The 112th Congress: another “Do-Nothing” Congress?

It never ceases to amaze me (and even to amuse me in a perverse way), that Congressional Republicans keep getting away with blaming the President for their lack of legislative ability and action.  Has someone failed to educate the members in terms of the constitutional separation of powers by which the Congress has been given the total responsibility for passing legislation?  Whatever the President may propose, it is the Congress that has the ultimate responsibility for making laws, producing budgets, and passing resolutions.  The Executive has no part, except proposal and persuasion, in that process.

So, it behooves every voter to be diligent in understanding what Congress has, and has not, done in terms of legislating.  Let’s take that Republican claim that the President is responsible for there not being a full budget.  That is simply foolishness.  The Congress has that responsibility, not the President, and all that can be said is that the Congress has failed to do its duty.  Let’s take a brief look at two budgetary crises that took place during this 112th Congress, according to a summary by Wikipedia.

First, a failure to pass a 2011 Federal Budget nearly led to a shutdown of non-essential government services on April 9, 2011, with the furlough of 800,000 government employees imminent. President Obama met Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner preceding the deadline but was unable to come to an agreement with them as to a budget.  A one-week budget was proposed to avoid a government shutdown and allow more time for negotiations; however, proposals from both parties could not be accommodated. Obama said he would veto a proposed Republican budget with draconian social spending cuts. This was also backed by Senate Democrats who objected to such cuts as that of Planned Parenthood. However, an agreement was reached between the two parties for a one-week budget to allow for more time to negotiate after Republicans dropped their stance on the Planned Parenthood issue. The two parties ultimately agreed on a 2011 federal budget the following week.

Second, on August 2, 2011, the United States Public Debt was projected to reach its statutory maximum. Without an increase in that limit, the U.S. Treasury would be unable to borrow money to pay its bills. Although previous statutory increases had been routine, conservative members of the House refused to allow an increase without drastic reductions in government spending. Over several weeks and months, negotiators from both parties, both houses, and the White House worked to forge a compromise. The compromise bill, the Budget Control Act of 2011, was enacted on August 2.

We must keep in mind the importance of the kind of legislation that a Congress ends up passing.  It is a major measure of the effectiveness of a particular Congress.  In regard to the 112th Congress, there is not much of a case to be made for their effectiveness.  Rather, the case can easily be made that this Congress has failed the American people by the paucity of its considerations and the puny outcomes of legislative action.  Because Republicans have basically spent a majority of their time trying to show the President in a bad light, the result has been a lack of strong legislation which could positively affect the lives and the well-being of the majority of Americans.  Here from a Wikipedia article are the major Acts of the 112th Congress.  Besides the budgetary items already mentioned, there are three trade agreement implementation Acts and three items that President Obama proposed.
 
April 15, 2011: 2011 United States federal budget (as Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011), Pub.L. 112-10
August 2, 2011: Budget Control Act of 2011, Pub.L. 112-25
September 16, 2011: Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub.L. 112-29 (The law represents the most significant change to the U.S. patent system since 1952, and closely resembles previously proposed legislation in the Senate in its previous session)
October 21, 2011: United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub.L. 112-41
October 21, 2011: United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, Pub.L. 112-42
October 21, 2011: United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, Pub.L. 112-43
February 22, 2012: Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub.L. 112-96 (The bill included the following
Extends Medicare payments to doctors giving seniors the advantage to keep their doctors.
Extends the two percent Social Security payroll tax cut
Extends unemployment benefits
Repeals part of PPACA that does not work and would lead to problems in the future
Expands FEMA aid
Extends temporary assistance for needy families (TANF)
Extends job incentives to small businesses
Improves work search for the long unemployed
April 4, 2012: Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK Act), Pub.L. 112-105 (S. 2038) (Provisions Of The Bill Include:
Prohibition Of The Use Of NonPublic Information For Private Profit
Prohibition Of Insider Trading
Confirming Changes To The Commodity Exchange Act
The Banning Of Congressional And Governmental Insider Trading
Prompt Reporting Of Financial Transactions
Overseers On Any Crime Relating To Bill Not Being Followed
(JOBS April 5, 2012: Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act Act), Pub.L. 112-106 (H.R. 3606)  (President Obama unveiled the Startup America Initiative on January 31, 2011, which over the course of a year came to recommend different reforms aimed at increasing small businesses' ability to raise capital, by easing various securities regulations. It passed with bipartisan support)

These major legislative acts would not have passed without at least a modicum of bi-partisan agreement, proving that the two parties can find ways to work together.  Nonetheless, the paucity is somewhat overwhelming.

One other measure of what a particular Congress is trying to accomplish, is the major legislation that was proposed, but not ultimately made into law.  Here is where we obtain an inside look at what the Republican right-wing - mainly in the House - is trying to foist upon the American people.  Without a Democratic Senate to cut off consideration, or Democratic President to veto, the following would actually have become laws of the land; a frightening thought to contemplate.  This is the kind of thing we face if there is a Republican President and at the least, a Republican House and/or Senate.

