Democrats

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

Wanna See a Real Ass Kicking (Itself)? Read the Dems' Disastrous "Super Committee" Proposal

Richard Eskow — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:38:53 -0400

If you've ever questioned whether the so-called "Super Committee" represents a breakdown in the democratic process, yesterday's proposal from the group's Democratic members should put your doubts to rest. The system's seriously broken when unelected super-legislators from both parties keep trying to top each other in proposing inhumane and unpopular programs.

The party of the donkey is about to give itself a real ass-kicking.

Representatives from the "party of the people" want to cut Medicare and Social Security, and they're looking for bragging rights on who'd cut government more in a time of need.

If the regular folks' party is trying to impose this much pain on the elderly, poor, and disabled, what's the rich people's party going to do: sacrifice babies in Times Square on live television?

Change That Shatters

As I read the proposal I kept asking myself: Who are they trying to impress? Certainly not the electorate, which overwhelmingly rejects the positions they're advocating. And certainly not the Republicans, since even these Dems aren't naive enough to think their proposal will be accepted. So who?

The "Super Dems" are proposing twice as much in deficit cuts as the Committee's mandated to find. That bit of pointless grandstanding reinforces conservative notions that government spending is evil and deficits are our most urgent problem.

It's straight out of the Bill Clinton playbook. But Clinton operated in a period of artificially pumped up, bubble-fueled prosperity. Americans hunger for better policies now. That hunger helped Democrats win the White House and both houses of Congress in 2008. (Seems so long ago, doesn't it?) The Democratic Party website still proudly proclaims the Party's slogan: "Change That Matters."

Change? These are the same Republican Lite policies Clinton ran on in 1992. But we're a sadder and wiser nation now. We've reaped the bitter fruits of economic inequality and endured a disastrous crash as a result of these bipartisan policies. We've moved on, but these Democrats haven't. They're still slavishly (if meekly) echoing the failed conservative ideas of the past.

Indecent Proposal

Their plan calls for $400 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings, half or which would come from benefit cuts for the seniors, disabled, and low-income people who rely on these programs. The higher out-of-pocket costs for these vulnerable populations would leave many of them with less to spend on necessities, taking billions out of the economy and creating even more economic stagnation. Not to mention the hardship and suffering ...

The other $200 billion would presumably be found by cutting provider reimbursements - which makes sense if done wisely, but which will only create shortages and access problems if done foolishly. (Wise or foolish: Bets, anyone?)

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Democrats also support moving the government to a "chained CPI" cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) calculation for Social Security. That would shortchange everybody receiving benefits, including people already receiving them.

The current COLA is already a raw deal for seniors, disabled people, and the poor, and now these Dems want to double down on it. The chained-CPI would also raise taxes on people who aren't already in the highest tax bracket by accelerating "bracket creep."

So let's sum up what we've heard so far: Democrats want to cut Social Security and Medicare, and they also want to raise taxes on everybody but the rich. Enjoy your "change," America.

Gestures

In a nod to their base, the Democrats are also proposing $300 billion in stimulus spending. But reports were vague on the specifics, with the Journal reporting only that "aides familiar with the Democratic plan say it also called for as much as $300 billion in spending for programs to create jobs and spur economic growth."

The Super Dems also also say they want $1 trillion in new revenue, but they don't say where it should come from. That means some or all of it could be raised by reducing or eliminating provisions like employer health and mortgage interest deductions that help the struggling middle class.

But then, why expend a lot of effort on a proposal you know is doomed from the start and which you don't intend to fight for? If that sounds too cynical, rest assured: We'd love to be proven wrong, and the Democrats on the Super Committee can prove us wrong with a word. That word is "no." If the Super Committee Dems announce that they'll say "no" to any plan that doesn't include stimulus funds, we'll gladly provide a full refund on the cynicism.

With interest.

A Smart Plan

What would an intelligent plan look like? It would be designed around three simple principles:

Arbitrary deficit reduction targets are meaningless and foolish. Why are we having a debate about whether to cut the deficit by $1.5 trillion or $3 trillion? We don't know how big our economy will become in the coming years. We don't know how much money will be coming in, or how much we'll need to spend.

The best way to ensure a healthy Federal budget is to ensure a healthy national economy. When more people have jobs, the economy improves. And when the economy improves, more people have jobs. So we should be talking about jobs, jobs, jobs: As the economy grows through government investment, more people will have them. People with jobs pay taxes, so the government's bottom line will improve.

Government needs to learn a fundamental business principle: Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

No plan should take effect until we've achieved normal employment levels. Many of these proposals have been given start dates in coming years. But no plan to cut spending, especially spending that directly or indirectly affects employment, should take effect until overall employment returns to normal levels.

Now for a word from the party's sponsors: the voters who put them in office.

Reminder

When the Democrats were swept into office in 2008, here's what their platform said about Social Security: "We will fulfill our obligation to strengthen Social Security and to make sure that it provides guaranteed benefits Americans can count on, now and in future."

And here's what it said about Medicare: "We will protect and strengthen Medicare by cutting costs, protecting seniors from fraud, and fixing Medicare's prescription drug program."

Thought the Super Dems might want to tape this to the refrigerator or something before the next Committee meeting.

