has the power to make the “other” part of “us.”

Over the past decade or so, Hollywood has begun to do so with LGBT characters and situations in ways that are creative, heartwarming, and important. And there is little doubt that the dramatic rise in public support for LGBT human rights, and particularly marriage equality, is attributable in part to these depictions.

This change was the result of struggle. In particular, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has worked tirelessly to hold Hollywood accountable for bigoted, stereotypical depictions, while applauding it for positive ones. Insiders note, also, that the progress of LGBT writers, producers, and actors in Hollywood has meant a presence and an authentic voice for characters who might have been written as offensive caricatures in past decades.

Which brings me to the other side of Modern Family. Gloria, the Colombian immigrant wife on the show, played by Sofía Vergara, did increasingly become a caricature last season, and sometimes offensively so. There is the increasing ridiculing of her accent and misinterpretation of English idioms that I thought went out with Ricky Ricardo. But more troubling are the repeated implications that, as a Colombian, she devalues life, is accustomed to mayhem, and may be dangerous herself. These are not so much perceptions that other characters have about her, but stereotypes that her character reaffirms through word and deed.

Modern Family has sometimes satirized racism as expertly as All in the Family ever did. But when the writers repeatedly put in Gloria’s mouth lines about knowing how to use a knife or how to kill because she’s Colombian, they are feeding stereotypes, not roasting them. And when Gloria responds to an ethnic slight from her husband by saying “Ah, here we go…Because, in Colombia, we trip over goats and we kill people in the street. Do you know how offensive that is? Like we're Peruvians!” they are saying, perhaps unintentionally, that stereotyping is OK because, hey, even the immigrants do it. It’s a stark contrast to the show’s smarter moments, when it mocks bigotry instead of riding on its back.

On balance, Modern Family is likely doing more to advance inter-ethnic understanding than to undermine it, particularly in its clever portrayal of Gloria’s son, Manny, played by Rico Rodriguez. Nor should we expect any sit-com to make audience enlightenment its prime objective, Norman Lear notwithstanding. But if Steve Levitan and his colleagues are going to take credit for “making people more tolerant,” they must also take responsibility for the stereotypes and intolerance they may be sewing, particularly at a time when America is debating the future of millions of immigrants in our modern American family.

Can US Hold Corporations Accountable Anymore?

Dave Johnson — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:48:38 -0400

In the UK the News-Of-The-World/News Corp/Murdoch scandal seems to be reawakening democracy. A big, powerful corporation has been found to be engaged in criminal activity, manipulating news, paying off police and politicians, and generally getting its way. The people, press and politicians are rising up, holding the company and its executives legally accountable and are taking back control of their system. Could this happen in the US?

This is my last full day in the UK. The top story in the media for the two weeks I have been here has been the News-Of-The-World "phone-hacking" story that I explained in some detail last week. This newspaper was engaged in criminal activity, was caught a few years ago, but used American-style damage-control techniques to manipulate the government, police and public opinion into accepting that the criminality was limited to the sacrificial lamb they threw to them. So the damage to Murdoch's News Corp. was limited at the time, and News Corp appeared to have impunity. But, unlike how things are now done in the US, investigative reporters (particularly at the Guardian) continued to dig into the story and continued to reveal to the public that News Corp. was engaging in criminal activity until the story could no longer be ignored by the powerful.

The latest big news is that the head of Scotland Yard has resigned, in part because earlier investigations into Murdoch-corporation activities "didn't get to the bottom of this." The press is full of questions about how this criminal company was able to operate for in this manner so long, and who in the government looked the other way. This is now as big a story as the original and ongoing criminal activities of Murdoch's companies.

Another story is the way executives left Murdoch's companies and entered government into positions where they could protect the interests of Murdoch's company, including influencing the phone-hacking investigations. And finally, the story here is about politicians who are "cozy" with Murdoch's media empire, who were propelled into government by the power of that empire.

Not yet part of the story: the manipulation of government policy to serve the interests of the owners of the criminal company. In fact, just as the media was beginning to touch on this aspect of the story the company took extraordinary steps to build a firewall and attempt to contain the scandal. Top executives in the UK and in England were removed from their posts, an "apology" was printed in all the papers here, and Murdoch himself made public apologies and News Corp started a major counterattack. So far News Corp's second-largest shareholder, Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal has been kept in the background. Prince Al Waleed was interviewed by the BBC Thursday on his yacht in Cannes. Immediately the firewall began to be constructed.

(These are questions, not accusation. While being part-owner of the conservative News Corp., Al Waleed also speaks out for democratic reform and women's rights in Saudi Arabia.)

But questions about News Corp. pushing policies that benefit its owners have yet to be pursued. Does News Corp. push climate-change denial to benefit the interests of oil-producing Saudi Arabit? Did News Corp push the invasion of Iraq to benefit Saudi Arabia?

What About In The US?

Does all of this sound familiar to any of you reading this in America?

And so the parallels to American standard-operating-procedure stand out. Criminal corporations manipulating government, police and public opinion. A revolving door through which corporate executives pass into government and protect the interests of their companies. A conservative media empire manipulating news and propelling politicians to benefit their financial interests. Politicians cozy with corporate executives who never seem to be held accountable.

As Richard Eskow wrote the other day, Want to Solve All your Problems, Rupert Murdoch? Become A Banker.,

But there's an easy way for Mr. Murdoch to protect himself from these inquiries and save his company at the same time: Turn the News Corporation into a Wall Street bank. There won't be any prosecutions, and the government will even sweeten the deal with billions of dollars in easy money. And if Murdoch follows the trail blazed by bankers like Jamie Dimon at JPMorgan Chase, soon they'll be begging him to acquire more companies.

... By contrast, despite its long list of proven crimes nobody at [JPMorgan Chase CEO] Dimon's bank has been arrested. Apparently arrests, like the financial consequences of one's actions, are for borrowers only. And Dimon only appears before our elected representative for cozy private get-togethers, not public enquiries.

