Milwaukee’s ordinance requiring businesses to provide paid sick leave would be voided under a bill Assembly Republicans sent Gov. Scott Walker on Tuesday.

Walker said he is likely to sign the measure. The city’s sick leave ordinance was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2008 but has never gone into effect because of legal challenges. The Assembly voted 59-35 to ensure it would never be implemented.

Patrick Marley, Journal Sentinel

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

So let’s see, Milwaukee voters use the rights given them in an American democracy to effect legislation. The initiative is passed and then immediately subjected to judicial review and is left standing, so it becomes law. But then the “small government” Republicans in Madison decide that they don’t like the law, so they scramble to pass legislation that will effectively nullify the will of the people . . .

Isn’t democracy grand?

We presently live in a nation where the “haves” have everything. They don’t worry about paying rent or putting food on the table; they have healthcare; they have the wealth, with the top 1% having more than the bottom 95%. If they happen to get sick, they’re not concerned — they will likely be paid for the time away from work, and if not they have the resources to weather the storm.

But for the 98% of Americans who are the “have nots,” those of us who essentially live month to month, the story is quite different. Our incomes have been stagnant for more than 30 years; millions of us are unemployed or underemployed, with real rates currently over 22%; there are presently 52 million of us without healthcare insurance and millions more who are covered but still can’t afford treatment. When we get sick, we are worried about any loss in pay because we need every cent earned just to make ends meet.

So, the good people of Milwaukee, Wisconsin take the initiative to use their democracy to pass a law that would at least provide a solution for one of the many issues pressing on the working people of our nation. They didn’t fight for higher pay or even for healthcare; they didn’t ask for paid time for leisure — no, they just want to be paid when they get sick, but even that’s too much too ask for in the Bizarro World of profits-over-people American conservatism.

As stated by Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), “This [Republican] bill is a slap in the face to the people of the City of Milwaukee.” But alas, Darth Walker and his hoard of Republican stormtroopers don’t really give a flying flip about the people, about their democracy or about anything resembling ethical behavior. They have the power, so they will assert their rule of the land. The will of the people be damned! The aristocracy has spoken.

All working Americans will be well-served to pay close attention to what’s going on in Wisconsin and other states being overrun by newly elected Republican majorities. They all talk about small government and pay lip service to jobs and workers, but at every opportunity they use the power of government to trash the rights of the many for the benefit of the elite few.

Wake up America! Wake up and learn that in the Republican vernacular, “small government” simply means government that serves a very “small” minority. 

---

Read the entire Article at the Journal Sentinel  

Image via Wikipedia

“They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesman for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”

Sound like anyone you know?

The quote is actually from FDR’s Vice President, Henry Wallace — in 1944. He was talking about the rising tide of fascism in America.

Fascism was defined most succinctly in the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary as: “a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”

It’s no accident that this all has the ring of vague familiarity. The parallels between recent events in the U.S. and the international rise of fascism that led to the Second World War are inescapable.

People will likely accuse me of stepping too far, as we Americans seem to abide by an unwritten law that forbids any analogy between the state of our politics and those of Nazi Germany. But while I wouldn’t equate for a nanosecond any comparison between the horrors of the Holocaust and anything occurring in 21^st Century America, I am compelled to shine a light on the similarity of events and sound a warning about the threat of fascism in America today.

The fact of the matter is that Hitler came to power in Germany without winning the majority vote. He was appointed, not elected. Shortly after taking control, he used the burning of the German parliament building, allegedly by a Dutch communist, to declare a “war on terrorism.” Within two weeks of the terrorist attack, a prison for terrorists was constructed; within 4 weeks he pushed through legislation that, in the name of fighting terror, suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy and habeas corpus, and allowed police to access personal mail, wiretap, and imprison suspected terrorists without warrants.

Hitler then focused on a debt-financed military buildup that nearly sent the German economy into bankruptcy. He continued his buildup against stringent opposition but gained increased power by consistently casting all opponents as weak against the communist terrorists. He eventually managed to crush all opposition through aggressive attacks on trade unions, and then claimed for himself total power by disregarding the constitutional requirement to elect a new president when Hindenburg died and instead declaring himself Fuhrer.

As Fuhrer, Hitler became commander-in-chief of the military. He positioned himself as the protector of Germany and the German people’s savior from communism, Judeo-Bolshevism, and other undesirable minorities. He then launched an unrelenting campaign of German exceptionalism that would lead to a war that would drain the country’s economy and end in complete collapse.

I’ll leave it to you to decide what American president this may sound like, but regardless of that particular comparison, it’s impossible to dismiss the parallels between the march to fascist rule in Germany and what’s going on in America today.

As described in Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous statement, “First they came . . . ,” the rise to fascist power came by dividing the people and attacking them group-by-group. In Germany it was first the communists, and then the unions and finally the Jews. In the good old U.S., it’s Muslims, anyone who can possibly be cast as a socialist, and now —public employees. Henry Wallace warned of fascists, that “always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power.”

Make no mistake about it, as Pastor Niemoller’s statement concluded, the rise of fascism will spare nobody. It’s public employees who are under attack today. They’ve been demonized as the cause of the current economic woes that were actually created by the thieves on Wall St. and the multinational corporations who shipped millions of jobs overseas. Teachers, police, nurses, janitors, firefighters — they’re all being cast as fat-cats, as the “haves,” the “others” with whom other working Americans should take issue.

But public employees are just a stepping stone for the neo-fascists. The wave of Republican governors elected to office in 2010 is engaged in a full frontal attack on working Americans of all stripes. From Rick Scott in Florida to John Kasich in Ohio, from Rick Snyder in Michigan to Scott Walker in Wisconsin, backed by newly elected right-wing legislatures, these wannabe tyrants are all talking about “shared sacrifice” while cutting taxes for the wealthy and then attempting to balance their budgets with spending cuts that impact everyone else.