Ass-Kicking Time

It's like a Zen koan: What is the sound of one ass kicking itself? These proposals aren't just destructive. They're self-destructive. Pick a poll, any poll, and you'll see how unpopular these ideas are. Overwhelming majorities of Americans - including a majority of Republicans - oppose cutting Social Security or Medicare to fix the deficits. And strong majorities want higher taxes on the wealthy, a topic which the Super Dems are waffling about.

It's a political kamikaze stunt for Dems to adopt the GOP's "less government" theme. Ask yourself: If you want some government-cutting done, are you going to hire a Democrat or a Republican? If you want to fire government workers, are you going to hire Mitt Romney - who has a long track record of firing people - or Barack Obama? Every minute spent bragging that "we'll cut more" is a minute spent convincing people to vote for your opponent.

The President's repeating the mistakes he made during the healthcare and financial reform debates, and he's turning negotiations over to the same failed crowd. He's considered the leader of his party, but once again he's letting the party lead him instead. And when it's all over the GOP will run the same play it used last year, positioning itself as the party that defended Medicare. These Dems are helping them do it.

Which brings us back to the question: Who are they trying to impress? The big-money donors who have pivoted back to the GOP, but will still throw them a few bucks now and then? Billionaire Pete Peterson and the other foundations and think tank benefactors who might them sinecures after they retire? Their fellow inhabitants of a warped Washington culture that views Grandma-sacrifice as a totemic act of courage?

Stop them before they triangulate again

Maybe all of the above. But their self-preservation rests on getting re-elected. Do they expect a grateful nation will rush to the polls next year saying, "They didn't cut government enough, but at least they tried"? Twenty-four million Americans are un- or under-employed, and they all have family, friends, and neighbors. That's a lot of voters to convince that their misery is less important than who chose a bigger deficit-cutting number.

They Super Committee, the President, and other Democratic leaders need to get the message from voters, loud and clear. Maybe public pressure can save them from their self-inflicted impending doom. As Smokey the Bear might say, only you can prevent ass-kickings.

Any proposal they present will be defeated. They know that. So why do they keep offering watered down right-wing plans like this one? Why don't they start offering bold, courageous alternatives to the conservative economic madness that's failing in Europe and here at home?

People admire someone who goes down fighting, but they want to go down equivocating - or surrendering. In the end, they'll just go down. And if they aren't stopped they'll take the rest of their party with them. Strange. They know they can't succeed legislatively, yet they keep putting themselves on record as favoring destructive and unpopular policies.

It's sad but true: These guys don't even know how to fail right.

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.

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.

The "Acela" Economy: More Misery For Millions, More Millions For Misers

Richard Eskow — Wed, 11 May 2011 00:54:26 -0400

What do you do when the economy's a disaster, things are getting worse, and nobody seems to give gives a damn? What do you do? This country has been divided into two economies. One's the economy of Wall Street and corporate Manhattan, along with Washington's thriving economy of lobbyists, politicians, ex-politicians, national security contractors, and assorted hangers-on.

Call that one the "Acela Economy," since Amtrak's Acela Express links the two urban areas.

Then there's the other economy, the one where most people live. Let's call it the "Majority's Economy." It's a catastrophe, and it's getting worse, not better. Guess which one is getting more attention and care in Washington DC?

It's illegal to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater. But what if there really is a fire - and nobody cares? It's not like anybody's going to start a stampede in Washington. It would be a major accomplishment just to disrupt their REM sleep.

Fire!

Meanwhile the volunteer firefighters are back at the station as flames rise higher, drinking beer and bitching about how much it costs to gas up the truck. That's because they're afraid the well-paid folks at both ends of that train line will be asked to picked up some of the tab.

Which would only be fair, since they started the fire.

You want the bad news first, or the really bad news? It's like the gambler said: Read 'em and weep.

Jobs? What jobs?

The next time somebody celebrates a report that reads "244,000 new jobs were created in April, which is 20,000 more than the previous month," remember that there are 7.5 million fewer jobs now than before the financial crisis. We need roughly 150,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with new job seekers.Of the 244,000 new jobs created last month, roughly one in four of them - 62,000 - were at McDonalds - which is now turning away more applicants than Harvard.

One grown man in three isn't working. That's a record. Long term unemployment is at record highs. African Americans are hit much harder by unemployment in this Jim Crow Depression. Young people are hard-hit too, which dooms many of them a lifetime of lower earnings. Older, long-term unemployed Americans have essentially been discarded, unlikely to find a new job and slipping down the ladder into a life of chronic deprivation.

For every job that opens up, there are 4.5 or five people looking for work. The total number of unemployed, underemployed, and discouraged workers, along with the unemployed, is approximately 25 million people, an un- or underemployment rate of 15.9%.

Losing the War on Poverty

Some of us can remember when President after President from both parties pledged to end poverty. Forget it. Since the financial crisis, more than two million Americans have fallen into poverty. More than 43 million Americans now live below the poverty line. More than 20% of this country's children now live in poverty, more than twice the figure for children in Great Britain or France.

And more than one household in twenty lives with "extreme food insecurity," which means normal eating patterns have been disrupted "at times" during the year because they didn't have money for food.

House on Fire

Most of the American middle class has kept its wealth in housing, something bankers and government leaders encouraged them to do. Thanks to Wall Street, that wealth is gone, replaced by debt for real estate value that no longer exists.