Seriously, there was just enough democracy left in the institutions of the UK to enable a media giant like News Corp to be held accountable. Just how accountable is yet to be seen, but with the press in full investigative mode, parliamentary investigations, resignations and arrests at the tops of big, powerful corporations that are way-to-cozy with politicians we are seeing a reaction to this story that is simply not imaginable in our own country today.

Some Tests

Here is one test that will tell us if accountability is still possible here. What follow-up will we see from the Justice Department in response to the revelation that members of the Financial Crisis panel illegally leaked inside information, including plans to investigate foreign banks, to lobbyists? See Financial Crisis Panel Commissioners Leaked Confidential Information To Lobbyists, Report Alleges,

Republican commissioners on the panel created by Congress to probe the roots of the financial crisis leaked documents to partisan allies and shared confidential information with influence peddlers, according to a Wednesday report by Democrats on a Congressional oversight committee.

Another area for investigation is the revolving door through which lobbyists or top people of the criminal corporation became government officials and government officials become executives or lobbyists. Are they using their influence in government to protect the interests of the companines that paid or will pay them? That sure looks like bribery, whatever other words one might use.

Another area of investigations is companies that fund or otherwise infleunce public opinion and politics and campaigns or reward politicians or fund their campaigns. That is bribery, because companies have to act in the financial interest of shareholders and rewarding a politician in the interest of shareholders is bribery by definition.

Please, add some more tests in the comments. What stories have you seen revealing illegal activity and collusion between elected representatives, government officials and big corporations with no one held accountable? Obviously there is Wall Street, mortgage fraud and securities manipulations. There are all the crimes from the Bush era that went uninvestigated. (Who ended up with all that money that went missing in Iraq?) But there are so many instances of crimes reported but not investigated and certainly not prosecuted. There are so many clear cases of big corporations using media to manipulate public opinion. And there are so many cases of our election laws violated with impunity.

Are we going to be able to take back democracy and accountability here? Or not? Will our own Department of Justice start to hold law-violators accountable? Or not.

UK Media Scandal Reveals Weakness Of US Media

Dave Johnson — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:45:33 -0400

I am in the UK this week. You can barely turn on the TV here without hearing about the “phone-hacking” scandal from outraged voices across the spectrum. It is a full-blown, 24/7 scandal. The thing that might be most astonishing to Americans, though, is that people are hearing about it at all. In fact, news shows here in the UK are featuring people questioning the power and influence of Murdoch’s news operations and its relationships with politicians, and authorities are investigating criminal activities by the media. Can you imagine any of that happening here?

England is in the middle of a full-blown, nation-engrossing scandal over the criminal behavior of Rupert Murdoch's media companies. There is a full-on media frenzy. There are police investigations. The Parliament is looking into things. The Prime Minister is appointing an investigative commission. People will be arrested and will go to jail if found guilty. Things are different in the UK from how they are in the US.

Initially the phone-hacking scandal was a little 2007 story about a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid, News Of The World, that was involved in hacking into the voicemail messages of members of the royal family. The scandal bubbled around but wasn’t getting much coverage at all until July 4, when The Guardian broke the story that Murdoch's News Of The World had people hacking into the voicemail of Milly Dowler, a 13-year-old murder victim who had disappeared in 2002. The voicemail hackers deleted messages from the full mailbox so they could get more messages left by the girl's distraught mother, thereby making police think the disappeared girl was alive, impeding the investigation and giving her family false hope.

This revelation outraged the public and brought focus on previous relvelations. It also triggered numerous new revelations of criminal activity that went beyond News Of The World, beyond just phone-hacking and into all kinds of things incuding bribing plice and operating with impunity at several other Murdoch-owned media outlets in the UK. The revelations have brought to public attention the cozy relationship between conservative government officials and Murdoch's organization, with the Conservative Prime Minister even employing the paper's Sunday editor - who had to have known about the paper's criminal activities - as his spokesperson. And the revelations continue, with new criminal activities disclosed at more and more Murdoch-owned outlets every day.

Murdoch tried to contain the scandal by closing News Of The World, but this gave the appearance if not the reality of a cover-up. There was speculation that the paper was involved in many more criminal activities that would have come to light if the paper remained open, and the closure was an effort to keep police from being able to serve search warrants, leading to accusations of a Watergate-style shredding operation at the closed paper's facilities.

Meanwhile the people at the top of Murdoch's empire continue collecting paychecks, while the employees of News Of The World are the casualties of the conservatives at the top of the the operation. The people who did the work, staffed the offices and pones, ground out the paper every day, etc., are now on the street, without jobs, thanks to the criminal shenanigans of those at the top. Does this sound familiar? (Hint: Lehman Brothers, Enron, the entire US economy...)

Murdoch In The US Is FOX, WSJ and the New York Post

FOX News is a well-known Murdoch-owned outlet in the US. The New York Post is another. The Wall Street Journal is one more. The Journal's publisher is Les Hinton, who has worked with Murdoch for 52 years and who oversaw News Of The World before coming to the Wall Street Journal. In 2007 Hinton reassured an investigative committee of the British Parliament that an internal investigation of Murdoch's media outlets in the UK showed them to be operating within the law after the initial phone-hacking was discovered.

As Media Matters put it, "That's right: Hinton, who ran the show for Murdoch as phone hacking became standard operating procedure, is now publisher of the one of the largest newspapers in the U.S."

The story is beginning to reveal much about the power and influence of Murdoch's conservative media operations. It is showing very cozy relationships between Murdoch and conservative politicians who enjoy favorable coverage from his outlets. Of course, the immediate closing of a profitable newspaper also revealed that the Murdoch operation saw the paper as a propaganda operation, not a business.

So in the UK this scandal is breaking wide open, and is forcing a look at Murdoch's empire, its influence, its relationship with politicians, and the extent to which it maintains a culture of operating outside or above the law.

