Image via Wikipedia

Did Barbara Boxer do any homework before her senatorial debate with Carly Fiorina on Wednesday? Boxer did hold her own and responded fairly well to most of Fiorina’s truth stretching assertions. But when her opponent is running on her record as a business leader, and that record earned her a place as one of the “20 Worst CEOs of all time,” the door was wide open for Boxer to clearly show what an abysmal leader Fiorina was.

Senator Boxer did take every opportunity to point out Fiorina’s woeful record on jobs, the one where she actually shipped 30,000 overseas. She even mentioned Fiorina’s very personal contribution to the American vernacular, coining the term “right-shoring,” a euphemism for firing Americans in order to send their jobs to a foreign land. Of course, Fiorina was laser focused on the “shoring” part but never really got it “right,” since as also pointed out by Boxer — Hewlett Packard lost more than 50% of its stock price under Fiorina’s control.

But Boxer missed the opportunity to elucidate how well aligned Ms. Fiorina is with the conservative extreme. She has spoken at Tea Party rallies and stated that she agrees with their views. She’s even a member of the tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves voodoo contingent of the Republican Party. Fiorina stated in a CBS interview that, “you don’t need to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves, if they are targeted, because they create jobs.” Never mind that even conservative economists no longer support such nonsense.

For whatever reason, Boxer also failed to support her own record for voting in favor of the Stimulus, and allowed Fiorina’s statement that it had, “manifestly failed,” to stand. Without doubt one of the easiest assertions to refute, being that the Stimulus has been a huge success by every objective measure, nevertheless Fiorina’s fact-free spin went unchallenged.

Part of the problem was the format for the debate. It allowed for response and rebuttal but provided no means for redress of erroneous claims made during a rebuttal. Fiorina used this to her advantage by using rebuttal time to introduce new points when she had no real argument for the topic at hand.

Fiorina was allowed to characterize her support of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy as good for the middle class. Boxer would have been well served to illuminate the fact that it’s Democrats who have drawn the line in the sand and support the extension for all but the top 2%. Fiorina used a similar tactic when speaking about the estate tax. Of course, she referenced it as the “death tax,” and drew alarm to the 55% rate. But where she really left the truth behind was in associating the tax with the 88,000 family farms in California. Boxer should have made sure that the facts of the matter were voiced, that the experts all agree that there’s not been a single “family farm” hit by the estate tax. She should also have added that the Democratic plan to deal with the expiring cut would lower the top rate to 45% and only apply to estates over $7 million, which would apply to .25 percent of estates.

Boxer also allowed Fiorina to demonize federal employees by associating the increase in their number with the loss of jobs in California. It would have been nice if Boxer had mentioned that the increase is almost entirely related to temporary census positions, which hit its 564,000 job high in May. Although Boxer did take advantage of the opening to hammer on Fiorina’s offshoring record one more time: she introduced Fiorina’s characterization of the recent aid bill to save teacher’s jobs as a “disgrace,” and added that Fiorina was likely opposed because, “we paid for it by stopping some tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas.”

Another well delivered blow by Boxer occurred in her rebuttal to Fiorina’s response to a question regarding the apparent conflict between her accepting a $21 million severance package and yet taking a strong position that teacher jobs should be tied to performance. Fiorina attempted to dodge the question by offering several statistics regarding HP’s growth under her tenure, failing to mention that the growth was the result of a failed merger. But Boxer responded with a body blow, stating that, “I think we are entitled to our opinion but we’re not entitled to our own facts. The facts are there was a $21 million severance check, and my understanding is that it was taken after my opponent was fired.”

But Fiorina scored points on Boxer’s legislative record. Citing the fact that only 4 bills bearing Boxer’s name have been signed into law, she asserted that Boxer was an ineffective legislator. Boxer did rebut by stating that the objective is not to get your name on legislation, and offered Senator Russ Feingold as an example, stating that the campaign finance legislation commonly known as McCain-Feingold does not bear his name. She didn’t mention that Feingold too only passed 4 bills during his tenure, or that the reason his name was missing was that it was the House version that was signed into law. The fact is that Boxer has a well-deserved reputation for carrying liberal causes as well as for working across the aisle. She needs to build a case that she can recite in a succinct manner.

As Boxer stated, Fiorina is the candidate of Big-Oil and Big-Coal. She danced around the topic of global warming, offering possibly the evening’s most twisted stretch of double-talk. According to Fiorina, the solution to global warming, “lies not with a single state taking action on its own, but rather with global action.” So, evidently there’s really no reason for any entity to take a first step until we get everyone in line to make a change. Sounds like a good capitalist position — after all we can’t address the environment and be competitive with polluters like China at the same time.