Rresidential real estate has lost more than six trillion dollars in value since 2008, after 57 consecutive months of decline - although a large chunk of that money is still being repaid as bank loans. (Six trillion in lost value -- and the banks are government are quibbling about a proposed $20 billion settlement for mortgage fraud.)

Housing values are down by a third over the last three years. Even more ominously, they're down 4.6% since their 2009 lows, and they're still falling. Fewer homes were sold in the first three months of this year than ... well, since they started keeping records. 8 million homeowners are now at least one month behind on their mortgage payments.

The New Lost Generation

Young people aren't just jobless. College tuitions have gone up 900% since 1978. The country's total student debt is now greater than its credit card debt, and will reach $1 trillion this year. And in a statistic that should bring tears to any thoughtful person's eyes, only 44% of those polled believe that children will have "a better life than their parents."

Ten years ago that figure was 71%. Like the old song says: The dream is over.

It gets even worse

Not weeping yet? Try this:

Gasoline went up 30% over the last twelve months. Crops are lousy this year, so food prices are going to go up.

Consumer confidence is falling. When consumers aren't confident, they don't spend money. And when they don't spend money, people don't work. Small business confidence is falling, too. Why shouldn't it? Their customers don't feel like buying very much.

Millions for Misers, Misery for Millions

So what are people talking about in Washington? Less spending, and no new taxes for corporations or the wealthy. Bear in mind, for the wealthy - one person in 100 - things are great. They now own one-third of everything, while tte lower 50% of Americans own 2.5% of everything.

Meanwhile the other ninety-nine people are watching their dreams of a better life die, and there's no serious talk about investing to create jobs and turn this economy around. There's jive talk instead: "Business doesn't like economic uncertainty," we're told, "so it won't hire and invest." But John Boehner just went to Wall Street and threatened to bring about an economic collapse if his radical demands weren't met. That's a recipe for massive uncertainty. How did business react?

The stock market went up.

They're pushing "job creating" tax breaks for big businesses and wealthy individuals, even though corporations are sitting on two trillion dollars in cash and the wealthiest among us are richer than they've been at any time in modern history.

It. Does. Not. Compute.

Free the arsonists!

Meanwhile the people who caused this catastrophe - the banks - are being unleashed from the few restraints that were imposed on them last year. It's increasingly clear that the government still has no tools for winding down a "too big to fail" bank when it's imploding.

There's no political discussion about turning these explosive banks into something smaller and less combustible. Pretty smart people are beginning to agree that the government hasn't been given the tools it needs to prevent the next crash.

Scroogenomics

It's not that the recurring deficit doesn't need to be controlled. It does - but only after we've rescued the economy, and those who are suffering within it. And cuts alone can't - and shouldn't - do the job.

Which programs do the Republicans want to cut? They've already voted to decimate seniors by eliminating Medicare (which, in Alice-in-Wonderland style, they insist wouldn't eliminate Medicare). And they would also slash Medicaid, which would be a gut-punch to the poor, the disabled, and children. They want to cut Social Security just as a new wave of retirees enters the program, along with a whole range of programs designed to help the newly-struggling victims of the economic collapse.

Tax cuts for the wealthy would make a major contribution to reducing the deficit - so, of course, Mr. Boehner has taken them off the table.

These policies are against the public's interests and against the public's will. The American Majority project (I'm a contributor) has the details: most people want higher taxes for the wealthy, oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, would like to see the defense budget reduced, and want the government to address jobs and economic growth before focusing on deficits.

Good economists think that's a smart way to go. But the Acela crowd doesn't agree. Apparently unprecedented levels of wealth aren't enough to satisfy them. Guess who's winning in Washington?

Unenlightened Self-Interest

If humanity is becoming more rational (how that for an debatable question?), people will one day look back on this moment with amazement, awe, and pity. They'll wonder how a few influential people could be so blind and so heartless, when so many people are so brokenhearted. Self interest plays a big part, of course. Politicians win campaign contributions this way. Misguided Democrats can fool themselves into thinking they look "moderate" for embracing the warped priorities of the Acela crowd and compromising with its radical demands. Journalists can repeat false economic truisms, secure in the knowledge that editors and billionaire-funded foundations will have their back.

The real question isn't why so many people serve the AcelaCrats: It's why the rest of us tolerate it. Why do people still vote for politicians who work against their interests, or watch and read journalists who fail to report the facts impartially and thoroughly?

If you're wondering the same thing yourself, you're probably not reading this in the Business Class car of the Acela Express.

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

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”.

Social Security: Are You Ready For A Congressional “Video Staycation”?

fake consultant — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:16:41 -0400

Diligent reporter that I am, I got up yesterday morning to do a bit of fishing for a story, and as so often happens, I’ve caught something a bit unexpected.

Now what I have for you today starts out as a bit of insider information that came to me on background—but it turns into a chance for those of us who support Social Security to very much get in the faces of our members of Congress, for two whole weeks.

And to make it even better, I’m going to throw out a few direct action ideas “for your consideration” (as they say in Hollywood during Awards Season) that would absolutely make good street actions and YouTube videos, both at the same time…and even more importantly, we’ll absolutely make some great Spring Break fun.