Proposed
Cut, Cap and Balance Act, H.R. 2560
(put forward  by Republicans during the 2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis. The provisions of the bill included a cut in the total amount of federal government spending, a cap on the level of future spending as a percentage of GDP, and certain changes to the U.S. Constitution.  The bill had the support of Republicans and much of the Tea Party.)

And, guess what?  Mitt Romney has picked up this “Cut, Cap and Balance” mantra and is proposing the following:
Immediately move to cut spending and then cap it at 20 percent of GDP.  He expects to seek caps to be set even lower
He will immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5%, with more being required to bring the budget “under control.”
Enact entitlement reform by raising the eligibility age for social security, but not by raising the payroll tax or expanding the base of income to which the tax is applied.  Romney will also push for the devolvement of Medicaid through block grants to the states.
Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent (thereby raising the percentage of the unemployed), and then another 10% through attrition (by hiring one for every two that leave).
Require a super-majority for any tax hike
Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution (without any mention of the constitutional check of a Line-item Veto amendment)

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3
(The bill's stated purpose is "[t]o prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes."  In large measure, it would render permanent the restrictions on federal funding of abortion in the United States laid out in the Hyde Amendment)

 Protect Life Act, H.R. 358 
(Bans the use of federal funds to cover any costs of any health care plan that covers abortions.  Requires any entity offering, through a federal exchange, a health care plan that covers abortions to also offer an otherwise identical one that does not cover abortions.  Prohibits government agencies from "discriminating" against health care providers who refuse to undergo, require, provide, or refer for training to perform abortions)

Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, H.R. 2
(would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care-related text of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010)

Stop Online Piracy Act, H.R. 3261
(introduced by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Provisions included the requesting of court orders to bar advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with infringing websites, and search engines from linking to the sites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the sites. The law would expand existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.  Failed because of opposition to government control of the internet)

Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, H.R. 3523
(Amends the National Security Act of 1947 to add provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing. Defines "cyber threat intelligence" as information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity - another very recent attempt to control internet sources; opposed by the Executive branch)

Newser.com mentions a Los Angeles Times article that commented on this record: “The Los Angeles Times takes stock of the accomplishments of the 112th Congress, and it isn't pretty: This Congress ‘is on pace to be one of the least productive in recent memory—as measured by votes taken, bills made into laws, nominees approved,’ writes Kathleen Hennessey. It's behind even what Harry Truman called the ‘do-nothing Congress’ of 1948, along with the group consumed with impeaching Bill Clinton.”  According to OpenCongress.org, here are a few more choice items that were recently introduced in the House:

H.R.3310 - Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act of 2011
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to consolidate the reporting obligations of the Federal Communications Commission in order to improve ...
H.R.4089 - Recreational Shooting Protection Act 
To protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting.
H.R.4040
To provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Jack Nicklaus in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excel...
H.R.3001 - Raoul Wallenberg Centennial Celebration Act
To award a Congressional Gold Medal to Raoul Wallenberg, in recognition of his achievements and heroic actions during the Holocaust.
H.R.3263 - Lake Thunderbird Efficient Use Act of 2011
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the storage and conveyance of non-project water at the Norman project in Oklahoma
Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2011-H.R.23
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish the Merchant Mariner Equity Compensation Fund to provide benefits to certain individuals who served in the United States merchant marine (including the Army Transport Service and the Naval Transport Service) during World War II
Fair Tax Act - H.R. 25
To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States

Finally, there are those Acts which were proposed (mainly by the President), but defeated by the Republican majority in the House or by a cloture vote requiring a super-majority in the Senate.  In either case, the Republicans were successful in blocking legislation that they opposed, mainly because it would be seen as a victory for the President.  The shame of these tactics is that a victory for the American people, or a segment thereof, was also denied.  And that is the basic tragedy:  when Congress does not fulfill its role, the social consequences for the citizenry are multiplied.  This Congress has not only failed to pass much meaningful legislation, it has consistently blocked the possibility of passing major legislation that is both needed and efficacious.  For instance:

The American Jobs Act (S. 1549) (H. Doc. 112-53) and (H.R. 12)
(bills proposed by President Barack Obama in a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress on September 8, 2011. He characterized it as non-controversial measures designed to get Americans back to work, and he repeatedly urged Congress to pass the bill "right away"; he also said that the bill would not add to the national deficit and would be fully paid for).  Some of its elements included:

Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees.
Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults.
Extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries Jobs tax credit for the long term unemployed.
Pathways back to work fund.
Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
Spending $30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.

Perhaps the worst of this inanity is that most Congressmen believe they are doing the best they can for the “American people.”   What the people believe - at least the polls say so --is that Congress is corrupt, and ineffective.  Ratings of Congress are at the lowest levels they have ever been.  These lists of legislation passed, or at least introduced, do not inspire confidence.  It is past time to turn out incumbents that fail to perform; that fail to reform; that fail to form a vision for America’s future,  We must have no tolerance for men and women controlled by special interests, big money, political careers that span many years, and lucrative careers after office-holding is done.  

We don’t need, and can’t endure, another “do-nothing” Congress!

What is it that a Businessman should bring to the White House?