Rick Scott’s attempts at unilateral action have been so drastic that he’s even run afoul of Florida Republicans. John Kasich’s battle against the working class has succeeded in crippling collective bargaining in Ohio. These men are fascists. They care not about America or Americans. They are the people of whom Henry Wallace spoke when warning that “another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion.”

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin too is a fascist. He may not identify himself as such, but the record of his tactics and objectives leave him without defense. Aligned perfectly with Wallace’s description of American fascists, where they “are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact,” Walker claimed not to be a union buster and then presided over the corrupt action of Wisconsin Republicans to end collective bargaining. In order to side-step the requirement that Democrats be present to form a quorum on any legislation with fiscal impact, the Senate Republicans split off the portion of their “budget repair” bill that ended collective bargaining and passed it alone. It never had anything to do with balancing the budget and was always about the fascist drive to strike a death blow to unions.

Unions are anathema to fascists. Fascists believe in authoritarian rule and place the value of money and power far above the welfare of human beings. They are all corporatists who readily accept the illegitimate doctrine of corporate personhood, and resoundingly reject any and all egalitarian values. Fascism is dedicated to establishing a ruling class by devaluing that which all people have to contribute — their labor — and instead concentrating all wealth and power within a small economic elite.

Because American fascists must convince large numbers of Americans to vote against their own best interests, they all must follow a playbook of deceit. Again, writing about fascists in the 1940s, Wallace described them this way: “His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.”

Fascism is a disease that’s spreading with increased speed in America, and the only known antidote is public awareness. Fortunately, the symptoms are pretty easy to detect — if politicians complain of budget deficits but argue to cut taxes on the rich, if they fight to break unions, even after all economic concessions have been accepted, if they advocate for harsh penalties on crime but strive to protect fraudulent bankers from prosecution, if they argue that corporations should have the same rights as real people, if all of their arguments are heavy on hyperbole and devoid of substance, if they always seek to divide instead of unite the people — you have a very good bet that they’re also likely fascist.

There’s nothing really new here. We fought a World War to end the spread of fascism across the globe. And FDR, Henry Wallace and many other patriotic Americans struggled to ensure that fascism was snubbed out here at home. The fascist’s bag of tricks is the same as it was 70 years ago. All we have to do is learn from history, otherwise, as they say, we are doomed to repeat it.

Article first published as Capitalism and Democracy, Out of Balance in America? on Technorati.

Accountants, plumbers, teachers . . . lawyers, barbers, technicians — people and societies have many needs and many professions to fill them. If your car’s broken, you take it to a mechanic. If it’s your body that’s ailing, you call a doctor. But what do you do when it’s the society itself that’s in need of emergency care?

America is hurting, and even those who love to wave the flag and speak of our greatness are hard pressed to argue otherwise. We have 15 million people out of work and long-term unemployment at a record high; 44 million Americans now live below the poverty line, with many millions unsure of the source for their next meal; real median household income has been in decline since the turn of the century, and those people now lucky enough to find a job often do so at a significant reduction in pay.

From coast to coast, American infrastructure is in decay, needing more than $3 trillion in repairs. Our healthcare costs continue to spiral out of control, with per-capita spending as a nation more than double the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) average — and in return we achieve inferior outcomes. The federal debt is presently over $14 trillion, about 94% of GDP, and the budgets of 46 states across the Union are in crisis, some approaching default.

Our education system is in disarray; we can’t seem to break our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels; we’re destroying our environment with pollution and activities like hydraulic fracturing; the foreclosure crisis is still wreaking havoc on the middle class; our manufacturing base has been decimated; private debt is at an all-time high; our trade balance is upside down — and worst of all — the American people seem more divided than at any time in modern history.

The fact of the matter is that if America were a car, it would be in desperate need of an overhaul; if it were a person, the transplant of multiple organs would be in order. Few and far between are any Americans who would argue that we’re not headed toward disaster, but fewer still are those who offer any real solutions. So, where do we turn for answers? Who do we call?

It is the responsibility of the government to “ensure domestic Tranquility” and “promote the general Welfare.” So, with the domestic climate being anything but tranquil, and the welfare in recent years far from general, it would seem sensible to look to government for leadership — after all, this is the reason for its existence. Our elected representatives are then the people we should call . . . but alas, that really hasn’t been working very well.

The problem is that far too many of those representatives have, in practice, changed employers. They no longer work for the American people. They’re now employed by our nation’s largest corporations. You see, elections are expensive. The 2010 edition ran up a tab exceeding $4 billion. And the sad truth is that the candidate who doesn’t have a sufficient war chest doesn’t get elected. So, unless they’re independently wealthy, candidates are forced to fill their chests with the donations of those willing and able to give. That all too often means taking money from those who the government is established to oversee.

Sadly, for the American people, the average citizen is but a pawn in this national game of influence purchasing. Even the capacity of organized labor, a favorite villain of the right, pales when compared to the might of Big Business to fund elections. In the 2010 campaign alone, business outspent labor by more than 15 times over — paying out nearly $1.3 billion to labor’s paltry $81 million. And make no mistake, those corporate donors don’t support candidates for altruistic reasons — they act only for profits, and they demand favors for their contributions.

Tragically (again, for the American people), many of the corporations controlling Congress actually have no national loyalties whatsoever. In fact, 83 of the 100 largest American corporations maintain foreign bank accounts and shelter their income in tax havens — many paying nothing in U.S. income tax. In fact, it’s so bad that General Electric, fourth on the Fortune 500, made profits of $10.3 billion in 2009, and Uncle Sam wound up owing them $1.1 billion. It’s estimated that companies using tax havens manage to evade more than $100 billion in U.S. taxes every year. The problem is actually so widespread that estimates conclude one-third of all global wealth is stashed in offshore accounts.