In the end, it was likely more Fiorina’s exposing herself as a died-in-the-wool capitalist Republican that will sway more votes toward Boxer than anything else. It’s difficult to understand how a politician could think it advantageous to use China as an example of how to create jobs. But of course, it’s all a part of her one-trick-pony approach to all thing economic: cut taxes and regulations and all will be well — it’s the same prescription offered by all of her Republican cronies — a race to the bottom for American workers and the environment be damned.

Long a bastion for Democratic voters, the Bay Area will carry the torch into the November election, hoping to put a democrat in the governor’s office and prevent Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat from falling into Republican hands. Carly Fiorina is threatening to give Boxer a serious challenge, but a video released on Sunday may help to tilt the scale.

The short video on YouTube, created by Brave New Films, shows Fiorina singing praises for the Tea Party and stating that she agrees with their views. Of course this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, but in a state where 45% of registered voters who identify with a party are Democrats, and even the Republicans voters tend to be more moderate, strong Tea Party ties may not be advantageous.

A Rasmussen poll from July 14 shows Boxer maintaining a small lead at 49% support compared to Fiorina’s 42%. But a 7% lead does not a victory make, especially in a midterm election where conservatives are more motivated and likely to visit the polls. Barbara Boxer is counting on Democratic strongholds, like Contra Costa County where Democrats are a majority at 50.21% and nearly outnumber Republicans 2 to 1.

As evidenced by Fiorina’s support of the Tea Party, her politics are far from finding resonance with normal California attitudes. But these are not normal times, and Fiorina’s banter touting her business acumen and ability to balance budgets may fit well in the present economic climate. California is broke and struggling, and with unemployment currently at 12.3%, unsuspecting voters just might be swayed by Fiorina’s surface credentials.

But the surface is really all Carly Fiorina has. Even without looking at her Tea Party ties or her anti-abortion stance, a closer look at her business resume should leave any voter questioning both her abilities and her character. Fiorina acknowledges that jobs are a major issue for California, but when it comes to job creation, how much trust should voters place in a person who laid off over 30,000 workers and sent a massive number of jobs to China while heading HP?

Actually, the entire notion that Fiorina is a business professional who’s savvy and capable is suspect, to say the least. True, she was the CEO of HP, but during her tenure, not only was she the champion of hacking jobs, but she also presided over a 52% drop in stock price. In fact, Ms. Fiorina’s leadership record at HP was so abysmal that she was chosen as a member of the Conde Nast Portfolio magazine’s “20 Worst CEOs of all time.”

On the 20 Worst list, Fiorina joined the likes of Dick Fuld of Lehman Bros, Jimmy Cayne of Bear Stearns, and Martin Sullivan of AIG, all of whom showed their abilities and character while driving the country to the brink of economic collapse. Other of Fiorina’s notable “20 Worst” alumnus include Ken Lay of Enron and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom. The folk at Portfolio had this to say about Fiorina: “a consummate self-promoter, Fiorina was busy pontificating on the lecture circuit and posing for magazine covers while her company floundered. She paid herself handsome bonuses and perks while laying off thousands of employees to cut costs. The merger Fiorina orchestrated with Compaq in 2002 was widely seen as a failure. She was ousted in 2005.” Of course, Fiorina did receive a $40 million golden parachute to leave HP — a slightly better deal than that given the thousands of employees whose jobs she cut.

Fiorina really is a garden variety one-trick pony, typical of her conservative brethren. Regardless of the issue, she offers but one tack — cut. In business that meant jobs, which she so eloquently referred to as “right-shoring.” But in government, she’s already pulled out the conservative playbook; we can create jobs and restore vibrancy to the economy, all we have to do is hack spending and cut taxes.

And the really good news is that Fiorina agrees with other Republicans who recently informed us that we don’t need to pay for tax cuts. Yes sir, the deficit reins supreme, so spending must be offset, but Fiorina subscribes fully to the Republican gospel concerning the budget magic of tax cuts. Falling in behind Senators, Mitch McConnell and John Kyl, Fiorina stated in a CBS interview that, “you don’t need to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves, if they are targeted, because they create jobs.” Of course, such myths have been soundly disproven and all empirical evidence is to the contrary, but what the heck — this is politics!