(http://smallbusiness.chron.com/top-attributes-businessman-23378.html talks about some of the characteristics of successful businesspeople)

“Perhaps the most important characteristic of businesspeople who climb to the top and stay there is integrity. The simple fact is that no one wants to do business with an individual or firm you can’t trust. Co-workers and managers are just as turned off by someone who is dishonest and undependable. Honesty and dependability are especially important qualities in small business owners, who set the example for and often work closely with all of the firm’s employees. Integrity makes a businessperson easy to work with and fosters valuable word-of-mouth business.”

Mitt Romney has the integrity of a “chameleon.”  “Integrity” is constituted by a steadiness, an unbroken wholeness.  It involves honesty and steadfast principles and sincerity.  Does that describe Mitt Romney?  Well, you have to answer that question for yourself.  I would just offer a few things to think about:

--Mitt Romney has never seen the side of an issue or debate that he didn’t like.  He can take a particular side one minute, and then turn around and take the opposite view.  Take the Blunt Amendment offered up in Congress by Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, in response to the contraception dispute with the Catholic Church.  It would have permitted any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service required by the health care reform law, no matter how essential, from coverage if the employer had an objection on religious or moral grounds.  At first, Romney said he was against it, then about n hour later, declared that “of course, he favored it.”  That’s just one blatant flip-flop.

--How about health care reform?  He supported mandated coverage in his Massachusetts plan but does not support the similar mandate in Obamacare 

--In June of 2011, Romney expressed his support for SB 5, a law pushed through by Ohio's Republican legislature and Gov. John Kasich that curtails workers' bargaining rights. (Among other things, the law bans public-employee unions from bargaining over health insurance and makes public-employee striking illegal). Romney wrote on Facebook on June 18: "My friends in Ohio are fighting to defend crucial reforms that the state has put in place to limit the power of union bosses and keep taxes low. I stand with John R. Kasich and Ohio's leaders as they take on this important fight to get control of government spending."  Then, on October 25, 2011, when visiting an Ohio phone bank on SB 5, which Ohio voters had a chance to repeal in a November referendum, Romney refused to take a position, saying he was "not terribly familiar" with the ballot initiatives.

And, on Oct. 26th he made another 180-degree turn. Romney told reporters that he fully supports Gov. Kasich "110 percent."  According to Elizabeth Chan, a reporter on the NEWSBLOG:  “That's a flip-flop-flip—a dizzyingly fast one at that. And it's one of the most striking examples of Romney's lack of core convictions—and his willingness to say whatever it takes, no matter how ridiculous he may seem, to get elected.”

--Of course that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Romney had supported abortion rights while running for office in 1994 and 2002 , and also branded himself as a strong supporter of gay rights, though he now opposes gay marriage as public policy and similarly opposes abortion.

--While campaigning in Massachusetts, he was a steadfast supporter of gun control regulations. Since then, he has joined the NRA and now claims to support essentially no firearm regulation.

--While in Massachusetts he favored carbon emission regulations. He now opposes them in any form.

--In 1994, he advocated a spending limit on congressional elections and the abolition of political action committees. In 2002, he supported public financing of campaigns from a 10 percent tax on private fundraising. Later, Romney said the McCain-Feingold law limiting campaign contributions is an attack on free speech.

--In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, he described an immigration overhaul advanced by John McCain as “reasonable.” He has since denounced it as an “amnesty plan.” (WRKO.com)

This goes on and on, of course.  He just can’t help himself.  The crucial question this flip-flopping raises is:  can you trust Mitt Romney on anything he says?  If he tells you something he will do when in office, can you trust him to follow-through?  Based on actual experience, it’s very doubtful.

According to the small business website above, there’s another important attribute that a successful businessman should bring to the table, and that is creativity.

One of the signs of this attribute is an ability to “think outside the box.”  What does that mean?  “Creative people tend to see possibilities others miss. Free thinkers are more likely to try something new or come up with a creative solution to a specific client problem. They are always on the lookout both for new things and for ways of improving things already in use.”

Mitt Romney says he has a Plan.  That Plan -- “Believe in America: Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth” -- is so full of clichés, conservative rhetoric, and  conundrums that one wonders why it was ever put forth in the first place.  It is a regurgitation of Bush policies with some updating.  There is no Vision of what America could become; only a retrospective of what America has been.  There is no attempt to meld new thinking with political discourse.  Instead, the tired old aphorisms of the Right are trotted out without apology and in a boring listing.  Recently, Romney talked about, campaigned with, and touted the equally inane Budget Plan of Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  This is an historic example of the bland leading the bland!

If you want a businessman with vision and creativity in the White House, you will not get that result by voting for Mitt Romney.  Here are a few of his under-whelming attempts at creativity:

--On his “first day in office” he wants to issue an Order to cut Red Tape, directing all agencies “to immediately initiate the elimination of Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy or job creation.”  Now that should keep the federal bureaucracy busy for some time!  Any businessman worth his salt knows that you don’t issue orders to employees to tackle huge problems which haven’t been explained or explored.  Indeed, there is all kinds of groundwork that must be done before such an undertaking can happen: identification of the exact problem, setting of goals, training in what is needed to accomplish the goals and objectives, step-by-step procedures, and finally evaluation of progress so that one can see what future steps must be taken.  Romney doesn’t even take the time to identify the exact problem areas.  Why? Because he probably doesn’t know what they are; he’s content to say that the problem is “red tape”, but that neither defines nor identifies the actual problem areas that exist.