Not Like The US

This scandal was broken and pursued by persistent investigative journalism, the kind that is rarely funded by American corporate media these days. It involves the willingness of media organizations to look into the practices of other outlets. It also involves the willingness of some media outlets to question the coziness of conservative leaders and conservative media.

Coverage of the scandal reveals differences between the British and US media. It is shocking to see actual discussions on every news show about whether the media has gotten too close to politicians, and is providing them cover. There are very loud demands for investigations into criminal activity that has been exposed, coming from a diverse array of voices. There are media organizations criticizing their competition and questioning their practices. Compare all of this to the way American news outlets work now.

In the US there are winks and nods all the way around. "Journalists" understand which side their bread is buttered on and where the best career paths are found. Just when was the last time you saw, heard or read a representative of a labor organization explaining to people the benefits of joining a unions? All can see that few rise in their career by questioning the practices of big corporations or Wall Street. None rise questioning America's militarism or stratospheric military budget. But careers are harmed by going after certain interests in our country, while certainly no careers are harmed by going after liberals, environmentalists, or those who wish to protect consumers or working people or labor organizations.

Maybe this Murdoch scandal will bow up to the point where the unimaginable happens here. Will Republicans hold hearings looking into the operation of Fox News or the Wall Street Journal? I think the expression we Yanks still use in America is "Fat Chance."

P.S. Media Matters has a petition to Congress, asking them to hold hearings looking into News Corp's practices here. Click here to go sign it.

The Public's Wishes On Economy Are Kept Out Of Media

Dave Johnson — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:00:25 -0400

Have you seen the People's Budget discussed in the media? Nope. Have you heard that we need to be more "business friendly" by cutting taxes on the rich and cut the things We, the People do for each other? Yep. Did you know that polls show the public overwhelmingly wants taxes on the rich and government spending on jobs? Nope. Why is that?

We're getting more and more bad economic news. Obviously the economy suffers from lack of demand. Businesses don't have enough people walking in the door or placing orders to hire more workers. But Republicans insist that we need "austerity," which means giving even more money to the rich and cutting the things We, the People (government) do for each other and for our economy. The public is solidly against the austerity idea and wants spending on each other and the economy. But the media is only granting access to people who want to make the austerity argument.

And never mind ever, ever, ever, ever seeing a voice of organized labor explain to working people the benefits of being in a union. Ever.

The Economy

As the stimulus runs out all of the signs point to a slowing of the economy. Job growth has stalled. Housing is dropping again. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The economy suffers from lack of demand. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) says “weak sales” (i.e. lack of demand) is their number 1 business problem and that this lack of demand is why they are not hiring.

Just ten years ago we had budget surpluses that were so large that it was projected the entire federal debt would be paid off by now. We had a strong economy with more jobs than we could handle. Then the Bush tax cuts created huge deficits and drove up debt. Now the very people behind those tax cuts and deficits are demanding budget cuts to fix the problem.

The Proposals On The Table

There are two areas of proposals on the table: austerity (tax cuts for the rich with budget cuts for the rest of us) vs the People’s Budget (investment in infrastructure to create jobs and grow the economy paid for by tax increases on the rich.)

The austerity argument says that we need to make the country more “business friendly” by cutting taxes on the rich and big companies, then cutting spending on education, environment, health care, alternative energy, unemployment, food and other assistance for the poor, even infrastructure. And in a direct blow to democracy they say that cutting “entitlements” – the things we are entitled to just for being American citizens – is a key to fixing our economy. This at a time when the country is actually richer than ever, but so much is going to a few at the top.

The People's Budget is explained below.

The Public

The public gets it. Polls show the public wants Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security left alone, wants tax increases on the rich, wants more spending on infrastructure and education. The public rejects the austerity approach.

People understand that investing in infrastructure and education creates jobs now while paying for itself by growing the economy later. People understand that handing rich people even more money doesn't create jobs, people walking in the door or placing orders is what creates jobs.

The Media

The media discussion of economic policy seems entirely framed from a one-sided perspective – focusing on the bizarre claim that cutting government spending and taxes will lead to more jobs and economic growth. Again and again the media features “experts” who begin with an assumption that federal deficits are the most important problem facing America. But opponents of these ideas, offering the ideas that history shows to have worked -- the very ideas the public favors -- are not able to reach the public to explain their plans. Elitist pundits always claim that "everyone knows" that the long-term deficit problem is "entitlements" even when we all know that tax cuts and military spending caused the deficits.

Seriously, how often do you see or hear or read someone claiming to be a Tea Party representative talking about how we need tax cuts for the rich and big corporations? Every day. But when have you seen, read or heard a representative of organized labor on TV or radio or in your local newspaper, explaining the benefits of joining a union? Seriously.

Actions

Contact your local newspapers, radio stations and TV stations and demand that they cover the views of the American Majority!

10 years of Bush tax cuts is enough! Click here to demand your representative supports the Fairness in Taxation Act so the rich contribute their fair share.

And, finally: Tell President Obama to put the People's Budget on the table.

The People's Budget

The Progressive Caucus -- a group of progressives in the Congress -- have put together a budget that fixes the deficit and grows the economy, providing jobs. It is called The PEOPLE'S Budget Plan.

Read the plan at: Congressional Progressive Caucus : FY2012 Progressive Budget,

The CPC proposal:

• Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021
• Puts America back to work with a “Make it in America” jobs program
• Protects the social safety net
• Ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Is FAIR (Fixing America’s Inequality Responsibly)

What the proposal accomplishes:

• Primary budget balance by 2014.
• Budget surplus by 2021.
• Reduces public debt as a share of GDP to 64.1% by 2021, down 16.5 percentage points from a baseline fully adjusted for both the doc fix and the AMT patch.
• Reduces deficits by $5.6 trillion over 2012-21, relative to this adjusted baseline.
• Outlays equal to 22.2% of GDP and revenue equal 22.3% of GDP by 2021.

Budget Talks: Who Speaks For The American People?