The plain truth is that Carly Fiorina was a terrible CEO and would make an even worse Senator. She cares not about jobs, at least not American jobs, as evidenced in a 2004 speech defending HP’s practice of off-shoring, where she told the crowd, “there is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore.” Which is true, but is it the ideology voters should value in an elected official?

In the end, voters will have to judge whether or not Fiorina is right for California, but when you add up her position to repeal healthcare, her denial that climate change is a serious national issue, her sitting out 15 of the last 23 elections, including the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and her position on abortion — and then couple them with her elitist attitude on jobs and her belief in voodoo tax cuts, it seems that Carly Fiorina is better suited to serving time in a mental institution than in the United States Senate.

If the Republican campaign message for 2010 was something like, “Yes, we know that we caused all these problems in the Bush years, but we’ve learned our lesson, and now we are offering these new ideas to fix things in the future,” I would understand (if not agree with) the equating of the problems with Republican gains. But that’s not what the Republicans are offering. Rather, the GOP campaign message for 2010 is essentially the same message as the Bush years, only more militant (and more wacky, thanks to the Angle-Paul tea party influence). Their pitch is built around deregulation, lower taxes for the rich, and less government, the very things that got us into this mess in the first place.

Mitchell Bard, Huffington Post

The Republicans have blocked everything in the Senate; the only plan they ever have is tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, cuts to social programs and privatization of government. They follow their strategy of running up deficits when in power as if it was a natural law, and then they suddenly become fiscally responsible when in the minority — a simple yet effective Republican tactic to defund liberal programs. They support big business, not the people, and they aggressively exploit the middle class and the environment to forward the greedy agenda of their corporate overlords.

This is all indisputable fact. It’s readily apparent to the most casual observer, yet somehow the Republicans are actually able to get elected . . . why?

It’s either because the Democrats are complicit in hiding the truth from the American public, or because they’ve yet to figure out that elections aren’t about issues — they’re about perception.

Perception is reality, and the Republicans have mastered spin. They have no shame! They will say anything, twist anything, and run to devise a scheme to cover anything said. They’ve not a care about the facts. By contrast, Democrats try to win debates politely. They offer rational arguments. It’s the rare exception when somebody like Reid says the GOP is purposely trying to make things worse.

IT IS NO SECRET that the GOP represents government by sabotage. Their platform is “government is bad,” and they routinely do everything they can to make that true. Why isn’t this message a resounding battle cry for the Democrats? If it was, it might actually be newsworthy by media standards, and the people just might discover the truth.

Seeing no other option, Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jeff Merkley have decided to attach their amendment to Brownback’s. The measure would require banks to cease trading taxpayer-backed money for their own gain. The current bill leaves the decision of whether to ban such activity up to regulators. The gambit would put progressives in the uncomfortable position of being forced to back the auto-dealer loophole in order to pass the Levin-Merkley amendment.

Ryan Grim, Huffington Post

Is there anything else on the planet as twisted and useless as the United States Senate? Filibuster this, and secret hold that – the dysfunction is mind numbing. Now we have Senators Merkley and Levin trying to stop bank gambling, but they need to give auto dealers a free ride in order to do it. What kind of convoluted broke-back system produces such garbage?

The auto dealer exemption should never have passed the House in the first place. But Franks caved to Campbell and gave the Republicans another business victory at the expense of the public. The Senate should be fighting to fix the House bill, not succumbing to lobby pressure and matching it.

Damn, I hate to side with Wall Street, but this is just bad legislation.

“The fact is the federal government isn’t “broken” because of the filibuster rules. It’s broken because of its two Senators per State structure, regardless of population, that is built into the U.S. Constitution.” Mitch Rofsy, Huffington Post

Thank you Mitch!

This is absolutely a conversation that all Americans need to engage in. Our government is broken, and the Senate is a significant part of the problem. Of course, the disparity in real representation inherent in the equal suffrage to the states is only part of the problem. The dilution of the average American’s voice in the House is also a serious issue: Consent of the Governed.

With regard to the Senate, I personally think it’s seriously outlived its usefulness, but as you’ve stated, the capacity to eliminate it is virtually nonexistent. So, in that light, I’d very much like to see a conversation ignite around some of your suggestions. Changing state structures is certainly an uphill battle, one that would be fought by those in power amongst the states, but it’s not unfathomable. And your idea about adding a population factor to the filibuster rules — damn if that doesn’t make perfect sense . . . which unfortunately means that it’ll probably never happen.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The first pillar states that “All [people] are created equal,” the second, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights. All else emanates from these essential principles. But while the truth inherent in these statements is inescapable, alone they did not justify American independence. No, it is upon the third and fourth pillars that this authority was based. The third holds that a government derives its just powers from the “consent of the governed.” And should any government be destructive of the Rights of the People, the fourth pillar asserts that it is then “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” said government. It was this Right that empowered the signers to declare independence.