--As president, Mitt Romney says he will act immediately to alter tax laws that encourage American multinational companies to park their profits permanently overseas.  Currently, the US operates under what is known as a worldwide tax system, meaning that business income is taxed at the U.S. rate regardless of where it is earned.  Romney supports a recommendation of the Bowles-Simpson Commission to switch to a “territorial system” in which income is taxed only in the country in which it is earned.  He claims: “this would enhance  the ability of our corporations to compete around the world and would end the perverse incentives that keep companies from repatriating profits to the U.S.”  Well, if anyone should know about repatriating money to foreign banks, Romney’s the one!
But seriously, nothing about this is very creative (although Romney makes it sound that way!).  80% of countries now have such a system.  The United States is the only large economy that taxes corporate income worldwide at a 30% rate.   However, critics, like the Center for Tax Justice, say that this territorial system is nothing more than a way to reduce taxes on corporations.  “Currently, American corporations have an incentive to
move jobs offshore or shift profits offshore because they are not taxed on offshore profits unless those profits are repatriated. Under a territorial system, American corporations would not be taxed on their offshore profits ever, regardless of whether or not they are repatriated.” 
As usual, Romney supports business to a degree that is unhealthy for the rest of the country.  Some creativity….

--Romney claims: “Washington’s problem is not too little revenue, but rather too much spending.”  He wants to do three basic things:  cut government spending, cap that spending at a sustainable level, and pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.  First, cutting government by a certain rate (20% of GDP) is not a long-term solution to too much spending when the latter is part of the “culture” of the Congress and the Executive branch.  Over-spending is a problem created by lack of Congressional oversight of a flawed budget process, of poorly-conceived legislation, and lack of oversight of government departments and offices, not only by Congress but by the offices of Inspectors General as well.   Creativity is definitely required to change that kind of culture, and Romney’s “Cut, Cap and Balance” has little to recommend it.  Where is an understanding of how one proceeds to change how legislators act?  Where is an understanding of how one proceeds to educate the bureaucracy in core values?  Where is an understanding of the importance of a line-item veto Amendment as a balance to a Balanced Budget Amendment?  Where is the use of America’s university system to lend a hand toward reforming the bureaucracy?  Nowhere…

The point:  Romney borrows ideas, but has few of his own.  He does not have a Vision of where this government needs to be in 5 years, 10 years down the road.  He has no understanding, apparently, of how one mobilizes resources (like corporations, unions, and universities) to aid in re-inventing government.  He gives us “pap” where we need huge changes and innovations. 

Mitt Romney fails in both integrity and creativity and will bring neither to the Presidency. 

If You’re Leaning Toward Romney

So, you might vote for Romney for President.  Let me ask you some questions.

Do you work hard to earn your wages?
Of course you do.  Guess what, you’re going to have to work more hours -- another job maybe -- in order to pay for the tax breaks that Romney has in store for the richest 1% in our society.  First, he will extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  Second, he will lower the highest personal tax rate (it’s now at 35%), lower the corporate tax rate to 25%, cut out the 15% tax on capital gains, and then help the rich not to have to pay any substantial taxes on their inheritances.

Guess what? YOU will be the one paying for those breaks for the rich because the Treasury doesn’t have the money to do it, as it stands now.  So, the worth of your paycheck will automatically shrink when Romney gives YOUR money to his very rich friends!

Do YOU like your job(s)?
Of course you do.  But, guess what?  Your job is not safe.  Romney has no problem with seeing people fired.  He has been part of a high level consulting business that got rid of jobs to strengthen companies (“do more with less“).  Romney is a businessman who would have no qualms about encouraging his friends and fellow businessmen to move their businesses overseas if that was needed to increase profits.  In fact, as head of Bain Capital, his primary goal was not job creation, but making corporations more valuable by being more profitable. This meant embracing aspects of capitalism that have unsettled some Americans: laying off workers when necessary to gain profit, expanding overseas to chase profits and paying top executives significantly more than employees on lower rungs (Washington Post).
 
Are you a union worker or a government worker?
Oh, oh!  Your job is very vulnerable.  Romney favors neither and makes no bones about it.   Andrew Sum, a professor of economics at Northeastern University, says the unemployment rate fell when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts only because people were leaving the workforce in droves during Romney’s term. Just one state had a bigger drop in its labor force during the same period, according to Sum — that was Louisiana, which was hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
“There was not one measure where the state did well under his term in office. We were below average and often near the bottom,” said Sum, who is also the director of Northeastern’s Center for Labor Market Studies.

If that’s not clear enough for you, how about the fact that Romney has promised, in writing, to reduce the overall federal workforce by 10%!  That’s not all.  Again, in writing: “One of Mitt Romney’s most important goals is peeling away…layers of bureaucracy…”  He believes that there are many government functions and services that can be better performed by the private sector, and cites Amtrak as one example (would be interesting to see how many Amtrak employees would get laid-off if there were no more government subsidies). 