The realization that has thus far somehow escaped the American public is that we live today in a globalized economy, and the paradigm that “what’s good for General Motors is good for America” is a relic of times gone by. In all too many cases, what’s good for “American” corporations is actually a poison pill for the average American. And the loss of tax revenues stolen by multinational corporations that use American taxpayer funded infrastructure and services, from roads and utilities to police and fire protection, all without paying their fair share, is only the tip of the iceberg.

All one has to do to see the disconnect between corporate wealthfare and the wellbeing of the American people is to look at Wall Street’s recovery over the past two years and compare it to Main Street’s continued struggle. The Dow Jones, after dropping below 7,000 in March of 2009, was invigorated by the second TARP payout and climbed steadily to finish 2010 at 11,577 — a 77% rise. Bankers rejoiced and passed out record bonuses, $20.3 billion for 2009 and promises of even larger handouts for last year.

Meanwhile on Main Street, 2009 began with unemployment at 7.3% and climbed right along with the Dow to peak in October 2009 at just over 10%. Federal stimulus dollars helped to provide some relief, and 2010 ended with some improvement but still with the jobless rate at 9.4%, and the more reflective U6 rate, which includes the underemployed, stuck at nearly 17%. Yet, as bad as this sounds, the situation is worse still — much worse. The stark truth hidden beneath the published rates is that we now have the lowest labor force participation rate since April 1984 . . . long term unemployment is still rising and people are just not being counted anymore.

And what are those “American” corporations doing? Well, they are creating lots of jobs; it’s just that the majority of them are not in the U.S.. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “American” corporations created 2.4 million jobs in 2010, but nearly 60% of them, 1.4 million went to foreign nations.

Fueled by cheap foreign labor, free trade and government subsidies, the profits of American businesses are soaring. Posting their highest profits ever, $1.659 trillion in the third quarter of 2010, things are good for corporate America. There was a time when that would have translated into prosperity for the average American, but not so anymore. Today, American workers are in a race to the bottom. Their compensation is dropping while commodity prices are climbing. They struggle to provide the basic essentials for their families, while politicians and pundits are increasingly selling the tale of an unavoidable economic shift.

Americans are being sold a bad bill of goods that insists that they accept a new normal . . . one with high unemployment, low wages, weakened social safety nets, and in the final analysis — a lower standard of living. This is the path to continually increasing corporate profits in a globalized economy. Such profits require cheap labor, which means that unemployment will not stem until Americans are willing to work for third-world wages. This is the tyranny of the elite, and it’s a direct result of corporate control of the United States government.

Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market is alive and well, and it’s painting a new America, one that’s increasingly focused on the wellbeing of We the Corporations instead of We the People. Fortunately, it doesn’t have to be this way, but it’s not going to change through the voluntary actions of a government that’s bought and paid for by those who benefit from exploiting the populace.

The bottom line is that Big Business and American politicians have developed a symbiotic relationship that’s poisonous to the people. Big Business thrives on low taxes, deregulation and cheap labor, and American politicians fund their elections on Big Business donations. The quid pro quo in Washington is operating with unprecedented precision, firing on all cylinders and serving well the needs of the economic elite.

The unavoidable truth is that American democracy has let down the American people —there is nobody to call when those charged with service have been corrupted and no longer seek the greater good. So, what do you do when there’s nobody to call? You do the best you can to tend to the matter yourself. In this case, that starts with asking a new question: what’s good for America?

Without doubt, the answer will most assuredly be in perfect harmony with what’s good for most Americans. And as was the design of the Founding Fathers — that will be a society consisting of a strong democracy intended to curb the excesses of its capitalism, not vice versa.

We need to get the money out of politics, and you can help.

Article first published as Democrats Take up the Good Fight to Reform the Senate on Technorati.

With polls showing an 83% disapproval rating, few people would argue that the Congress isn’t broken. Fewer still would not assign a great deal of blame on a completely dysfunctional Senate. With more than 400 pieces of legislation passed by the House only to die in the Senate of the 111^th Congress, the more “deliberative body” has truly become a haven for obstructionism. But that might all change if Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) succeeds in his attempt to reform the filibuster.

In response to a Senate minority that has utterly corrupted the use of the filibuster, Senator Udall, along with fellow Democratic Senators, Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Michael Bennet (Colo.), are leading the way to bring back some form of integrity to this aged parliamentary procedure.

Not mentioned in the Constitution, the filibuster is the product of senatorial rule changes established in 1806 that removed the motion “to move the previous question” and effectively eliminated any ability to end debate on an issue and move to a vote. Yet, even once the potential for filibuster existed, it wasn’t until 1837 that the procedure was first used, and its use remained infrequent for decades.

In 1917, the Senate changed its rules again and created a means to end a filibuster; by invoking cloture, the motion to end debate would be subject to passage by a two-thirds majority vote. Under these rules, the filibuster remained a powerful yet seldom used maneuver that resulted in only 56 filings of cloture through the end of the 91^st Congress in 1970.

But starting with the 92^nd Congress, things began to change and cloture was filed 23 times during that Senate alone. With 44 filings in the subsequent Senate, it became clear that what was once a rare procedural maneuver was becoming a mainstay for the Senate minority. This led to another rule change in 1975 that redefined the super-majority needed to end a filibuster, setting it at three-fifths — the 60 votes required today.

While use of the filibuster had become more frequent, it wasn’t until the past two Congresses that use was turned to abuse. Cloture filings averaged only 36.4 for each Congress from 1971 through 1990, and started ramping up with the Republican minority of the 102^nd Congress, but still averaged only 51.5 from 1971 through 2006. Starting in 2007, with the 110^th Congress, complete and utter obstruction was introduced and the tyranny of the minority began.