Dave Johnson — Thu, 12 May 2011 01:42:01 -0400

When we hear about the deficits we hear a lot of scare stories, which most "serious" media just echo and amplify. The prevailing "serious" narrative we hear is that we must cut entitlements -- any “serious” budget proposal cuts Medicare and Social Security. Even though they just extended tax cuts for the rich the deficits are the worst problem in the world, ever, so we are supposed to be really scared and give in. Seriously.

Polls show that the public wants taxes raised on the rich, cuts in military spending and more & bettter-paying jobs. The public isn't stupid, because it turns out that these are exactly the things that economists say will get us out of the deficits. But raising taxes isn't considered a "serious" deficit-cutting option. Either is cutting military. And to top it off, in DC the idea of creating more and better-paying jobs is so unserious that it isn't even discussed.

Serious Commissions and Gangs Of Negotiators

The public recoils every time politicians get close to reaching their "serious" goal of cutting Social Security or Medicare, instead of raising taxes and cutting military. So the DC elite come up with ways to mask what they are doing : commissions, "triggers," "caps," "across-the-board cuts" all of which avoid actually spelling out that these will cut Social Security and Medicare without touching taxes or military. All the "serious" people favor this approach.

There are so many “serious” reporters and editors and politicians and deficit commissions and negotiators and even “gangs” consist of very “serious” people who come up with these “serious” recommendations.

Who Is At The Table?

These “serious” people who engaged in these “serious” negotiations have something in common. They are almost all very, very well paid, usually white, always DC or Wall Street or big-corporate insiders, always college-educated and comfortable people who work in offices. They do not reflect the diverse makup of the American population. Doing that wouldn’t be “serious,” but it would be ‘small-d’ democratic.

The fact is, the American People just are not reflected "at the table" in these budget negotiations. When you hear about these deficit commissions, discussions, etc. ask yourself: How many make less than $250K? How many are unemployed? How many work taking care of someone else? Who speaks for We, the People in these negotiations?

And ask yourself: What would these deficits talks, commissions, gangs consist of if they were representative of the interests of regular Americans?

What If a Deficit Commission Looked Like America?

If a deficit commission with 100 members had the diversity of the American population "at the table" it would look like this:

19 people on the commission would receive some form of Social Security benefits, 12 of those as retirees. And on this deficit commission they get to talk when the ones making over $250K propose cutting Social Security.
43 of the commission members would have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement. 27 of those less than $1,000.
98 of the 100 members would make less than $250,000 a year.
50 of the members would come from households in which the total income of all wage-earners is less than $52,029.
13 wold have income below the poverty level.
14 members would be receiving food stamps.
16.6% of the commission members would be un- or underemployed, and would be wondering why they are on a deficit commission at all instead of a jobs commission.
The commission would include the right proportion of factory and construction workers, and people who work in a kitchen, and work waiting tables, and teaching, and nursing, and installing tires, and all the other things that people do except, apparently, those on DC elite commissions. (People who do hard, manual labor get an extra vote each on what the retirement age should be.)
74 members would not have college degrees.
20 would not have graduated high school.
18 would speak a language other than English at home.

Have you seen any deficit commissions like that lately? No, seriously, have you?

What does the PUBLIC want?

A "serious" deficit commission in a democracy would come up with deficit solutions that reflect what the public wants. Here are some of the polling results compiled at The American Majority Project Polling:

Social Security & Medicare:

53% support Collecting Social Security taxes on all the money a worker earns, rather than taxing only up to about $107,000 of annual income.
57% oppose raising the retirement age from 66 to 67.
64% oppose spending cuts to Social Security.
82% oppose cutting Social Security benefits in order to reduce the debt.

67% oppose cutting Social Security to make the program more solvent in the long term.

66% support enacting Social Security taxes on wages about $106,800 (the Pay Roll Tax Cap) to make the program more solvent.

64% oppose spending cuts to Medicare.

Lots more polling on Social Security at The American Majority Project Polling

Taxes:

74% believe eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries to help reduce the budget deficit is mostly or totally acceptable.
68% believe that phasing out the Bush tax cuts for families earning $250,000 per year is mostly or totally acceptable to help reduce the budget deficit.
72% of one group of 512 participants favored raising taxes on people earning more than $1 million a year over cutting important programs once they received details on the impact of the budget cuts. That percentage had been 62% before receiving details of the cuts.
53% believe it is totally or mostly unacceptable to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% .

etc...

Lots more polling on taxes at The American Majority Project Polling

Military Spending:

67% support minor or major reductions in funds to national defense.
66% support removing all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
49% said to cut defense “even if it means eliminating programs that bring jobs to your state.”

Pew Research Poll, March 8-14, 2011

etc.

More polling on military spending at The American Majority Project Polling

Union Employees and Collective Bargaining Rights:

81% support the rights of workers to unionize to negotiate with their employers.
77% believe public employees who belong to a union and work for the state government, city government, or school districts should have the same right to bargain when it comes to their health care, pension and other benefits like those members of unions who work for private companies.

More polling on labor rights at The American Majority Project Polling

Job Creation and the Economy:

56% believe creating jobs, rather than spending cuts is the more important priority for the federal government right now.
56% agree that “it is time for government to take a larger and stronger roll in making the economy work for the average American.”
62% believe the government should focus on creating jobs, even if it means increasing the deficit in the short-term.

More polling on jobs and the economy at The American Majority Project Polling

On Fighting To Win, Or, A Tale Of Two Kinds Of Democrats

fake consultant — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:13:29 -0400

If your view of politics is filtered by a lens marked “Progressive” or “Liberal”, there’s a pretty good chance that you’ve been gnashing your teeth and pulling your hair in frustration over the “give away the store, then negotiate” approach professional Democrats have used when facing the challenges from the Tea Party last year, and all that’s come after.

Over and over and over people like me have written stories wondering why Democrats, starting with this President, don’t get out in a very public way and slam Republican policies, over and over and over—especially when most Americans hate the things Republicans seem to love to support.