And, finally, Romney believes fervently that there are many federally-funded functions and services that state governments can better manage.  He cites Medicaid as the major example. 

But, what YOU need to know is that Romney wants to subject every federal government program and budget to a top-down review to see if they can be run more efficiently elsewhere.  So here’s the question for you: what happens when all these programs get sent to the states for administration and management, but the federal dollars that were spent on staff and administration don’t follow along?   (To save money at the federal level, often what happens is that programs devolved to the states don’t have enough administrative money attached and therefore the service or function has to be run by state staff who are already overburdened because of cut-backs).  The service or function becomes less effective, and recipients suffer.  All of this, while you, as a federal worker, are being kicked out of a job, or as a state worker are being overburdened and under-paid! 

How about that paycheck?  Expecting Romney to increase it?
Sorry,  that’s not going to happen, for all the reasons given above.  But there’s something else.  Romney supports a national budget (put together by Republican Representative Paul Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee) that is aimed right at YOU.  It’s going to cost you more money out of that paycheck to cover the cuts they plan to make, and the breaks for the rich they plan to give away. 

And how about health care?
Well, here’s the story:  get ready to pay higher premiums, get fewer benefits and maybe actually lose what you have gained under Obamacare.  Romney will get rid of Obamacare, starting on his first day in office (that is, if the Supreme Court has not done it for him).  Got a child in their 20’s on your health insurance?  Gone.  Got some extra benefits for a disabled child?  Gone.  Had some extra help for your mother or father’s prescriptions?  Gone.  Your wife had some preventive services like mammograms free?  Gone.  A child had a pre-existing condition that no longer kept them uncovered like under your old insurance.  That will be Gone.  Got rid of that lifetime cap on your health services?  Sorry -- it’s coming back to haunt you!
Everything you started to get used to under Obamacare will be gone, and you will be left holding the bag.  You’re going to pay more, get less, and wonder what the hell happened! 
Worse, private insurance conglomerates will have free rein to do everything they can to take more of your money and to give you very little in return.  You will be screwed on health care if you vote for Romney.  Too bad…

And, one more thing: did you have plans to get re-trained for a better-paying job?
Forget-about-it!  One of the first things Romney wants to do is to take all the federally-funded job training programs, consolidate them, and then return funding and responsibility for job training to the states.  Besides the problem with administrative dollars that I mentioned before, “consolidate” means to combine them all into one pot; a fatal mistake since individual job-training programs are usually aimed at distinct constituencies in order to provide specific training for specifically-needed skills.  Combining these into one pot means that training or re-training will be made into “one size fits all”, rendering job-training impotent from the start as mostly irrelevant to what people need!

So, let’s say you want training in a specific area, like computer programming in health care settings.  You go to a state office of labor, and ask if they have any job training for your specific need.  Nope, they just have one job re-training program available because of “consolidation.”  Take it or leave it! 

You want to be able to afford a house and one or two cars? Romney wants a car elevator to accommodate his four cars in his renovated mansion in the tony La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego  .  There’s also a planned outdoor shower and a 3,600-square foot basement — a room with more floor space than the existing home’s entire living quarters.  Those are just some of the amenities planned for the massive renovation, according to plans on file with the city.

Romney's luxury-home portfolio includes a six-bedroom contemporary sitting on 11 choice acres along the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee, in the resort town of Wolfeboro, N.H. Real estate experts value the 5,400-square-foot residence there plus separate guest house, boathouse and stable at around $7-10 million. News reports indicate that the Romney's upgraded their Wolfeboro property with tennis courts and other amenities.
The family also has a townhouse outside of Boston in Belmont, MA covering a mere 2,100 square feet and assessed at $773,000. We should also mention the Romney's 9,514-square-foot extravaganza in the plush skiing resort of Park City, Utah, sold in 2009.  

One home that doesn’t usually get reported is "a white-sided cottage on a sandy ridge overlooking Lake Huron in Grand Bend, Ontario – a property purchased in 1950 by Mitt Romney’s father George”, says Politico. 

What's notable about Romney's real-estate holdings, including the townhouse, is how totally they physically separate him from the rest of humanity  (Huffington Post).  It is also reported by Politico that the Romney's have other property holdings that would be considered commercial in nature.

You want to be able to afford a few luxuries (like maybe a 50-inch HDTV), and live well?  
Besides the four cars in San Diego, and the car elevator, and the huge underground family room, Romney boasts a few other items like:

-- a lobbyist.  He's already spent more than $20,000 on a lobbyist to help expedite the approval process through the city government  for all the renovations to his San Diego property
--staying in nine of the most exclusive hotels in the country, which all share in common that they are "Luxury Hotels of the Romney Campaign," as revealed in federal campaign;  filings.   Is this what you would call “fiscal responsibility”?

--the Romney campaign also unveiled their charter plane — an Embraer jet equipped with 50 seats 

“Between Cadillacs, NASCAR (owners), and $10,000 bets, Romney certainly has done his fair share to demonstrate an inability to understand the economic challenges facing most Americans,” Bill Burton, of the Obama-allied Priorities USA, wrote this month. “Americans (should) understand that Romney’s policies would primarily help himself and other extremely wealthy individuals at the expense of the middle class.”