The grounds, under which the founding fathers exacted their claim, were numerous acts of tyranny on the part of the King of Great Britain. According to the litany of facts presented to “a candid world,” His Majesty had committed all manner of oppression upon the people of colonial America. The primary grievance of the colonists was summed up in the words first coined by James Otis, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” So significant was this notion that John Adams himself, signer and second president of the United States, said of Otis’ address, “then and there, the Child Independence was born.”

So I ask you, if taxation without representation is tyranny, and tyranny the grounds to alter or abolish government, then are there sufficient grounds today for Americans to withdraw our consent to be governed? We’re certainly being taxed, so the essential question is really, “Do you feel that your interests are being adequately represented?”

Setting aside, for a moment, the issues involving the aristocracy that is the U.S. Senate, We the People are supposed to be represented “according to [our] respective numbers,” by the House of Representatives. In the 1790s, this meant that each representative was to carry the voice of some 33,000 Americans. As the population increased, periodic reapportionment was to maintain appropriate levels of representation. This worked for a good while, but when Congress fixed the number of representatives at 435 in 1929, the dilution began. Today, each House member represents, on average, more than 700,000 Americans.

Is this adequate representation? Does this serve your needs? George Washington, who argued to reduce the originally proposed ratio of 40,000:1 down to the codified 30,000, wouldn’t have thought so. The sad truth is that our present system is legally structured to diminish the voice of the average American over time:

Add to the dilution factor, the growing issue of unequal representation, and it becomes increasingly obvious why Congress now serves itself above The People. Take for example the difference between Wyoming’s single district of 515,000 and Montana’s at 944,000. This discrepancy effectively eliminates the idea of one person, one vote. In this particular case, the citizens of Montana are essentially relegated to 2 persons, one vote. Legal or not, this is obviously not in accord with the spirit of our Constitution.

As outdated as the model has become in the House of Representatives, no conversation about equal representation is complete without also addressing the Senate. Our bicameral system was designed so that the Senate would provide a stabilizing force to counter the potential “fickleness and passion” that could pervade the House. It was intended to allow for equal representation of the states, regardless of population. In 1790, this meant that the Senators of the least populous state, Delaware, each represented almost 12 thousand people, while in the most populous, Virginia, the number was 9 times greater. Today, the difference between Wyoming and California is nearly 70 to 1. This distortion of equality has all but silenced the voices of Americans who live in the more populous states.

At the end of the day, there are two facts that cannot be denied: inequality in representation has increased over time, and the voice of the average American has concurrently been diluted in the extreme. The actual impact on your vote varies depending upon where you live, but regardless, the question is, “Do you feel that you have a real voice in your government?”

My answer is a resounding “NO.” The Declaration of Independence was a covenant between the government and The People, and that covenant has been broken.

Even if it was The People who controlled the actions of our representatives, and not the special interests and big money power brokers, with numbers this large, the voice of the average American doesn’t even amount to a whisper.

CNN recently posted a question on its amFIX blog that relates to this issue. They wanted to know what people thought about increasing the number of representatives to 10,000. This would bring the ratio back near the levels our founders thought appropriate . . . Fortunately, there were very few who thought this was a good idea.

The bottom line is that it’s no longer practical to adequately represent The People through a methodology designed over two hundred years ago. We are no longer 13 colonies. We are 50 states and over 300 million people. We need to leave a broken system behind. It served us well while we were growing up, but it’s now the 21^st Century. Power must be restored to The People, and technology can help.

Through technology, all Americans can actively participate in government. Gone are the days when meetings had to occur face-to-face, and gone with them are most of the reasons that justified a representative democracy. Witness the fact that Facebook now has a population exceeding that of the United States, and you’ll glimpse the potential for how technology might facilitate direct democracy.  Imagine the power of a national initiative to balance a self-serving Congress. Envision a system like that of the Swiss: one where control of our nation would be taken back from big money and returned to The People.

Whatever system we choose, the time for change is now. It’s time for all Americans to demand a real voice. It’s time we exercise our right to “alter or abolish” a government that doesn’t serve our needs. It’s time that We the People join together and insist on real reform or else withdraw our consent to be governed.