Turning over Government to the highest bidder?
Not so popular.

Going back to a heathcare system run by, for, and of the insurance industry?
Again, not so much.

Jacking up taxes and healthcare costs for you and me in order to provide another trillion in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires?
So unpopular pollsters hardly believe it.

But there is another way, and today’s story is in two parts: we’re going to talk about how hard it is to get Democrats, as a group, to get loud and get aggressive—and then we’re going to talk about Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who is out there showing any reluctant Democrat just exactly how you can “grow the brand”.

We are, all, North and South, engaged in the White Slave Trade, and he who succeeds best, is esteemed most respectable. It is far more cruel than the Black Slave Trade, because it exacts more of its slaves, and neither protects nor governs them. We boast, that it exacts more, when we say, "that the profits made from employing free labor are greater than those from slave labor." The profits, made from free labor, are the amount of the products of such labor, which the employer, by means of the command which capital or skill gives him, takes away, exacts or "exploitates" from the free laborer. The profits of slave labor are that portion of the products of such labor which the power of the master enables him to appropriate. These profits are less, because the master allows the slave to retain a larger share of the results of his own labor, than do the employers of free labor.

--From the book “Cannibals All!”, by George Fitzhugh, 1857

So let’s start with the “how hard is it?” part:

I get to participate in conference calls these days, and I was recently on a call with a Member of Congress who shall remain nameless (to protect the moderately guilty). The Member was unable to remain on the call until my question, but I was able to get an email off to the press rep over there, who was kind enough to get back to me.

After an exchange of emails, we got down to the real question:

How should I explain to readers why they don't hear every Democrat saying something like this, every single day: "We get that there's a financing problem in the future, and the good news that it can be fixed without raising the retirement age, and without cutting benefits, and we can even lower the payroll tax rate at the same time--and that's why we will never let the Republicans destroy Social Security, even under cover of a budget fight"?

Now I post on almost 30 blog sites, from Kos to Docudharma to Left In Alabama to The Bilerico Project, and all sorts of others in between, and if there is one theme that is consistent across all these sites, it's that readers do not understand why so many Democrats, over and over, don't avail themselves of the obvious political advantages that are there to be had when they get in front of the public and, well, frankly, act like Democrats?

So that was the question I sent…and it’s a good thing I didn’t hold my breath waiting for an answer, because that answer never came.

I sent the same question to the office of a very liberal Member with whom I’ve had good relations in the past—and again, nothing.

Here’s another “what does it take to get Democrats to act like Democrats?” story:

I was in Olympia, Washington, on April 8th for a big ol’ labor rally, and the featured speaker was Senator Spencer Coggs (he’s one of the 14 Democratic State Senators who left Wisconsin to make Scott Walker’s life a whole lot less comfortable), and he tore up the crowd pretty good…but there was at least a couple of hours of speakers, and the event was held right in front of the State Capitol, and the (Democratically controlled) Legislature was in session, right at that very moment…and the (Democratically occupied) Governor’s Mansion is literally right next door…and yet, somehow, not one single elected official of the Democratic persuasion from anywhere in the entire State of Washington could manage to find their way past the kids ringing bells under the Dome and out the front door to greet the thousands of voters standing just outside.

OK, so that’s the problem—but as you know, I like to offer solutions as well, and with that in mind, it’s time to meet the Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer.

Now, as you might imagine, Montana is not exactly a haven for lefty liberals, but Schweitzer, a Democrat, is not only not caving under pressure…he’s showing Democrats everywhere how to send a message—and how to send it with style.

The Republican-led Legislature passed a slew of bills he didn’t like (he reported that none of ‘em created new jobs—and doesn’t that sound familiar?), and he could have given in and signed them—or he could follow the advice of Denny Lester, ace political cartoonist for the Helena (MT) “Independent Record”, and veto the hell out of those bills, preferably with a branding iron.

There is a Montana Department of Livestock, and if you intend to register a new cattle brand, they are the folks you need to see—and sure enough, on February 23rd, an “Official Brand Certificate” was issued to the Governor for the brand “VETO”.

Then the Governor went out and created a job in Montana: he had a series of branding irons made, each carrying the new brand in various sizes (“calf”, “yearling”, and “bull”, depending on how much he wanted to veto any particular bill).

“…so my Mom called to find out if there was a branding going on, and I said well, not really, it’s a sort of a branding, and she said, uh, do you need somebody to bring the beer?...”

--Governor Brian Schweitzer, April 13, 2011

The Governor got a few friends together last Wednesday, and he vetoed not one, not two, but 17 bills he felt were “either frivolous, unconstitutional or in direct contradiction to the expressed will of the people of Montana”…and he did it, with the cameras rolling, by using the branding irons to brand a red-hot “VETO” on those bills, all to the cheers of the assembled crowd.

You can see it for yourself, right here, in a video produced by the Montana Democratic Party—and trust me when I tell you, it’s a hoot:

Now if you watched that video, you might be thinking: “Hey, maybe that guy should be President…”—and that’s how we get to the real point of this story.

We have in front of us a President and a Democratic Party apparatus who can either negotiate with Republicans who want to kill both Social Security and Medicare (the likely end result being two programs and a Democratic Party that will basically be “circling the drain” from then on)…or they can take the branding iron to Paul Ryan’s “Catfood Plan v 2.0”, and a lot of other Republican ideas besides, and he can help his own Party and make every other Republican in the country feel the burn, all at the same time.

Since negotiating away Medicare and Social Security is hugely unpopular…that’s pretty much what I expect far too many Democrats to do, unless we can grab ‘em by the lapels and show ‘em that voters want Democratic Democrats—you know, the kind of Democrat who understands how to grow a brand, and how to keep it strong, and how to set fire to bad ideas, loudly and publicly, when that’s the right thing to do.

Tell your Member of Congress about this video, and your President, too; and let’s see if we can show our elected “followers” how to get on the road to becoming elected ”leaders”.