So -- you want to vote for Romney because you believe all the rhetoric about his being a job-creator with business experience.  You believe all that stuff about him being the answer for our ills -- that he can get things moving again.  You believe that Romney  being President will help you get better benefits, a better job, or a better life?  You think Romney has the skills to turn the economy around and make your life better?  Then you haven’t got a clue. 

The stark truth is -- Your interests are NOT Romney’s interests. Vote for him and you vote against yourself!

The results will be fewer jobs, greater control of your paycheck and benefits by the richest 1%; higher food and gas prices (inflation everywhere to satisfy the appetites of the businesses and corporations that will control every aspect of your life), and a threat to your well-being.  More next time. 

Romney’s Plan for YOU!

Happy Easter!  Mitt Romney (the Easter Bunny?) has some great plans for you.  Unfortunately, these plans will not tend to enhance your life, but to take away protections, benefits and incentives on which you have counted up until now.  The middle class has already experienced the effects of most of the policies that Romney has in store because Mr. Romney has a plethora of unappetizing leftovers from a disastrous Bush administration, but does not have a “vision” of what this society and its people need or want.  Shall we take a look and count the ways in which YOU will be saddled with negative approaches to practically everything?  Perhaps they can be seen on this particular day as “rotten eggs.”

Let’s start with the day-dream of his “first day in office.”  As the saying goes: “don’t let this happen to you!”

First, he wants to introduce a bill that will lower the corporate tax rate to 25%, one more reduction in the amount of money coming into the US Treasury.  Every time such a cut for the rich (corporations are people too, he likes to say) gets done without a way to pay for it, every middle class person gets hit with higher taxes to make up the deficit.  You will end up paying for this gift for the rich, since the 25% tax rate is NOT an effective tax rate, meaning that the 25% is where the corporations start before their myriad lawyers find all the loopholes, tax incentives and deductions that can be taken to lower that rate to a minimum effective rate.  Don’t forget that big corporations - like GE - already took advantage of you in 2010, paying $0 while you undoubtedly paid your fair share.  The one-per center, Mitt Romney, does not have any such “break” for you.  Add to this the fact that he wants to maintain the Bush tax cuts for the rich; to lower tax rates for investment income; to eliminate the estate tax; and, to flatten and lower the tax rates on a broader tax base as well as extend  a write-off for capital investments, and you have a recipe for disaster for the middle class while the richest among us --like Mr. Romney-- will get even richer.

Second, he immediately intends to cut discretionary funding across the board by 5%, reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion dollars.  This is the action of a businessman who has no regard for the exigencies with which ordinary people must live.  He wants to use a meat-ax instead of a scalpel and foist austerity upon everyone, because in business you can do that and get away with it.  As a President of all the people, you cannot treat everyone like a line item in a budget.  Don’t forget, “discretionary spending” includes all of the programs that go toward the aid of citizens, from children to Seniors.  One thing is certain, Romney doesn’t discriminate: he wants all in that spectrum to suffer, at the same time that he cuts taxes for the rich corporations and their CEOs.

So there you are: you take a 5% hit to discretionary programs while Romney makes sure to offer tax cuts to the very rich.  Nice move, Mr. Romney.  I guess you really mean it when you say:  “I’m not worried about the poor.”

Oh, but he won’t stop there.  If the Supreme Court does not invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act, Romney will get that process started by Executive Order on his “first day in office.”  He will then take a step that some misguided people think should be done with national health care: let the states design health care solutions that work for them.  What a great idea, some say.  Get the federal government out of health care reform and service and devolve that whole area to the states.  There’s just one problem.  Allowing states to design anything that requires a national approach and innovation leaves many people with less than is available to others.  Richer states might end up with in-depth systems and poorer states end up lacking services and the ability to administer what they do have.  States simply do not have a great record of solving or resolving problems that are national in scope.  And beyond all that, they require extra federal help with administrative costs, since they do not themselves have enough income to administer and staff broad-based services. 

As I’ve indicated on this Blog in the past, Mitt Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts, passed up a number of waivers available under Medicaid, presumably because his administration could not afford the administrative costs that these programs demanded.  Thus, he short-changed the under-65 age cohort who happened to be disabled.  While other states, like New York, managed several waiver programs - up to eight - Massachusetts chose to accept only three; an entirely inadequate response to the needs of its citizens.

So there you have it.  Mitt Romney wants to short-change YOU like he did the citizens of Massachusetts.  Leaving health care up to the states is a recipe for disaster, especially if YOU happen to live in a poorer state. 

Romney also wants to start a trade war with China.  On his first day in office, he wants to issue an Executive Order sanctioning China as a currency manipulator.  There’s nothing quite like throwing down the gauntlet to the very people who own so much of America’s debt.  Just what does he expect China to do, roll over and play dead before the great businessman?  Is this what businessmen do:  make their trade partners angry?  This is no time to play a vengeful God, Mr. Romney.  Rather, it’s time for diplomacy, restraint, and prudence.  China is headed for bad times (just like that past great industrial power, Japan), and when they hit a recession and worker turmoil and unbearably unhealthy pollution, as well as energy deprivation,, who will be there to pick up the pieces?  Hopefully the USA, and not some other country who saw the importance early-on of maintaining a good relationship with China despite its obvious flaws. 