Viewed historically as a means to ensure that major issues were given a full and fair hearing, the contemporary corruption of the filibuster process has led instead to complete obstruction and the inability of the Senate to conduct even the most routine business. The Republican minorities of the 110^th and 111^th Congress made the filibuster standard operating procedure, using the procedure to block anything and everything, with no other goal than to impede progress.

In total, there were an unprecedented 275 motions for cloture filed in response to the filibusters of the past two Republican minorities. That’s more filings than occurred during the first 67 years of the motion’s existence. Such absurd levels of obstruction have nothing to do with governing. As is evidenced by the many successful cloture votes that were followed by easy passage of the bill, the new SOP for the GOP is all about delay —about bringing government to a standstill. Why else would the extension to unemployment benefits in late 2009 that survived back-to-back filibusters be passed by the Senate without opposition, 98-0? Or what about the filibuster of Fourth Circuit nominee Barbara Keenan that was eventually broken with a cloture vote of 99-0?

Fortunately for the American people, the Republican minority’s rampant abuse of the filibuster has caused such frustration that the backlash may result in real reform. In a Dec. 18 letter to Majority Leader Reid that was signed by all Democratic senators remaining in the Congress that opens Jan. 5, the majority stated, “We believe the current abuse of the rules by the minority threatens the ability of the Senate to do the necessary work of the nation, and we urge you to take steps to bring these abuses of our rules to an end.”

Senators Udall and Merkley are promoting the use of the “constitutional option” to effect the changes they seek. Using this procedure, the Democrats will be able to change the rules of the Senate with a simple majority vote, but according to many experts, they can do so only on the first day of the new Congress. It’s true that some experts disagree with this assessment and suggest that the majority could effect change at a later date, but there’s little doubt that such a move would be filibustered, so Senator Udall is pushing for the change to occur on Jan. 5.

The reform package being circulated would not end the filibuster, or even change the cloture requirements for a three-fifths majority, but it does include several smart changes that promise to restore credibility to the process. First and foremost, the changes would put an end to the purely procedural threat to filibuster by requiring that 40 senators vote to invoke a filibuster. This would replace the present requirement that the majority leader file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed. The package would also require a “standing filibuster” — in the form of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the filibustering senator would have to remain on the floor to sustain it.

Other changes being considered include: limiting filibusters to only one per bill — under present rules, many bills are filibustered multiple times, starting with the decision to begin debate, followed by another filibuster on each amendment, and followed by still another filibuster before a final vote; another proposal would shorten the time for debate once cloture is invoked, which is presently set to at least 30 hours; and although it’s not filibuster specific, there appears to be significant support for the elimination of the “secret hold,” a ridiculous practice that enables a single senator to block nominations and legislation — anonymously.

Whether or not any of these changes will come to pass remains to be seen. There’s no doubt that the Republicans will fight these proposals with everything they have, but fortunately, they have very little. The sole opposition argument is something to the effect of “you won’t like this when you’re in the minority.” Republican Senator, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee stated the opposition’s case most succinctly, “Even if Democrats were to change the rules, they will gain nothing except the prospect of retribution in two years while destroying the Senate.” Such rare honesty is to be commended, but it should not in any way temper the complete rejection of the notion that enabling the Senate to perform the duties for which it exists is somehow destructive to the institution.

Contemporary Democrats don’t have much credibility when it comes to standing up against Republican bluster. They are more prone to meet aggression with compromise. As always, the American people can help this situation by contacting their senators and urging their support for reform. They can also sign-on to help Fix the Senate Now. This is “Change We Need.” It’s the good fight for the Democrats, and if the unanimous signing of their letter is any sign, we just might have that rare set of circumstances that embolden people to do what’s right, instead of what’s easy.

A reshaping of the economic team, beginning by naming a new director of the National Economic Council, is among the most urgent priorities of the new year. Gene Sperling, a counselor to the Treasury secretary who held the position in the Clinton administration, is among the final contenders to succeed Lawrence H. Summers in the job, along with Roger C. Altman, a Wall Street investment banker who also served in the Clinton administration.

Jeff Zeleny, New York Times

I find it interestin­g that just 10 days ago the story had Obama selecting the replacemen­t for Summers from three finalists, with only one not having strong Wall Street ties. Now it appears that only Sperling and Altman are still in the running, with Richard Levin, the one candidate who might have put Main St. in front of Wall St., having been eliminated­.

If only Obama would just once embrace his rhetoric with his actions, but that’s not going to happen. Alternativ­ely, he could just start being honest in what he says and admit that he is politicall­y wed to Wall Steet. Obama telegraphs everything well in advance of taking action, and this reorganiza­tion follows that practice — it portends a continuati­on of Wall St. feast and Main St. famine.

And with the Republican­s gaining control of the house and far too many Democrats falling in step to support Obama’s spirit of “compromis­e,” the writing is on the wall, etched in stone — things are likely to get worse, much worse for the average American.

If you’re a middle or working class American, whether or not you accept it, we’re all in the same boat, and we just had a shot fired across our bow. The co-chairs of President Obama’s deficit reduction commission released their initial proposal late last week and made one thing perfectly clear — they believe our nation’s fiscal problems must be corrected on the backs of working Americans.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was created by executive order this past February. The commission’s primary mission was to identify “policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run,” and also to “propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015.”

It’s difficult to fault either the notion to form the commission or the assigned mission. The group was even structured in a bipartisan manner, requiring that no more than 10 of its 18 members be of a single political party. But if the co-chair proposal is any indication of the content of the final report that’s due for commission vote by December 1, then it’s now evident that class warfare has been waged in America, and the two major political parties have allied against the interests of the majority of citizens.