If I Said I'm Thankful for the Wisdom of the American People, Would You Think I'm Crazy?

Richard Eskow — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 03:23:44 -0500

There are lots of things to be thankful for in this world, and I've got a pretty good list: A loving family, the glittering splendor of the cascading galaxies, Eddie Hinton's guitar solo on the Staples Singers' "I'll Take You There" [1]... you know, the usual stuff.

But here's something you may not think warrants much gratitude this November: The wisdom and common sense of the American people. Just hear me out, okay? If you do then, in the spirit of the holiday, there will be pie afterwards.

Pie charts, that is.

Before everybody starts shouting about the foolish choices the public keeps making -- Tea Parties and Republican victories, or that lame fashion trend of wearing tights without any pants, or the fact that Dollhouse got cancelled[2] but Dancing With the Stars is still popular -- listen to this:

The American public would rather raise taxes on the wealthy than cut Social Security. They want to protect Medicare from future cuts and ensure that the college loan program remains intact. They think Congress should focus on creating jobs and fixing the economy, and deal with deficit spending later. They'd rather see politicians support a "made in America" program than vote for more free trade. They want to see significant investment in infrastructure and want to end tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

And that's not all. By enormous majorities, the public want to do more to reign in Wall Street, spend more to end poverty, and ensure that everyone has access to health care. When it comes to the issues, this country is overwhelmingly progressive, overwhelmingly pro-government, and overwhelmingly in favor of doing the things we need to do to build a better society.

But wait, as the late night TV ads say. That's not all. The public's preferred prescription for the nation -- higher taxes for the wealthy, more infrastructure spending, preserved or expanded social programs, reigning in the bankers who wrecked the economy -- is exactly what most economists think is needed to improve our financial picture. Once in a while that "wisdom of crowds" thing works. Now that's something to be grateful for.

Sure, most people don't call themselves "progressive" or "liberal" in polls. Why should they? They've lived through decades of a saturation-media campaign that's told them those words mean something weak or mushy. But who cares what they call themselves? These labels are getting a little moldy, anyway. Consider this: Banks should be required to do more lending to small businesses, rather than make a profit off their discounted Federal Reserve money with reckless bets and cynical deals. More money for the entrepreneurs that are the lifeblood of the economy: Is that a "liberal" position? Maybe, but it also fits the kind of thinking that used to be called "conservative," too (back when "conservative" wasn't a euphemism for "a hired hack generating talking points for sell-out politicians at a corporate-funded 'think tank' (and we use the term lightly)").

What about the last election? Didn't the "people" elect a new Congress that's going to work night and day to undermine these goals? Yes, they did. But what real alternative were they given? Which party was out there night and day telling voters they'll protect Social Security and Medicare, tax the wealthy, and fight poverty? Sure, we saw some individual politicians saying that. But which party sent a clear message on behalf of the people's agenda? Neither. In its absence, voters voted against the party in power because they don't like what they see.

Many of these observations were confirmed in a post-election poll co-funded by the Campaign for America's Future. 58 percent of voters said they were trying to send a message that said they were unhappy with the way things are done in Washington. Why should they be anything but unhappy, when nobody's speaking for them?

Maybe that's why more voters than not would change the Constitution to overthrow the Supreme Court's Citizens United (46 percent to 36 percent) decision so that corporate campaign contributions can be limited. They're right about that, too.

The fact that nobody's speaking up for the public's aspirations may help explain why voter turnout this year was an anemic 40.3 percent, up only slightly from 2006. And here's a statistic that should interest a certain president and party who rode into office on the crest of a youth wave charged with enthusiasm and energy: The number of young voters plunged by more than half. 51 percent of voters aged 18-29 showed up in 2008, and that number plummeted to a truly pathetic 20.4% this year. That's even fewer than voted in 2006.

If politicians want to know how to win power and build enthusiasm, they should spend less time on the people that voted against them and more time on the people who didn't vote at all. Good policies happen to be good politics, too. (What's that expression -- "doing well by doing good?")

Even when the media and the special interests try to manipulate public opinion, this stubborn preference for the good keeps rearing its head. The New York Times deficit calculator, for example, was a somewhat slanted exercise that (intentionally or not) overemphasized deficit cutting at the expense of more urgent priorities. Nevertheless, as David Leonhardt wrote, their preferences were: "Reduce the size of the military rather than reduce pay for noncombat members of the military. Impose a millionaire's tax rather than cut deductions for high-income households. Cap the growth of Medicare spending rather than raise the eligibility age."

The same thing happened with last summer's AmericaSpeaks "town hall" venture. Despite slanted materials and distorted questions, participants came up with a decidedly progressive set of recommendations anyway. It was, as we said at the time, "a mind-control experiment gone horribly right." (And the planners' attempted self-justification after the fact didn't pass intellectual muster.)

A political scientist once said that the media can't influence what you think, but it can influence what you think about. A lot of money and effort has spent lately to influence both. As Robert Borosage [3] observed, efforts funded by billionaire Pete Peterson have succeeded in making sure that government deficits become the primary focus of debate -- despite the rampant unemployment and stagnant economy that should rightfully be a higher priority. But the effort to change what you think has been a bust. The public's smarter than a lot of people think.

And for that, I am truly thankful.
_______________________

Here's the dessert -- pie, and lots of it.

Voters would rather raise taxes on the wealthy than cut Social Security benefits (a perfectly viable option that never seems to even warrant a mention in these Peterson-funded projects):

And despite the money spent to persuade us that raising the retirement age isn't a benefit cut [3], a virtually identical number of people oppose that idea, too:

And they're right. It's not necessary to make these cuts. They would impose unnecessary hardship, and there are other ways to get the necessary revenue. What would the public rather do about the deficit?

What's more, the public believes in government and its mission. Americans don't want to cut Medicare, as the Bowles/Simpson and Rivlin/Domenici proposals would do. They'd rather protect it than cut it in the name of deficit reduction:

They want to protect college loan programs, too:

And they want to extend benefits for the unemployed (Congress, are you listening?)