“I mean, just from the very notion that it said that 50 percent of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those moneys as their sole source of income. So we've got to protect today's seniors. But for the rest of us? For - you know, listen. We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be…

…We're going to have to accept some changes as far as the rest of us. And what we're saying is for those 55 and older do not have to worry about changes in benefits. But for the rest of us we will. We will have to do that."

--House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, speaking at the Hoover Institution, March 21, 2011

OK, so like I said, I have bit of “inside baseball” that sets this whole thing up.

I got a piece of information “on background” yesterday from An Actual Well-Informed Source who seems to be about two or three “degrees of separation” away from actually being in the room while this news is occurring; because of that I’m willing to ascribe to it a reasonably good chance of proving to be entirely accurate.

What I was told was that Paul Ryan, who is the “manager” of the House Republicans’ budget-cutting effort, has decided not to push to include cuts in Social Security as part of the current fight over a Continuing Resolution…because Spring Break is coming up.

Check this out: according to the House Schedule, April 18-29 is Spring Recess, and I was told there’s a lot of concern on the Republican side about what would happen if anyone made any crazy Social Security proposals right now…when they have to go home and face you and me and the rest of the Angry Nation in just about two weeks.

(There’s some evidence to back this up: it is now possible that Cantor “misspoke” in that quote a couple of paragraphs up the page; as of this moment I can’t confirm if a "full backpedal" is officially underway or not.)

We can discern two things from that little nugget: for starters, we are having an impact on this fight—but beyond that, we also now know that we have two weeks to publicly torment those Members of Congress who are looking to cut Social Security…and we have two weeks to get ready.

Since hunger strikes are already underway, here are a few other ideas you’re welcome to steal to make your statement:

Is your Member going to be appearing at a community center or a friendly church?

Well how about arriving a few hours early and setting up a cardboard “Social Security Tahrir Square”?

You could have a box that’s the local “Catfood Grocery”, you could paint one of the boxes to look like “Grandma’s Gingerbread Box”, and you could even have a “Long-Term Care Facility” and hand out fliers of your own—and make sure you catch the reaction of the Congressional Staff on video to set up the bigger video of you interacting with the crowd…or y’all being ejected by the suddenly fearful Representative…or y’all “making happy” with a supportive Member.

Now you’re going to love this one, and there are two ways you can make it work.

What we’ll be playing on are the proposals to increase the retirement age and how we’ll be asking old people to do jobs that, obviously, they just can’t; what I basically want you to do is either go to an event…or outside one of the Members’ District Offices…and create a “job training center” for senior citizens.

Get a wheelbarrow and load it with a nice load of bricks, maybe fill some oval trays with a mess of plates and beverageware (safety first on this one; beware of glass and ceramic—and don’t forget the jackstands), and then rustle up a transfer belt and a heavy volunteer and simulate what nurses and their aides do all day long, and all night, too: lifting and transferring those who can’t do it for themselves.

Take it all to the venue, and you can either “train” your own 70+ year-old students…who might not be old enough to retire, under the new proposals…on how to do these types of jobs while the crowd watches—or you can invite older members of the crowd to try their hand at moving the bricks, or lifting the tray. Bring a medical worker and you can show them what lifting looks like, too—although I would be unlikely to invite the crowd to do that one without some kind of training.

(Do I have to warn you that this could get someone hurt, and you’ll have to use a reasonable amount of caution when you do this? I didn’t think so.)

Again, get it all on video—and then get that video right up on the Web.

Our final idea for today might be my favorite—but that might be because I used to be a caterer, and this really fits my sense of humor.

You know those “Top Chef” and “Iron Chef” shows?

And you know how we refer to that Deficit Commission as the Catfood Commission?

Well…why not sponsor a “Catfood Contest” at your Congresscritter’s event?

Again, you could go two ways: invite “contestants” in chef’s whites to create delightful dishes with the Commission’s Catfood, or you could judge competing sculptures; they do both at the Spam Jam in Waikiki, and if it was me I’d steal the ambiance of this kind of an event from Hawai’i, especially since it’s Spring Break season anyway.

An alternative way to do this: performance art of an elderly couple having a Catfood Commission BBQ, cooking Catfood patties on portable grills to make a point.

So there you go:

We have two weeks to get ready to have two great weeks of fun just really tightening the screws on those Members of Congress who are looking to jack America out of Social Security, and we have ideas on the table that you are entirely welcome to borrow, or adapt, or outright steal—and with any luck, other readers will toss in some ideas of their own—so get your art on, gather your props, and bring extra video batteries and a blank tape to give the police…just in case.

And here’s one last thing to remember: this isn’t just about turning back a disastrous plan to break the backs of Americans for decades to come—it’s also about having a good time.

Well-executed comedy makes people agree with you, and to like your message, and that’s a powerful thing; the more fun you’re having, the better the whole thing is going to work.

Now go forth, make some mischief, and watch the magic happen.

FULL DISCLOSURE: This post was written with the support of the CAF State Blogger's Network Project.

On Monday Morning Philosophy, Or, Founders Tell America: “You Figure It Out

fake consultant — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:57:07 -0400

In our efforts to form a more perfect Union we look to the Constitution for guidance for how we might shape the form and function of Government; many who seek to interpret that document try to do so by following what they believe is The Original Intent Of The Founders.