Fortunately, there may still be hope that this isn’t the case, that the co-chair’s full frontal assault on working Americans will not receive the 14 votes needed to move forward. The proposal, as released, is the work of former Republican Senator, Alan Simpson, and Erskine Bowles, who served as advisor to President Clinton.

Simpson’s politics are certainly no mystery, as evidenced by the abusive e-mail he recently sent to the executive director of the National Older Women’s League where he described Social Security as being “like a milk cow with 310 million tits.” And while Mr. Bowles is purported to be a Democrat, his views put him squarely in the DINO (Democrat in name only) camp. He is an investment banker, formally employed by Morgan Stanley, on whose board he still serves, and the co-creator of his own investment firm.

Whether the severe anti-middle-class slant to the present proposal is upheld by the larger commission or not, there is no escaping the elitist agenda of the co-chairs. Their 10 “Guiding Principles” starts with the solemn acknowledgement that we must “come together on a plan” to “get this crushing debt burden off our back.”  And the second principle is like the first, stating that “A sensible real plan requires shared sacrifice.” But sadly, the Simpson/Bowles idea of who exactly needs to participate in said sharing is limited to middle and working class Americans.

The Simpson/Bowles plan does contain a significant number of spending cuts, with illustrative examples that total over $200 billion in 2015 that are interestingly split between domestic and defense expenditures. And while one might wonder why we can trim only $100 billion from a defense budget that’s over $1 trillion — more than that of all other countries combined — or how adding to unemployment by cutting 440,000 federal jobs is going to help the economy, it’s really the proposal’s tax reform recommendations that expose the co-chair’s corrupt idea of shared sacrifice and total disregard for working Americans.

In order to gain clarity regarding the co-chair’s glaringly regressive economic philosophy, one really need look no further than the “goals” they set forth for tax reform: the first of 7 goals is to “Lower Rates” and at the end, in seventh position is “Reduce the Deficit.” A more upside-down prioritization for a “deficit reduction” commission is hard to imagine, but even worse is the fact the detailed recommendations are heavily skewed toward benefitting the wealthy, with a few bones for the poor and a tab that’s picked up by everyone in the middle.

With working America still struggling in the wake of an economic calamity that stripped away as much as a third of the overall wealth of the middle-class and fed the proceeds to rich Wall Street bankers, Simpson and Bowles actually have the temerity to recommend that the few tax advantages held by the vast middle of American wage earners be ended. This would be bad enough if proposed as the mainstay of deficit reduction, but this is not the case. The dynamic duo would use most of the increased revenue, not to reduce the deficit, but to provide steep cuts to the top marginal and corporate tax rates.

The co-chairs propose to slash taxes for the rich by dropping the top marginal rate from 35% to 23% and the corporate rate from 35% to 26%, the combination of which will ADD tens of billions to the deficit. Their proposal also includes restrictions that will prevent Congress from collecting taxes on businesses, like Exxon which had $42.5 billion in 2009 profits and paid ZERO in U.S. income tax.

But never fear, this pair of elitist scoundrels will pay for their proposed tax breaks by eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction and subjecting healthcare benefits to taxation. They’ll also impose co-pays for veterans who use VA hospitals, raise fees at national parks and start charging admission to the Smithsonian museums, and force college students to make interest payment on loans while still in school. It’s time to bend over middle class, because that upper one 1% now make 23.5% of all U.S. income, and they need a tax break.

The “deficit reduction” label of this proposal is nothing more than a rhetorical smokescreen for the “starve the beast” crowd of conservative ideologues to further their goal of plutocratic rule. The gross concentration of wealth in America already has the top 1% holding more than the bottom 90% — a situation that hasn’t existed since the last time the economy collapsed in such grand fashion — the Great Depression. This proposal will only increase that disparity and hasten the American people’s race to the bottom.

This is a different type of blog post for me. It’s born of the frustration encountered at Huffington Post when trying to get a comment approved by their censors. When my posts are blocked, I typically scour the text in search of anything objectionable, make edits to anything that could possibly give cause to censorship, and repost. But in spite of this effort, I’ve had many times in the past when I could not for the life of me determine what their issue was with my post. Today is one such occurrence.

The topic of the article is the new Whitehouse position stated by David Axelrod yesterday regarding the extension of the Bush tax cuts. This was a very popular topic with a huge number of comments of which I posted several.  One particular comment was in response to an individual who posted asking the question, “Why do Democrats act as if the government is the owner of the citizens’ income and can hold a blank check on our earnings?” My response was to assert that we live in a democracy, that the government belongs to us all, and that it’s our only means to “address excesses and exploitation by the upper class.”

A response to my post was given by the person to whom I had commented. That response conveyed certain assertions with which I did not agree and, in my opinion, was based on assumptions that I find to be erroneous. The text of that comment is as follows:

The equality that will happen for ALL AMERICANS under the plan the left has is equal poverty and equal misery.

You cannot reward failure and punish success and increase innovation and the quality of life. It has never worked and will not work if you change the name to “progressive.”

Of course there are differences in intelligence, skills, knowledge, abilities, attitude, willingness to work and other factors. Each and every one of those creates differences in contribution.

In a fair society, you are compensated for your contribution. The liberal idea of equal wealth distribution ignores the differences in contributions and is doomed to fail.

The mistaken belief that government can create equal outcomes is foolish. The result of liberal’s attempts is to bring civilization down to the lowest common denominator. It happens every time you try and create social justice. The only way for liberals to succeed is to punish success and human nature then creates poverty and misery.