What does this trade war mean for you?  Fewer cheapo imports from China; fewer exports from the US to China.  Wal-Mart will be less able to offer you discount prices on items from China, resulting in store closings and job losses, as well as a reduced inventory in the remaining stores.  It means that China could call in certain loans that it holds, affecting the federal government’s budget and either raising your taxes or taking away certain deductions from you. 

Finally, Mr. Romney wants to provide some gifts to Big Oil on your behalf.  He seems to think that he has an energy plan for this country.  In truth, all he has is a plan to maintain the status quo, and that includes huge subsidies for the already hugely profitable oil corporations.  On his first day in office, he wants to order the Department of the Interior to implement a process for rapid issuance of drilling permits to developers.  In line with this, he also wants to introduce The Domestic Energy Act that directs the Department of  the Interior to undertake a comprehensive survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies (Big Oil?) plus initiation of leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration.  Really?  Can you say “rhetoric”. 

This is so transparent:  it means nothing in terms of an energy policy.  It does nothing more than give Interior some busy work that will amount to zero production.  This is a failure waiting to happen.  All it does is bring Big Oil into the conference room where (as was done when Bush and Cheney were in office) they will have a total say as to what gets done in terms of exploration of domestic oil and (maybe) natural gas.  This is not a free market approach to energy exploration; it is dependence on monopolistic oil and oil companies writ large.

Romney’s so-called “Energy Policy” goes further down the primrose path.  In addition to streamlining and fast-tracking an approval process for drilling and exploration, he wants to amend the Clean Air Act to exclude regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, as though such emissions have nothing to do with global warming, or even with our health.  Now that should push us backward to the future! 

For more proof of that reactionary attitude, he actually says:  “The Obama administration’s diversion of resources into green energy has occurred at a time when the traditional energy sector --oil, gas, coal, and nuclear-- holds remarkable job-creating potential.”  As a businessman, he should know that start-up businesses -- including green energy companies -- involves a difficult process.  It takes time and money to get new businesses of any kind off the ground and up and running.  He obviously does not believe in innovation and entrepreneurship, but only in success that is easily achieved with the status quo, even though the status quo in this case is slowly choking us, emptying our wallets, and even has the potential to blow us up! 

Think about it: Romney wants to expand the number of nuclear reactor designs that can be approved for construction on a fast-track.  It is rumored that one of those designs includes a similar type of reactor that caused such havoc in Japan.  Talk about a rotten egg in your Easter basket…!

Finally, another rotten egg comes forth in his plan for extraction of natural gas.  While he clearly understands that natural gas is a very clean-burning fuel, and that it will require hydro-fracking to extract, he has no idea apparently of how dangerous such an extraction can be for the environment.  Are you ready for the damages to the environment already demonstrated in other parts of the Northeast from this method of extraction?  Undrinkable water and even flammable water (from methane gas)  -- is this what you want?  Well vote for Romney and you will get your wish.  Here’s what he has to say about this:

“While fracking requires regulation just like any other energy-extraction practice (really - you mean like the safety regulations that BP got around in the Gulf to create that oil spill?), the EPA in a Romney administration will not pursue overly aggressive interventions designed to discourage fracking altogether.  Of critical  importance, the environmental impact of fracking should not be considered in the abstract, but rather evaluated in comparison to the impact of utilizing the fuels that natural gas displaces, including coal.”  In other words, Romney’s administration will treat hydro-fracking cavalierly simply because of the impact it will have in replacing other resources, not in relation to the impact on the environment in which people live.

Yes indeed, Mitt Romney definitely has a Plan for YOU that includes some rotten eggs!  It could simply harm you, but ultimately might kill you.  Don’t be Bamboozled! 

The Root of Political Corruption?

“Emolument”.  What a very strange word.  Not one you would use often, if ever.  It’s more for the 18th century than for our modern era.  Yet, it may contain within itself the root cause of our own difficulties with the political system that we call our own. 

It carries the literal meaning from the Latin of “a fee for grinding grain”.  But, it also contains the meaning of any fee, profit, remuneration, payment, compensation, or benefit, usually for the performance of some completed work or service.  Somewhere along the line, perhaps in the 18th century, the word seems to have acquired the meaning of a “tip” for work done and then morphed into a compensation as a result of holding an office; a profit by virtue of the position one held. 

More especially, an emolument became something akin to a gift given to an ambassador or foreign official whose service had been particularly notable.  For instance, the King of France around the time of our nation’s founding, made it a practice to give expensive gifts to departing ambassadors when they had successfully negotiated a treaty.  In 1780, he gave Arthur Lee of Virginia a portrait of himself set in diamonds and fixed above a gold snuff box.  In 1784, he gave Benjamin Franklin a similar portrait, also set in diamonds.  The practice was common throughout Europe.  In fact, the king of Spain gave John Jay a horse upon his departure.  These gifts raised a question for the founders of our nation: would agents of the new Republic keep clear about their loyalties if in the background they had in view such gifts from foreign kings? (Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts by Lawrence Lessig).