Some among us have managed to turn their certainty into something that approaches a reverential calling, and you need look no further than the Supreme Court to find such notables as Cardinals Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia providing “liturgical foundation” to the adherents of the point of view that the Constitution is like The Bible: that it’s somehow immutable, set in stone, and, if we would only listen to the right experts, easily interpreted.

But what if that absolutist point of view is absolutely wrong?

What if the Original Intent Of The Founders, that summer in Philadelphia…was simply to get something passed out of the Constitutional Convention, and the only way that could happen was to leave a lot of the really tough decisions to the future?

What if The Real Original Intent…was that we work it out for ourselves as we go along?

“…you see, all the majesty of worship that once adorned these fatal halls / was just a target for the angry as they blew up the Taj Mahal…”

--From the song “Gasoline”, by Sheryl Crow

The reason this is coming up today is because I’ve been writing a lot about Social Security lately, and I keep getting comments from folks who see no Constitutional foundation for such a program.

To sum up what I often hear, if there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically provides for Social Security, then, if it’s to be done at all, it’s something that should be left to the States. (The 10th Amendment is used to reinforce this point.)

A lot of these folks, from what I can see, hearken for a simpler time, a time when America had no “foreign entanglements” or National Banks…a time when men of the soil worked their farms with no fear of Debt or The Taxman….a time when government worked best by using local wisdom to deal with local problems.

In other words, we’re basically having the same arguments over the shape of this Government that Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were having in 1787—and for those who don’t recall, Hamilton won, which reflects the reality that we don’t all live on farms and hunt turkeys and Indians, and that State Governments are just as capable of ignorance and foolishness and greed and blind hate as any Federal Government.

To reinforce their arguments “fundamentalists” fall back on some version of the Original Intent theory, which basically assumes the Constitution was written by men who miraculously created a perfect document, and that all the answers to today’s problems would be found by simply allowing the Original Intent to shine through.

I’m here to tell you that couldn’t be more wrong—and to prove my point you need only consider the Civil War.

Despite what you might have heard in Virginia, the Civil War really was about slavery, and the reason we had that fight in the 1860s was because there was no way the question could be settled at the Constitutional Convention.

Those Founders who supported ending that “peculiar institution” were never going to convince slaveowning Founders to give up their property, and as a result of the desire to get a Constitution drafted that could be ratified by “the various States” there were compromises made, including the 3/5ths Compromise and Article Four’s requirement to deliver fugitive slaves to their owners upon demand, which resulted in the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850.

The Intent Of The Founders, on the question of slavery, was to let time work it out.

The same kind of “let time work it out” thinking led us to Article 1, Section 8, and the “general welfare” clause.

Congress is empowered to enact legislation that provides for the “common defense and general welfare of the United States”…but there is no specific interpretation of what the phrase means (in fact, there is no glossary at all for the Constitution, which means there are plenty of other examples of, shall we say, "unclear phrasing").

Since there is no specific reference as to how Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment are supposed to interact or what the Founders’ Intent might be, we are again forced to apply our own interpretations, over time, to figure out how to resolve the inevitable conflicts.

We had to do that because, even as there were proponents of a Federal system, there were plenty of Delegates at the Convention who wanted nothing to do with a strong central government. They wanted to keep a system in place that resembled what we had under the Articles of Confederation, where the Federal Government had no ability to compel the payment of taxes and States had the choice of whether to “accept” Federal laws…or not.

Over time, of course, we’ve come to realize that having one air traffic control system, and not 50, was a good idea, and that funding things like disaster response on a national level makes sense, even if Texas wants to go it alone or something, and we probably all agree today that if States are willing to allow 12-year-old factory workers to work 16-hour days, then Federal child labor laws are a reasonable thing to make that stop—and all of this progression of history is happening because the Original Intent was to let the future figure out where the 10th and Article 1, Section 8 would “find their center”.

The Original Intent Of The Founders, apparently, was that white men who did not own property, women, and those not pale and fair and of European descent had no reason to be involving themselves in the affairs of government, as that was the list of who was not allowed to vote at the time we began our experiment in democracy; over time we’ve seen fit to change that—and at every step along the way there have been Cardinals of Interpretation ready to tell us that with each change we were doing violence to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution as they knew the Founders would have intended it to be.

Am I entitled to create or possess any form of pornography because the First Amendment prevents Congress from abridging free speech, or is the general welfare furthered by allowing society to protect itself from the exploitative effects of pornography by limiting or banning completely the production or possession of certain materials that are considered unacceptable?

The Founders seem to have offered no obvious intent when they created this conflict, which makes sense, because the possession of child pornography didn’t really exist as an issue in 1789.

I’m guessing that today we are not anxious to have each of the 50 States adopt their own rules (after all, who knows what some crazy State might do?)—but they did put that “general welfare” clause in Article 1, Section 8, and over time, our view of Constitutional law has come to accept the compromise that the Founders could not have foreseen.

The fact that the Supreme Court resolves these kinds of conflicts at all was not laid out in the Constitution, nor was the fact that the Federal Government’s powers are superior to those of the States; it took the 1803 Marbury v Madison and 1819 McCulloch v Maryland rulings to figure out, when there are multiple claims of liberty, which were to be put ahead of the others.