I attempted to respond in a respectful way, but even after a series of earnest attempts at editing was unable to get the Huffington censors to accept my post. The following is the text of my last attempt:

“reward failure and punish success” Success and failure at what? To make money? Now, there’s an appropriate metric with which to measure the worth of a person. It’s actually the core flaw in conservative thinking and the source of much suffering in the world.

“increase innovation” That’s just patent falsehood. Our ruling class system retards innovation in order to sustain the status quo. Just look at energy consumption and infrastructure in the U.S.. We’re still married to fossil fuels at the cost of the people and planet because it serves the needs of those stuffing their pockets with oil money. Innovation is in green technologies and alternatives, which are suppressed because of the threat of competition.

“In a fair society, you are compensated for your contribution” So CEOs really contribute 300 times more than average workers? By what measure? It’s the conservative idea of distribution of wealth that ignores all factors of contribution except monetary. Is that moral?

“The result of liberal’s attempts is to bring civilization down to the lowest common denominator.” Quite to the contrary – it’s the conservative ideals that are base, that focus on the worst characteristics of humanity.

For conservatives to succeed, the majority of people, as well as the planet itself must pay the price. John Kenneth Galbraith best summed up the conservative ethic: “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

I ask for your critique and honest feedback. Is this comment disrespectful? Is it inappropriate as a response to the comment that preceded it? Does it warrant being censored? Is it appropriate for Huffington Post to censor without feedback as to cause?

And on substance: what are your thoughts on the debate?

Article first published as GOP vs. Dems; No Compromise Equals No Solutions on Technorati.

Politics can be very complicated, or at the very least confusing. Case in point: what is it about the Republican pronouncement of “NO COMPROMISE” that President Obama and the congressional Democrats don’t understand?

Did they miss it when John Boehner, the presumptive Speaker of the new Republican controlled House, announced that, “This is not a time for compromise?”  Perhaps they misunderstood high-ranking Republican House member, Mike Pense of Indiana, when he said, “Look, the time to go along and get along is over,” even though he reemphasized, stating, “If I haven’t been clear enough yet, let me say again: No compromise.”

Is it possible that the President took Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s statement that, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” as some sort of conservative jest?

It’s hard to tell what the President hears when congressional Republicans throw down the gauntlet and demand that he move in their direction. But, in response to the wave of emboldened Republicans taking intransigent positions against any sort of compromise, President Obama told the nation, “I believe there’s room for us to compromise and get it done together.”

The saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Fool me over and over again, and maybe the people who believe I’m actually being fooled are the ones being hoodwinked. Is President Obama really so foolish as to believe that the Republicans will engage in open, good-faith negotiations, or is he merely a performer in a stage show written and produced to convince the American people that somebody in Washington wants the status quo to change?

When the President spoke in Cleveland in September, he came out swinging. He artfully painted the Republicans as the champions of the very wealthy and articulated a plan for the extension of the Bush tax cuts that drew a line in the sand, defining $250,000 of taxable income as the divide between the middle-class and upper-crust. It was the perfect issue for the closing weeks of campaign 2010, but cowardly Democrats backed away in fear that the Republicans would paint them as tax-and-spend liberals.

Well, not only did the Democratic retreat fail to impress any independents, but it also ensured that there would be no resurgence of enthusiasm within progressive ranks. In fact, the real story of Election 2010 wasn’t the great turnout of Republican supporters, but rather that blacks and young voters stayed home. If even half of those who poured out to the polls in 2008 had been moved to vote, the election results would have been much different.

But whatever the case, the 2010 election is over, the Democrats got their collective butts kicked, and the Republicans have already started Campaign 2012. Republican leaders now insist that the election was a refutation of President Obama’s policies and promise a Republican led Congress that will focus on jobs and the deficit.

Americans rightfully rejoice that the promised focus is exactly where it should be, but in what has become the united chorus of one-trick-pony conservatives, the legislative remedy being offered is the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, fed by their new found sense of power, Republicans have become more intractable regarding any compromise on the wealthfare benefits and now insist that the extensions for the rich be made permanent.

Prior to the election, Republicans seemed amenable to a potential decoupling of the cuts along the lines suggested by President Obama. The notion was that cuts for the top 2% might be extended for a limited time period while those for the bottom 98% were made permanent. But according to House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, there will be no such compromise. In a recent interview, Cantor told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News that the election gave the GOP a mandate to hold fast and accept only an extension of all cuts.

Just how the Republican leadership can reconcile their position on the tax cuts with their promise to focus on either jobs or the deficit is the subject of some serious snake oil peddling.

According to Cantor, it’s all about clearing up that “uncertainty“ the Republicans keep talking about: “We’ve got to put certainty back into the game and get these tax rates to stay the same.” But of course this is complete nonsense, since whichever way the cuts are decided, once the decision is made, the uncertainty is removed.

To the man, each of the Republican leaders has also associated the cuts for the top 2% with small business, claiming that 50% of small business revenue will be affected. Sadly, the small businesses they’re referring to are large hedge funds, law offices, and billion dollar companies like Bechtel and Koch Industries. These are the clients of the Republican Party, not the 98% of all small businesses that make less than $250K.

The sad truth is that no respectable economist believes that cutting taxes for the rich will do anything to create jobs. That horse just doesn’t run anymore — not since the results of 8 years of the Bush presidency where such cuts were a mainstay were tabulated and found to be severely lacking. The worst job creation record since the 1940s and the first decline of median household income of any cycle since 1967 are not sound arguments for repeating the policy.

And where the tax-cuts-create-jobs argument is no more than a con-job, even that bar is too high when discussing the impact on the deficit. Virtually all reputable economists agree that tax cuts are the worst form of economic stimulus, and cuts for the rich the worst of all. The Republicans are essentially without even a distorted con to explain away the $700 billion cost of the tax cuts for the top 2% over the next 10 years.