Thus, we find the framers of the constitution, no doubt worried about this practice, adding to our Constitution a strange, but profound clause, in Article I, Section 9, clause 8:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Is it just me, or does it seem prescient, that the framers saw the trouble the Republic could be in -- then, and in the future -- if office-holders were allowed to accept gifts or emoluments by virtue of the importance of their office?  This clause, with its strange word, has been treated quite cavalierly by so many that it has lost its potency.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United seems to overlook it entirely.  Weren’t the founders and framers trying to tell us something of grave importance: that corruption comes easily when office-holders accept any gifts whatsoever for simply being in office? Such emoluments were viewed as a form of corruption even if there was never a clear quid pro quo tied to the gifts.  Such emoluments create a dependency that is as much an addiction as any drug might engender, so that one becomes unable to live without the “tips” that can accrue to one from the mere fact of holding office and being in a position of power.  Perhaps, then it is this flagrant dependence upon easy money that now gnaws at the very roots of our system of government.  As Lessig indicates:

“The (framers’) fear…was that a dependency might develop that would draw the institution away from the purpose it was intended to serve: the people.”

I believe we are at a moment in our history when we must be as bold and forthright as were our founding fathers about this one thing: we must get all gifts, emoluments, presents, tips -- whatever you want to call them -- out of politics.  The framers put it succinctly when they said no present or emolument “of any kind whatever.”  That is where we must take our stand.  And, since the current Congress is so very dependent upon such emoluments, we cannot allow “consent of Congress” to any such gifts.  In other words, we have to amend our founding document in such a way that all gifts, and not just quid pro quo gifts, are removed from our system, and that most certainly includes campaign finance contributions.

There are already several proposed amendments out there that address this issue.  Perhaps the best known is the one that Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC is touting to “Get Money Out” of politics.

    “No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”

This amendment concentrates its subject matter most specifically to overturning Citizens United, which is a very important objective.  However, it does not fully address public financing of election contests,  the problem of gifts of lobbyists to office-holders, or the need to prevent former office-holders from entering lobbying firms as soon as they leave office.  It also does not specifically address the formation of PACs, although it implies that they will not be allowed.  It may even contain an inherent contradiction in that it prevents any contributions from individuals or corporations to candidates for federal office, but then indicates that ”campaign contributions” shall not “constitute speech of any kind.”

Looking further, the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826) was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and in the House of Representatives by Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R-N.C.). The bill would allow federal candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists, and would be freed from  constant fundraising in order to focus on what people in their communities want.

MovetoAmend.org's Proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution also addresses Citizens United as well as elections:

“Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.
The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]
Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
Section 3
Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”

Rep. Marcy Kaptur of the 9th district of Ohio has proposed a constitutional amendment that speaks to both the overturning of Citizens United, and to election reform.  To wit:

1/5/2011--Introduced.
"Waives application of the First Amendment to the political speech of any corporation, partnership, business trust, association, or other business organization with respect to the making of contributions, expenditures, or other disbursements of funds in connection with public elections.
Grants Congress the power to set limits on the amounts of contributions and expenditures with respect to candidates in a federal election.
Grants a state the power to set limits on the amounts of contributions and expenditures with respect to candidates in a state or local election.”

In my humble opinion, the Constitution should only be amended when that Amendment addresses a basic problem that goes to the foundations of our democracy, or which threatens an individual right, or the freedom, welfare or pursuit of happiness by a majority of our citizenry.  Emoluments, or the conferring of gifts on people who hold elective office, or who are running for the same, is at the heart of much of what we believe to be fairness, equal opportunity, and justice.  It must be addressed, or political cronyism and the coerciveness of money will rule the land, and the votes of the electorate will become  meaningless.

Listen to Lessig once again:

“In a way that is so hard to see (because so pervasive), and certainly hard to model (because so complex), lobbyists have become the center of an economy of influence that has changed the way Washington works.  They feed a frantic dependency that has grown among members of Congress --  the dependency on campaign cash -- but they can feed that dependency only if they can provide something of value to their clients in return.  On the one side of this economy (of influence) are the members, frantically searching for cash.  On the other side are interests that increasingly find themselves needing or wanting special favors from the government.  As government grows…‘no serious industry or interest can function without monitoring, and at least trying to manipulate, Washington’s decision makers‘.”

About fifty years ago, Senator Paul Douglas (D-Ill; 1949-1967), described the “Washington culture” in this way:

“Today the corruption of public officials by private interests takes a…subtle form.  The enticer does not generally pay money directly to the public representative.  He tries instead by a series of favors to put the public official under such a feeling of personal obligation that the latter gradually loses his sense of mission to the public and comes to feel that his first loyalties are to his private benefactors and patrons.  His final decisions are, therefore, made in response to his private friendships and loyalties rather than to the public good.”

It is this atmosphere of dependency, obligation and misplaced loyalty that demands a constitutional remedy for this cancer of “emoluments” at the heart of our governmental system.