Can you guess why?

That’s right, folks: it was because they had Delegates at the Constitutional Convention (and States who had to ratify the finished product) who did not want to give the Court or a Federal Government that kind of power, and the only way to get something passed was to sort of “leave things open” and let time work it out.

Here’s an example of how one of the Founders tried to tried to kill the “Original Intent” argument before it even got off the ground: James Madison, who kept the only known complete set of notes during the Constitutional Convention never released those notes during his lifetime (he’s also credited with being the principal author of the document, possibly because his were the best notes).

Why did he do that? It appears to be because that Founder’s Intent was to make the Constitution’s words stand on their own, without his notes to frame the debate—and in fact the document had been in force for almost 50 years before those notes saw the light of day.

The Cardinals of the Supreme Court, some of whom claim they can divine Original Intent for any and all situation, are hoping that you’ll forget that they really serve to resolve disputes where the intent of the Founders seems to collide with the intent of the Founders—and all of that brings us right back to Social Security.

It is true that the Constitution, as it was written in 1789, does not contain the words “you may establish Social Security”—but it is also true that there were no words that would allow anyone who is not a white male to vote, or to prohibit the ownership of slaves.

Congress, acting with the authority to provide for the general welfare, took Roosevelt’s proposal and enacted it into law. The Supreme Court, in 1937, took up the question of whether the 10th Amendment prevented Congress from enacting Social Security with a series of three rulings, and here’s part of what they had to say:

Counsel for respondent has recalled to us the virtues of self-reliance and frugality. There is a possibility, he says, that aid from a paternal government may sap those sturdy virtues and breed a race of weaklings. If Massachusetts so believes and shapes her laws in that conviction, must her breed of sons be changed, he asks, because some other philosophy of government finds favor in the halls of Congress? But the answer is not doubtful. One might ask with equal reason whether the system of protective tariffs is to be set aside at will in one state or another whenever local policy prefers the rule of laissez faire. The issue is a closed one. It was fought out long ago. When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress, not the states. So the concept be not arbitrary, the locality must yield. Constitution, Art. VI, Par. 2.

So there you go: the next time someone tells you that a program like Social Security is unconstitutional because of Original Intent, be very, very, suspicious, and keep in mind that the Constitution was written, intentionally, with the idea that a lot of problems were simply going to be kicked down the road to future generations of Americans.

Constitutional Delegates, after all, were politicians, and if there is one thing that politicians love to do it’s to kick a problem down the road so that something can get done today.

The history of the last 225 or so years has been a long journey down a long road that took us past slavery and Reconstruction and suffrage and Jim Crow, and to assert, as the Cardinals of the Court do, that all those questions were answered that summer in Independence Hall is to be either amazingly blind or deliberately untruthful—and the fact that they get to dress in robes and sit behind something that looks quite a bit like an altar doesn’t change that even one little bit.

FULL DISCLOSURE: This post was written with the support of the CAF State Blogger's Network Project.

Campaign Manifesto #3: On The Road, Defending Social Security

fake consultant — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:01:07 -0500

So it’s Day 3 of my fake campaign for Congress, and we’ve run into our first obstacle

The Fake Campaign, as you may recall, is fake headed for Wisconsin, to show solidarity, and we’ve fake hitched a ride on a delivery truck headed for Rush Limbaugh’s Florida broadcasting studios—but we fake found ourselves caught up in the all-too-real Giant Grip Of Winter that has seized the Midwest over the past week.

We’re back on the road now, but we were stuck for darn near a half-day there at Wall…and if you know anything about South Dakota, you know there are really only two things to do in the City of Wall: you can shuffle back and forth between Gold Diggers and the Badlands Bar, partaking of numerous intoxicating liquors along the way…or you can head on into Wall Drug (the same one that's on all those bumper stickers and signs) and partake of the finest display of Giant Jackalopia on the planet.

The Campaign, naturally, chose Jackalopia—and that’s why today’s Manifesto is all about the fake impromptu 5-cent-coffee-fueled Social Security Town Hall that we held in the Wall Drug Mall for several hours while we waited for I-90 to reopen.

Sitting quietly, doing nothing,
Spring comes, grass grows by Itself.

--From the “Zenrin Kushu”, attributed to Toyo Eicho

I-90, the main route from West to East (if your fake trip begins in Seattle, as ours did), was closed at Wall, South Dakota for about 24 hours this week, but this particular delivery truck just absolutely has to be in Florida by Monday…and the delivery is so important that to get us back on the road we now have a special escort of two South Dakota Department of Transportation snowplows and two 2011 “new and improved” South Dakota Highway Patrol Dodge Charger Pursuits (now with longer lasting brakes!) to make sure we get to the Wisconsin line in the shortest time possible.

With the weather being what it is, Jenna and Tendei, our driving team, have been earning their money, in a big way, this trip, and for the moment Tendei is asleep, while Jenna and I mull over the conversations we had tonight, me and the caravan of Wall Drug customers who gathered, first by the snake-oil salesman (that’s not hyperbole, either: they actually have an anamatronic snake-oil salesman), then out in front of the Western bookstore, and finally over by one of the 5-cent coffee stations.

It was my fault: standing next to the snake-oil salesman got me thinking about all the lies we hear every day about Social Security…which I mentioned to the 30-something couple standing next to me, young son in tow.

