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.

---

Read the entire Article at the New York Times