The cuts the Republicans are fighting for won’t create jobs but will add significantly to the deficit. These “fiscal conservatives” espouse fiscal responsibility and feign help for small business and middle-class America but willingly sacrifice both for the wellbeing of their corporate overlords. And the Democrats respond by offering compromise.

Just what part of slam dunk, hanging curve, lob-ball pitch do the Democrats not understand?

The Democrats need to go back on November 15 and work to pass the extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250K during the lame duck session. It’ll be interesting to watch the Republicans argue why the very rich need the cuts and explain to the American people why increasing the deficit for those who don’t need the money makes sense. Their argument promises to be a mind-numbing spectacle of double-talk and diversion.

This is a win-win for the Democrats — any compromise is just once again playing into Republican hands and allowing them to set the agenda and color the conversation. The Democrats need to accept the fact that the Republicans who would not negotiate in good faith while in the minority are certainly not going to do so now. They need to figure out that the Republican campaign for 2012 has already begun and launch their counteroffensive. If they’re not willing to do so, they might as well just start packing their bags now.

With less than a week until the midterm election, here’s the final installment of my Voter’s Guide for the propositions. I’ll give you my take on the final three propositions and share my reasoning.

Proposition 25: Changes legislative vote requirement to pass budget and budget-related legislation.

Present California law requires that the state legislature submit a budget to the governor each year by June 15. For reasons not pertinent to this discussion, the law also requires a two-thirds majority of both houses for passage of the budget. Proposition 25 will reduce this requirement to a simple majority. It also ensures that legislators will no longer be paid retroactively for monies withheld while the state operates without a budget.

Of issue on this matter is the state legislature’s abysmal record on budget passage. Since 1980, the legislature has met its June 15 deadline only 5 times. And the current fiscal year continues the pattern, marking the ninetieth time in the last 25 years that the state started the fiscal year without a budget.

Proponents of the initiative claim that late budgets cost taxpayers millions of dollars, hurt schools and services, and damage California’s credit rating. They cite the fact that, without an approved budget, teachers must be handed pink slips and small businesses and state workers given IOUs. Projects are also shutdown and services delayed, which adds additional cost increases with restarts and further damages the state’s credit rating.

Proposition opponents assert that Prop-25 is a backdoor means for legislators to spend more money.  They claim that the circumvention of the two-thirds majority will result in politicians raising taxes. They even assert that the measure will somehow “eliminate the right of voters to use the referendum to force a vote and stop taxes disguised as fees.”

A reading of the text of the proposition seems to reveal that the argument against Prop-25 is nothing more than scare tactics designed to get voters to reject the measure. The initiative in no way changes the two-thirds majority requirement for tax increases. In fact, it specifically states that the two-third requirement to raise taxes is to be retained. Likewise, the proposition is devoid of any language to repeal citizen’s rights to vote.

Proposition 25 promises to end the budget gridlock in Sacramento and hold legislators responsible for passing timely budgets. It will retain the existing super-majority requirement for tax increases and dock legislators pay if they fail to perform as directed. This is long awaited reform that brings California into line with the other 47 states that only require a simple majority for budget passage. Voters need to say NO to scare tactics and vote Yes on Prop-25.

Proposition 26: Requires that certain state and local fees be approved by two-thirds vote.

This initiative is all about making it more difficult for the legislature to increase revenues. Current California law allows the legislature to raise “fees” with a simple majority vote but requires a two-thirds super majority for tax increases.  Prop-26 will broaden the definition of what constitutes a tax and render many payments that are currently considered fees to be taxes.

The fees affected by the initiative are those that “benefit the public broadly,” which mostly means those used to address health, environment, social and economic concerns. Oil recycling and hazardous waste fees fall into this group, as do certain fees on alcohol retailers.

Proponents of Prop-26 promote the initiative as a means to stop politicians from “enacting hidden taxes.” This claim is based on a blurring of the distinction between taxes and fees and a conclusion that raising fees with a simple majority is equivalent to raising taxes.

While there is a basis of truth in this claim, it fails to recognize that taxes are typically applied in a more broad sense where fees are levied for very specific circumstances. Many of the fees in question are those associated with ensuring that polluters pick up their own tab. One example of this is a so-called Prop-26 “hidden tax” that is levied against oil companies in order to cover the costs of oil spill cleanup. Other examples are fees on polluters for cleanup of hazardous waste and fees on tobacco companies for the adverse affects of tobacco.

The truth is that the major proponents of Prop-26 are the oil, tobacco and alcohol companies who pay the fees in question. These companies, including Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, and Phillip Morris have funded virtually the entire campaign for Prop-26.

Smart voters will not allow these deep-pocketed polluters to pass their tab to the taxpayers. A vote against Prop-26 will ensure that vital health and environmental services are not robbed and that the companies that pollute continue to pay for their own way.

Proposition 27: Eliminates state commission on redistricting.

Prop-27 is the polar opposite of Prop-20. Where 20 seeks to expand the authority of the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) to include control of congressional districts, Prop-27 completely eliminates the Commission and returns authority for the redistricting of both state and federal districts to the state legislature.

So, the decision for California voters is as follows: vote Yes-on-20 and No-on-27, which will put all authority in the CRC; vote No-on-20 and Yes-on-27, placing the state legislature in control, or vote NO on both propositions, thereby maintaining the present split authority.

Prop-27 does include certain provisions that require the legislature to hold public hearings both before and after they create redistricting maps — a measure that could help limit gerrymandering. The initiative also requires that all districts be essentially equivalent in size. These are positive moves, but neither of these measures, nor the small savings in redistricting costs, represents sufficient cause to support the proposition.

As with Prop-20, the decision is really about the best way to address the issues surrounding an ineffective legislature and the predominance of incumbent reelection. And in the end, there’s really no proof that an independent commission will improve this situation in any way. A redistricting bureaucracy that answers to nobody is a recipe for perpetuation of the problem — it’s another Band-Aid that will only create an appearance of change while leaving the broken system intact.

There are far more effective measures that we can take. If we’re serious about effective change and holding politicians accountable, we need to move in the direction of public campaign finance, preferential voting and term limits. The problem isn’t that state legislators serve their own best interest; it’s that California voters allow them to. If you don’t like what the legislature does — you can vote them out. We need structural change in Sacramento, not another bureaucracy. We need to empower the legislature and then hold them accountable — vote YES on Prop-27.

So, there you have it — Dave’s entire $0.02 on the California propositions — paid in full.

Article first published as Prostituted Government, America up for Sale on Technorati.

Baby Boomers are likely to remember the words spoken by John F. Kennedy during his inaugural address.

The youngest man ever elected president took office and wasted no time in reminding the American people of how different the world had become and of the responsibility placed upon our great nation. He pulled no punches in identifying the true enemies of humanity: “tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.” And he concluded his speech with both a commitment to the task at hand and an admonishment for all Americans: “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”

What would be the reaction today to a president asking for such patriotism? Yet in 1961, JFK’s call to unity and selflessness was arguably the hallmark of his address. His were words that could well have been spoken by Jefferson or Adams, even by Patrick Henry himself. How sad it is that things have changed so, in less than 50 years.

President Kennedy spoke out of love and respect for a nation built on high moral principles. He spoke of a nation that held the power to “abolish all forms of human poverty.” He called on all Americans to join him in the fight . . . and America responded with dedication and applause.

Today, the tables have turned. Americans don’t ask what they can do for their country; they don’t even see poverty as a mutual enemy. The new prescription for prosperity in America is not to fight tyranny and band together for the common good — it’s a call to social Darwinism, to every person for themselves. Fifty years ago the predominant mindset was one of abundance, where through unity we could achieve anything. Today, America is figuratively much smaller and weaker. The grand vision is all but lost. The belief is now in scarcity and a sense that only the few can truly prosper.

This change in paradigm has nothing to do with inevitability. It was and still is completely avoidable. The sad truth is that Americans have been sold a bad bill of goods wrapped in the trappings of good business. We sit now in the most dire economic straits in nearly a century, and instead of pulling together to fight our common foes, we’re allowing ourselves to be divided by those who benefit from our lack of unity.

Thomas Jefferson once said that, “Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.” This truth has been long understood and accepted, yet this is exactly what we, the American people, have allowed to happen in our country. The unity of the Kennedy era has been lost to the government-is-the-enemy doctrine espoused by Ronald Reagan and movement conservatism.

The 21^st Century American political system thrives on a state of dynamic tension where the two sides debate the same issues ad nauseam. Never reaching resolution, this ebb and flow produces, at best, incremental change, and in the end is essentially a lesson in futility. The structure is based on a two-party, zero sum shouting match where the only people who win are those who benefit from maintaining the status quo.

What’s needed is an alternative to this Sisyphean drama. We need real progress. We need a return to morality in politics, where money is confined as the currency of our capitalism and not of our democracy. Sadly, what we have instead is a near complete departure from anything of the sort.

Not only does truth in politics seem to be at an all-time low, but with the Supreme Court’s ruling on “Citizens United,” where corporations were granted personhood, the stream of falsehood and mudslinging deceit is so constant as to be virtually inescapable. America is now the great political prostitute of the planet, with more money being spent to buy votes through misinformation than at any time in any place. Hurray for America!

Is this really the political process that the American people want?  Is there any way that this caricature of democracy can lead to a government “of the people, by the people and for the people?”

This new dynamic has no place in the American political system. The Founding Fathers perceived the evils of corporate greed and did everything they could to ensure that the democracy could withstand their siege. Thomas Jefferson warned us of their thirst for control, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” But modern conservatism has ignored his warning.

The conservative court’s decision that corporations are people has created a situation where, not only are vast sums of money being spent by corporate interests to influence the 2010 election, but the American electorate isn’t even afforded the right to know who’s behind the spending.

Under their new found freedom to influence elections, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending record amounts of money. Where their total for the 2008 elections was a mere $33.5 million, they promise to spend $75 million in 2010. And not only is the Chamber raising record amounts for its campaign spending from U.S. corporations, like Prudential Financial, Dow Chemical, A.I.G., Goldman Sachs and Chevron  Texaco, but they’re bringing in huge amounts from foreign companies who have a stake in American jobs, trade policies and tax regulations.

Of course, it’s easy to understand why the Republicans in the Senate fought to defeat the Disclose Act, which would have required disclosure of funding sources, since the vast majority of the corporate money is going to either support Republican candidates or defeat Democrats — a full 93% of the Chamber’s 70 ads, according to the New York Times. This statistic might help explain why only 10% of groups running ads in support of Republicans have revealed their funding sources, while 50% of Democratic supporters have.

Regardless of the outcome, it’s too late for the 2010 election. American politics has fallen into an abyss of moral decay. Monied interests are so firmly in control of the process and the tyranny of the elite is so prevalent that both Kennedy and Jefferson have to be turning in their graves. Tea Party patriots, as misguided as they may be, have the right idea — the American people need to take their country back. Hopefully, between now and the 2012 election, they’ll figure out that the government is not the enemy, and that it’s actually the instrument of their collective will.

One person, one vote — that was the intent. That is the only system that can work, and it can only be sustained through an informed, not misinformed electorate. Let us all hope that we might return to the high moral principles of our past, of our founding. Let us understand once again that we are One Nation, One People – E Pluribus Unum.