“If I didn’t know better, I’d guess the next words out of his mouth are going to be: ‘I’ll never see a dollar of my Social Security anyway, so who cares how they fix it?’.”

He looked back at me, all surprised: “We’re not ever going to see any; they tell us that all the time.”

“Yeah, I know…but it’s a big ol’ load of hooey, and I’ll tell you why: Social Security is funded by payroll taxes that are, for the most part, paid out as they’re collected, that means there’ll always be money that we will use to pay benefits, unless we just quit collecting that money altogether, which is not likely.”

We were beginning to gather a few others around us (hey, we were all stuck there—nothing else to do…); that means my gestures were getting a bit bigger—but there’s a nice echo in there, and you can be heard.

“The way things work now, if nothing changes, there will be enough money to pay out all the benefits we expect to pay until 2037. After that, if the ‘pessimistic projection’ plays out, even if nothing else changes, we can still pay 75% of what we expect to pay for about 50 years after that. We only look out 75 years at a time, so we don’t have a projection that goes out past 2084…but, pretty much, as long as we keep collecting the money, we’ll still be able to pay the benefits.”

I looked over at a 40-ish couple that had come over to listen: “What about you two? Right now there’s a lot of talk about ‘fixing’ Social Security by making you wait longer to retire or by making sure cost-of-living increases don’t really keep up with inflation. Don’t y’all feel like if they do that, you’re just getting screwed?”

It was almost like Parliament and “Question Time” in there for a second (which is not a George Clinton reference) as the 15 or so folks listening began to “harrumph” in agreement.

“Well how about if I were to tell you that I could fix this problem, and that I could do it without raising the retirement age or messing with your cost-of-living…and that I could do this in a way that gives every person in this room a tax cut at the same time…and that, even though I’m running for Congress, I’m not a snake-oil salesman?”

About two lives ago I used to be a failed stand-up comic (true!), and it is possible to know when the crowd is turning—and this was one of those moments.

The 40-ish husband looked at me and said, basically, that I did sound like a Congressman—and not in a good way.

“I know you don’t believe me, but listen to this: if you turn a wrench or carry a tray or do anything that makes under, basically, $105,000 a year in wages, all your income is taxed for Social Security…but if you make a million a year, you don’t pay any tax at all on the last $890,000…and if that income was taxed, we wouldn’t have a Social Security problem.

Now you don’t hear much about this back in Washington, and there’s a couple of reasons why: right off the bat, this President and this Congress don’t want to be accused of ‘raising anyone’s taxes’; beyond that, 2012 is coming fast, and both the President and the Grim Weeper are trying to be the one who can look at the voters and say: ‘I’m The Slasher, and I will cut the deficit and balance the budget faster than the other guy’.

Lots of people think cutting Social Security will somehow cut the deficit and reduce the debt, even though it has nothing to do with it at all, and some of them figure that if they campaign around cutting everything that government does it’s gonna help their political future, and that includes cutting benefits for people just like you, instead of just funding Social Security with a flat tax for everyone…even the rich.”

This argument, I might add, was starting to gain traction.

“Look at where we are right this very second: standing in front of a Western bookstore…and if you go in there you’ll see stories of how people died of starvation and how land barons ruled counties with an iron fist and how we fought range wars with imported hired guns and shootouts in the streets.

Is that what we want to go back to?

It’s not what they wanted. The pioneers didn’t just build isolated ranches, they built towns, and towns with a schoolhouse, so that the kids on those ranches didn’t have to rely on a home school education. They had a Sheriff or a Marshal and a Town Council and a Judge, because they knew that they had to create some rules and establish some government.

Some towns in the Wild West, and you know I’m telling the truth about this, didn’t even allow guns inside the town limits…just like when Wyatt Earp was the Marshal in Dodge City and you had to check your guns if you were going north of the railroad tracks.”

You know what? This was working: the crowd began to nod with me, and I figured while I had the advantage I’d press the thing home:

“Now a lot of people probably think the fix is in, and what’s the point…but I don’t agree. There was an effort at the beginning of this Congress to force these cuts by threatening to stop providing any money for the Government at the beginning of March if the ‘Wrecking Crew” didn’t get their way, and the Tea Party folks came in here with a big ol’ war cry about ‘shut it all down’ and all that…but now that March 4th is actually drawing close, and the public is starting to figure out what’s up, the message is suddenly all about ‘maybe we can extend the funding after all’.

That tells me that the people who think cutting everything in sight because it looks good are finding out it doesn’t always look good to just go around cutting everything in sight.

Tell ya something else. A lot of the people who want to change Social Security want to change it into a system that rewards people who manage Social Security accounts, not the people who own the accounts, and if you look at what ‘privatizing’ the system is all about, that’s what it is: it’s just a plan to get more money out of you in the form of fees and charges, which is going to be a great big reward to great big political donors who have been trying to make this happen since the 1980s.

So here’s the reality: there is enough money in the system to pay for you and your kids to have benefits, even if no changes are made, and if you just make Social Security a flat tax, even for the rich, we are pretty much guaranteed to have every dollar we need until at least 2084, and we don’t have to cut benefits or raise the retirement age, or do any of that crazy stuff…and we don’t have to give up our hard-earned money to big banks and Wall Street in the form of new fees and charges on your Social Security accounts.