I'm genuinely moved to see that, even after a half-century-long effort to demonize the poor, Americans still care about poverty and want to do more to end it:

And when it comes to deficits, they know who really got us into this mess, which is why they want to do more to restrain Wall Street recklessness:

Pretty smart, if you ask me. Happy Thanksgiving!

_______________________

[1] I love Pops Staples, but it was the late, great Eddie Hinton -- guitarist, songwriter, and singer par excellence -- who played that beautiful solo.
[2] Dollhouse was science fiction, and most people don't like science fiction. They like Dancing With the Stars better. I think that's wrong (and it probably also explains why I didn't get more dates in high school.)
[3] Conflict of interest alert: I work for the guy -- he's one of my bosses at the Campaign for America's Future -- but he's right.

This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project and the Strengthen Social Security campaign.

About Voting

Dave Johnson — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:53:08 -0400

Polls show that a significant number of people who might be on "our side" are not going to bother to vote. Some are even switching sides. The big corporations and right-wing billionaires are spending millions upon millions of dollars bombarding them with propaganda on "news" shows, TV ads, setting up phony astroturf organizations and running PR scams to convince them not to vote or to vote for Republicans. They are spending that money because it works. How do we reach them?

There's no question that everyone reading this is going to vote. You are well informed, you care, you seek out information, and you have found this website. Unfortunately you are not like a lot of people in this country -- especially when it comes to the "informed" part. So what can you do?

What can you do?

Here are a few simple questions to put in front of people. Maybe they will help cut through the fog that millions and millions of dollars of nasty corporate-funded smear ads throws in front of people's faces:

1) Under Bush we were losing almost a million jobs each month. Since Obama's stimulus we have been gaining jobs every month. Not enough, but gaining. Doesn't this mean we shouldn't go back to Bush's policies?

2) If American government is supposed to be about "We, the People" making the decisions, doesn't "less government" means less "We, the People" making decisions? Isn't that just what has happened since Reagan made government smaller?

3) What is the alternative to government? Doesn't less government mean more big corporations running things?

4) Reagan cut taxes for the rich, and then we had huge deficits. Clinton raised taxes for the rich, and then we started paying off the debt. Bush cut taxes for the rich again, and now we have huger deficits again. Doesn't it make sense that "cutting the government's allowance," as Reagan called it, means the government will have trouble paying its bills?

How about adding some short points in the comments, that we can get out there this weekend, and maybe get a few more people to show up and vote?

How Did We Get Here?

How did we get in this mess? American democracy has had problems from the start. There has always been a tension between the power that great wealth brings, and the idea that everyone should have an equal voice. There were times in the past when great wealth almost completely dominates, and few times when the voice of the people really ruled. There was the Populist movement that grew out of the days of the "Robber Barons," there were the great social reforms that occurred under FDR, and there was the era of Civil Rights. These were the results of movements that "make them do it."

For one reason and another Progressives have not yet built the kind of far-reaching, non-party social movement that reaches and persuades large numbers of people to support our cause. This has to happen outside of the electoral process and outside of political parties and has to be focused on year-round persuasion and not on short-term electoral goals. We need to be reaching people and explaining the benefits to them of a progressive approach to their problems and the benefits of one-person-one-vote democracy over one-dollar-one-vote corporatism. In the last few years a lot of work has been done to get this moving. We have built up the blogosphere with its great conversation. Labor unions have modernized and begun efforts to reach o,ut. But now we need to start to see ourselves as a movement, and to understand that we need to reach wider and wider audiences with a message that resonates and explains why they are better off keeping democracy.

Reaching Low-Information Voters

How often do you read, hear or see someone in the big-corporate-run newspaper, radio or TV media explain the benefits of government, taxes or regulation, vs how often you hear about how bad these are? When was the last time you read, heard or saw in a corporate media outlet an explanation of the benefits of joining a union? That's right, you only get the pro-corporate viewpoint now. In the 1980s the Reagan administration got rid of the "Fairness Doctrine" and eliminated requirements for public-service programming to provide the information necessary to citizens in a democracy. Democrats tried repeatedly passed bills to restore these but Reagan and the first Bush vetoed their efforts and Republicans filibustered their efforts under Clinton. Democrats didn't even try to restore it under Obama. And deregulation, including the 1996 Telecommunications Act enabled a few corporations to buy up almost all of the country's information sources. Once they were released from a requirement to serve democracy they immediately stopped serving democracy. Once they were allowed to concentrate media into a very few corporate hands they immediately concentrated media into a very few corporate hands. So here we are.

Efforts to provide alternative sources of information like Air America or starting new TV networks have not been funded for the long term by progressives. Fortunately we have a few shows on MSNBC, like Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Keith Olberman (out of how many presenting the corporate/conservative viewpoint?) And we have the Internet, with sites like OurFuture.org, Huffington Post and Daily Kos. But corporate efforts to undermine Net Neutrality threaten to cut those off from many people. (Please watch Sen. Al Franken speaking on this at Netroots Nation.)

Reaching The Poor

ACORN was a very important part of getting people out to vote, registering millions of voters and helped get them to the polls. All but 7 Senate and 75 House Democrats fell for the right-wing hoax about a "pimp" and voted to defund ACORN. So now there is no ACORN to help get people to the polls.

Many Democrats helped try to get rid of MoveOn, too. They joined Republicans and voted to censure the organization for opposing politicization of the Iraq war.

Cutting off your nose

A lot of people say they want to "punish" Democrats for disappointing things "they" have done themselves, or let happen, or for just basic incompetence. I have a looooong list of my own, and it's always fun to run through it. Like negotiating against themselves on the stimulus instead of asking for doubled what they wanted to end up with. That way they could be saying right now that they were right that more stimulus was needed. Or letting Republicans hold up the health care bill for so long, only to get no Republican votes anyway. Killing the public option. ...