So I came here in a truck, and it has to be in Florida in a couple days, and my driver friend is walking over here, and that means I gotta go, but I hope I told you something about Social Security you didn’t know a while ago…and if any of you are fake voting for a fake Congressional candidate in 2012, I hope you’ll keep me in mind.”

And with that, I fake shook a few hands, jumped in our fake truck, and headed off to Wisconsin.

The Simplest and Best Way Out

Joseph M. Firestone — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:32:05 -0500

Well, the proverbial s__t is now hitting the fan in our State Governments, and we're looking at struggles in State after State between newly elected Republican Governors scapegoating civil servants, while they insist that taxes can't be raised on the wealthy and large corporations during a recession. Put briefly, the moves to austerity and the resulting conflicts in Wisconsin and other States are partly Democrats' fault, because they failed to pass a State revenue sharing bill to close the gap in State budgets, so that no cuts in services, employee benefits, or jobs would be necessary. A revenue sharing bill of $300 Billion passed in 2009 would have done the trick, and could have been passed as part of the stimulus package.

Why didn't they do it? Well, the gutless wonders in the 21st century Democratic Party wouldn't go after the filibuster when it would have made a difference in January of 2009, and that left them negotiating with a few “moderate Republicans” and blue dog Democrats who ended up controlling the final form of the very inadequate stimulus bill. There's no turning the clock back, of course. But the Democrats should still propose revenue sharing, make a big fuss about it, and talk about how the Rs were perfectly willing to bail out the big banks, AIG, and even foreign banks, but are not now unwilling to bail out their own American States, and would rather attack public employee unions and their collective bargaining rights rather than doing anything constructive about jobs. The Ds should also point out that all the Rs have done since winning the House is to kill jobs, and that their refusal to pass revenue sharing is just another instance of job-killing.

Of course, someone will read this proposal and say that the Federal Government can't afford even a bigger deficit than it has now so that it's not a serious proposal. To them I say that I prefer to deal in reality and not act as if I believe the fantasies of people who think the Government is like a household. I know that people believe that the Federal Government can't afford it. But that belief is based on various fairy tales and myths I've exposed before like:

-- The Government is running out of money

-- The Government can only raise money by taxing or borrowing

-- We can't keep adding debt to the national credit card

-- We need to cut Federal Government spending and make do with no more money

-- If the Government borrows more money, the bond markets will raise our interest rates

-- If we continue to issue more debt, then our main creditors may refuse to buy it, an event that would lead us to insolvency and severe austerity

-- Our grandchildren must have the heavy burden of repaying our national debt

-- There is a deficit/debt reduction problem for the Federal Government that is not self-imposed

-- The Federal Government is like a household and that since households sacrifice to live within their means, Government ought to do that too

-- The only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it

-- We should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations

-- We face a crushing burden of Federal debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead.

-- The next generation will inherit a stagnant economy and a diminished country

-- The United States is in danger of becoming the next Greece or Ireland

-- Fiscal Responsibility means stabilizing and then reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio and achieving a Federal Government surplus

-- Federal Government austerity will create jobs

Everyone of these myths/fairy tales is used to support the idea that the Federal Government can't afford to do the things it ought to do to end the economic suffering in America, and, in particular, that we can't afford to save State employee jobs and benefits by providing revenue sharing grants of $1,000 per person to every State to close their budgetary gaps. Every one one of them is untrue. Belief in any of them is stopping us from helping the 99ers, from educating our kids, from re-building our infrastructure, from healing our sick, from re-inventing our economy, from developing our alternative energy sources, from creating real wealth for our children and grandchildren, from extending Social Security benefits, and from stopping these completely unnecessary attacks on unions and collective bargaining.

What we badly need is a mental housecleaning in our economic thinking. We need to sweep away the false ideas of neo-liberalism and its practice of “Aztec Economics,” because our experience (most recently, Ireland, Greece, Spain, the Baltic nations, the UK, and even ourselves, since we held back on stimulus and health care reform out of austerity concerns) tells us that they are serving us very badly and causing suffering all over the world. It's time to try the ideas of Modern Monetary Theory instead, and see if they will work better. They tell us, in part, that Federal Government spending isn't in itself a “cost,” since our constitutional authority to spend is unlimited and we can now do so electronically. So, when considering such spending we must never look at its nominal financial cost; but only at its likely real impact. Does it increase value? For whom? What are its real costs in terms of resource consumption and negative outcomes? Does it bring full employment? Does it solve national problems? Is it likely to cause inflation? Does it create a better life for most people?

These are the kinds of questions we should be asking. Asking and answering them correctly and making fiscal decisions based on the answers is fiscal responsibility. Fiscal irresponsibility is watching the impact of spending on deficits, surpluses, debt-to-GDP ratios and other numbers of this type.

The current Administration is fiscally irresponsible, not fiscally responsible. The President's Fiscal Commission exhibited the height of fiscal irresponsibility. And the current Congress, in jumping on the bandwagon of Aztec Economics and austerity, will give us even more fiscal irresponsibility, while congratulating themselves about taking the tough decisions that fiscal responsibility calls for. What more is there to say? We live in Orwell's world. We must find a way out!

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).