But you have to choose between to options here. Which do you want more, to punish incompetent Democrats, or a better world? (Tough choice, I know.)

We need to rely on ourselves, and go get people out to vote. Door to door. The alternative is frightening. The right this time is even worse than when Bush was President if you can imagine. For those of you old enough to remember the government shutdowns, investigations and impeachment of Clinton, trust me that you don't want that again.

Some Choice Words for 'The Select Few'

Bill Moyers — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:11:05 -0400

with Michael Winship

If you want to know what really matters in Washington, don't go to Capitol Hill for one of those hearings, or pay attention to those staged White House "town meetings.” They’re just for show. What really happens – the serious business of Washington – happens in the shadows, out of sight, off the record. Only occasionally – and usually only because someone high up stumbles -- do we get a glimpse of just how pervasive the corruption has become.

Case in point: Katharine Weymouth, the publisher of The Washington Post – one of the most powerful people in D.C. – invited top officials from the White House, the Cabinet and Congress to her home for an intimate, off-the-record dinner to discuss health care reform with some of her reporters and editors covering the story.

But CEOs and lobbyists from the health care industry were invited, too, provided they forked over $25,000 a head – or up to a quarter of a million if they want to sponsor a whole series of these cozy get-togethers. And what is the inducement offered? Nothing less, the invitation read, than “an exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will get it done.”

The invitation reminds the CEOs and lobbyists that they will be buying access to “those powerful few in business and policy making who are forwarding, legislating and reporting on the issues…

"Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No." The invitation promises this private, intimate and off-the-record dinner is an extension “of The Washington Post brand of journalistic inquiry into the issues, a unique opportunity for stakeholders to hear and be heard.”

Let that sink in. In this case, the “stakeholders” in health care reform do not include the rabble – the folks across the country who actually need quality health care but can’t afford it. If any of them showed up at the kitchen door on the night of this little soiree, the bouncer would drop kick them beyond the Beltway.

No, before you can cross the threshold to reach “the select few who will actually get it done,” you must first cross the palm of some outstretched hand. The Washington Post dinner was canceled after a copy of the invite was leaked to the Web site Politico.com, by a health care lobbyist, of all people. The paper said it was a misunderstanding – the document was a draft that had been mailed out prematurely by its marketing department. There’s noblesse oblige for you – blame it on the hired help.

In any case, it was enough to give us a glimpse into how things really work in Washington – a clear insight into why there is such a great disconnect between democracy and government today, between Washington and the rest of the country.

According to one poll after another, a majority of Americans not only want a public option in health care, they also think that growing inequality is bad for the country, that corporations have too much power over policy, that money in politics is the root of all evil, that working families and poor communities need and deserve public support if the market system fails to generate shared prosperity.

But when the insiders in Washington have finished tearing worthy intentions apart and devouring flesh from bone, none of these reforms happen. “Oh,” they say, “it’s all about compromise. All in the nature of the give-and-take-negotiating of a representative democracy.”

That, people, is bull – the basic nutrient of Washington’s high and mighty.

It’s not about compromise. It’s not about what the public wants. It’s about money – the golden ticket to “the select few who actually get it done.”

When Congress passed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, "the select few” made sure it no longer contained the cramdown provision that would have allowed judges to readjust mortgages. The one provision that would have helped homeowners the most was removed in favor of an industry that pours hundreds of millions into political campaigns.

So, too, with a bill designed to protect us from terrorist attacks on chemical plants. With “the select few” dictating marching orders, hundreds of factories are being exempted from measures that would make them spend money to prevent the release of toxic clouds that could kill hundreds of thousands.

Everyone knows the credit ratings agencies were co-conspirators with Wall Street in the shameful wilding that brought on the financial meltdown. But when the Obama administration came up with new reforms to prevent another crisis, the credit ratings agencies were given a pass. They’d been excused by “the select few who actually get it done.”

And by the time an energy bill emerged from the House of Representatives the other day, “the select few who actually get it done” had given away billions of dollars worth of emission permits and offsets. As The New York Times reported, while the legislation worked its way to the House floor, “it grew fat with compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts,” expanding from 648 pages to 1400 as it spread its largesse among big oil and gas, utility companies and agribusiness.

This week, the public interest groups Common Cause and the Center for Responsive Politics reported that, “According to lobby disclosure reports, 34 energy companies registered in the first quarter of 2009 to lobby Congress around the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This group of companies spent a total of $23.7 million – or $260,000 a day – lobbying members of Congress in January, February and March.

“Many of these same companies also made large contributions to the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the legislation and held a hearing this week on the proposed ‘cap and trade’ system energy companies are fighting. Data shows oil and gas companies, mining companies and electric utilities combined have given more than $2 million just to the 19 members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee since 2007, the start of the last full election cycle.”

It's happening to health care as well. Even the pro-business magazine The Economist says America has the worst system in the developed world, controlled by executives who are not held to account and investors whose primary goal is raising share price and increasing profit – while wasting $450 billion dollars in redundant administrative costs and leaving nearly 50 million uninsured.

Enter "the select few who actually get it done." Three out of four of the big health care firms lobbying on Capitol Hill have former members of Congress or government staff members on the payroll – more than 350 of them – and they’re all fighting hard to prevent a public plan, at a rate in excess of $1.4 million a day.

Health care policy has become insider heaven. Even Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House health reform director, served on the boards of several major health care corporations.

President Obama has pushed hard for a public option but many fear he’s wavering, and just this week his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel – the insider del tutti insiders – indicated that a public plan just might be negotiable, ready for re-engineering, no doubt, by “the select few who actually get it done.”

That’s how it works. And it works that way because we let it. The game goes on and the insiders keep dealing themselves winning hands. Nothing will change – nothing – until the money lenders are tossed out of the temple, the ATMs are wrested from the marble halls, and we tear down the sign they’ve placed on government – the one that reads, “For Sale.”

Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers .