Right-Wing Conspiracy: It’s Real

You just don’t get it, if you don’t understand the utter thirst and wanton desire of Republicans for complete control of government, both state and federal.  They will essentially do anything they can to wrest control of the Presidency and of the Senate from Democrats.  So what’s new?, you ask.  Of course they want to win.  Isn’t that what political parties are for: to win elections?  The answer is: of course!  But, to what lengths should either party be allowed to go in order to achieve their objectives?  That’s the real question.

Did you know, for example, that the Republican leaders in the House and Senate actually had a four-hour dinner meeting on the night Barack Obama was inaugurated, at which time they put together a strategy for attacking Obama and members of his administration?
According to Robert Draper's much-discussed and heavily-reported book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives," the guest list that night  included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz.

For several hours in the “Caucus Room” (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but how to put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform, showing united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor held the House Republicans to a unanimous “No” against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)  When Mitch McConnell said in October 2010 that his party's primary goal in the next Congress was to make Obama a one-term president, it was their declaration of war against Obama’s administration.  This raises another central question:  when does political opposition tip over into a failure of Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers….” which include, for instance, the power to collect taxes, the power to borrow money, the power to regulate commerce.  When does obstruction of a President’s programs and policies morph into complete neglect of the people’s needs? 

In my estimation, this Congress has not only failed in its duty to the country, it has fallen into a pattern that is just short of unpatriotic maneuvering, and very close to a violation of  the constitution of these United States.  The Republicans now campaign on the inability of the President to turn around the worst economy since the Great Depression.  But congressional rejection of every attempt to grow the economy, plus unfortunate remnants of Bush policies, have together caused the sputtering of the economy.  Every time the economy shows signs of improving, Congress manages to stop any measures that might help it grow, all because they don’t want the President to get any credit for a turn-around.  And so it goes…

There were other conspiratorial meetings as well.  The infamous Koch brothers have been hosting many of these.  According to the film, “The Koch Brothers Exposed” they have held strategy meetings with invited corporate barons on an on-going basis.  What do they discuss?  Well, we have to surmise that where to best put their multitudinous dollars is undoubtedly a popular topic.  Another topic could well be the strategies involved in utilizing Super PACs and their grass-roots organization Americans for Prosperity that organizes and oversees their right-wing agenda.  Another popular topic is most likely the best strategies for destroying the Obama administration and his re-election campaign.

We get some inside information from reporter Lee Fong who posted an article titled “Koch Brothers Convene Ultra-Secret Billionaires Meeting to Raise Funds, Plot Strategy” on republicreport.org on February 3, 2012. According to his posting, dozens of wealthy donors convened in a large golf resort in Indian Wells, California for a four day conference to raise money and plot out election year strategy.  Some in attendance included Phil Kerpen, the vice president of Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party group founded by David Koch; wealthy mutual fund manager Foster Friess, a social conservative who gained headlines recently for his massive backing of a super PAC supporting Rick Santorum; billionaire investor Phil Anschutz, another regular Koch attendee and major conservative financier; Kenny Troutt, a financier of a super PAC that supported Rick Perry’s bid for the presidency; Harold Hamm, head of a large fracking company that dominates the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota.  These are just some of the attendees, based on private planes observed at nearby airports.

Fong says that “during the meetings, strategy is discussed, from legislative campaigns to judicial elections, and money is raised from an assortment of executives from the oil, banking, manufacturing, and real estate industries.”  He also said that such meetings are on-going with many of these same billionaires having attended in the past.  “At (a previous) Koch meeting, an event in Vail, Colorado, Charles Koch raised several million dollars from his cohorts, while referring to President Obama as ‘Saddam Hussein’ and this year’s election as the ’mother of all wars‘.”  And, to top it off, this very weekend, the Koch Brothers are holding a secret gathering of billionaires to continue plotting strategies to buy the election. They plan to throw millions -- if not billions -- of Big Corporation dollars into Super PACs to smear the President and Democrats across the country.

There can be little doubt about the fact that there is a plan behind, for instance, the widespread attempt to reduce voter registration and voting itself (through state laws eerily similar in content) that hide as voter fraud prevention, but end up as voter suppression.  And whose potential vote is being suppressed?  Why, of course, those who tend to vote for Democrats: Hispanic-Americans, the elderly poor, the poor generally, African-Americans, college students, and anyone else who might have difficulty obtaining a valid ID for voting, like some persons with a disability which renders them less mobile.  Thirty-two states have pursued some sort of voter ID law that tends to suppress these same voters.  While some details of the state laws differ, there is an overall outline and pattern that leads one inevitably to the conclusion that this was a planned project.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, (last updated June 7, 2012), Voter ID continues to be a high-profile issue in many state legislatures this year. Last year, 34 states considered voter ID legislation. This year, legislation was introduced in 32 states. That includes new voter ID proposals in 14 states, proposals to strengthen existing voter ID laws in ten states, and bills in ten states to amend existing laws, many of them new voter ID laws passed in 2011.

Given the fact that the Governors of 29 of these states are Republican Conservatives gives greater credence to this assertion of common planning (or conspiracy).  Already, the strong field of GOP governors elected in 2010 on a wave of Tea Party momentum were on the same track – from John Kasich in Ohio, to Rick Scott in Florida, Paul LePage in Maine and Nikki Haley in South Carolina.  “Armed with the stamp of approval voters gave Scott Walker of Wisconsin…there's likely no looking back for this crop of conservative reformers.” (US News and World Report)

"They've all taken similar approaches, trying to control the influence of unions, reduce spending, cut taxes coming out of that wave of Tea Party elections in 2010," says Barry Burden, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"It's a signal to them they should keep on marching and they shouldn't fear so much that the electorate thinks they have over-reached because here's a state (Wisconsin) that votes Democratic as often as it votes Republican and a pretty conservative Republican governor has been able to hang on," he says.

But this is not the only clue to the existing conspiracy on the part of conservative Republicans.  In brief, we have seen:

--Across-the-board holding-back of profits in many private businesses to the tune of around $2 trillion; this one particular tactic helps to keep unemployment above 8%

--At least since 2010, the rejection or blockage of all important national legislation that would tend to improve the economy;  Professor Burden again:
    “The dismal May jobs report underscores the success of the Republicans’ strategy of frustrating President Barack Obama’s economic policies from the second he took office and, in effect, holding the struggling U.S. economy hostage to GOP electoral victories.  Already, pundits are declaring that the anemic increase of only 69,000 jobs in May will help put Mitt Romney in the White House –  because the mainstream U.S. press is playing the disappointing job numbers as proof of Obama’s “failed” economic policies, rather than a result of persistent Republican sabotage.”
    It doesn’t seem to matter to American journalists that the evidence of this Republican plot to make the U.S. economy “scream” has been out in the open for the past several years, including author Robert Draper’s report of a destroy-Obama strategy session on the night of Obama’s Inauguration and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s famous vow that the top Republican priority must be ensuring Obama’s defeat;

-- Threats to repeal all important legislation that did get through a Democratic Congress in 2009-2010, including the Affordable Health Care Act and the Dodd-Frank bill, for example;

--Use right wing justices to allow unfettered and unreported contributions to political campaigns under guise of free speech.  Citizens United has unleashed obscene amounts of
cash into the political arena, unfettered by disclosure as to donors and amounts given.  It is a lynch-pin in the strategy to control all aspects of government;

--Destroy government programs for middle-class and working poor, as well as those in poverty, thus reducing their incentive and their power;

--Get rid of all restrictive regulations on businesses;

--Attack public education - raise interest rate on Stafford loans, cut Pell grants, drop pre-k; lay off teachers; support private educational institutions;

--Attack certain women’s rights and services;

--Make the president appear to be an outsider: Kenyan-born, Muslim, socialist, an appeaser of foreign countries, to mention just a few of the epithets;

--Use existing Bush policies against the President: tax cuts for the rich, for example;

--Use Karl Rove and super PACs to overcome the incumbent’s advantage in fundraising;

--Tell the same lies over and over until they become ingrained in the minds of not-so-well-informed voters, such as:  Obama wants to raise taxes; government takeover of health care; failure of the Stimulus bill, etc.

The same beat goes on and on and on.  But it is not a progression of unrelated endeavors, simply thought up by individuals and pursued independently by various politicians.  This is an orchestrated movement, designed to make permanent a right-wing agenda and radically conservative government at the state and national levels.  This is not simply a strategy for winning the 2012 presidential election; this is a strategy for shifting the preponderance of political power to the far Right in this country. 

Those voters who fail to understand this motivation, who fail to understand the consequences of such a conspiracy, will have only themselves to blame when the public sector is so weakened and under-funded that the citizenry has no where to turn when national or personal disaster strikes, when a special need is paramount, when banks and corporations overcharge and manipulate and defraud and there is no appeal nor anyone available to provide protection.  Should these right-wing extremists prevail in this bold conspiracy, there will come a time when American citizens will wonder if they are living in a banana republic where bribery is rampant, justice is unattainable, bridges, roads and schools are crumbling, and crime is rampant; where higher education is a privilege for the few who can afford it, and jobs are parceled out on the basis of who knows whom, or who can offer the best ‘deal.’

You think it can’t happen?  It is already happening.  Look at the placement of the United States among the nations in terms of education or life expectancy.  Look at the loss of teachers, firefighters, police, and construction workers.  Look at our roads and bridges and schools:  how many are untenable and have already collapsed?  Look at your state government: is it cutting services, is it closing parks; are you being told that they can’t help you with your problem; is your local public library now closed on certain days?  Why are so many children in this country living in poverty, and going hungry?  Will children of pre-k age be doomed to failure in grade school because they could not access Head Start or pre-k classes that have been cut?

The aim of the radical Republicans is to reduce government to a smaller size.  That strangulation of the public sector will rebound to hurt millions of people, and YOU, dear reader, may be the beneficiary of that misguided concept.  Government, large or small, is not your enemy. 

Your enemy is the small cadre of privileged people, including certain politicians, who think that control of this country should be in their hands alone, in order to promote their particular beliefs, mores, and philosophy (including their religion).  We are almost there.  Congress is under the care and tutelage of those rich enough to hire lawyers and lobbyists to prevent legislation, regulation, and taxes that hurt their profiteering.  They seek even tighter control than they already possess.  They are counting on an uninformed and complacent electorate, shorn of minorities and students and others who do not vote their way, to give them much broader control of state houses and legislatures, complete control of the Congress, and control of the Presidency so they can turn their conspiracy into a reality the likes of which we have never seen. 

The election of 2012 is a watershed moment in our history.  The outcome will determine our future vision and version of what this country is meant to be.  Our place in the world will also be determined by that outcome.  We are on the brink of a disaster from which we may not recover if this conspiracy becomes the predominant force.  Putting Mitt Romney in the White House will surely be the push over the edge, because his swing to the far right assures that he will be the puppet of the 1% who will take control.  Do the conspirators have the advantage?  Will they have the opportunity to seize government and control your life?  Will they be able to complete the transformation of our representative government into rule of the many by the few?  Your vote for President Obama in this election (and for those who support his Vision and policies) really stands for something monumental: the continuation of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  It’s all up to YOU…!

Who’s Really to Blame for the Sputtering Economy?

It is truly amazing that the Right-wing Republican propaganda machine can lead so many astray to the extent that over 50% of likely voters have believed that the Obama administration is either anti-business, socialist, or has done nothing to improve the economy.  Above all, the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee spouts the untruth that this administration has done nothing to spur the economy and is failing in its efforts. 

The complete irony is this:  this administration has (because of Republican intransigence) had to continue some of the very solutions for the economy that were promulgated, and are still, by the GOP.  Unfortunately, those very policies got us into financial problems of dire consequences, and continue to slow down the recovery.  Let us count the ways:

1)    Most of the Bush administration’s  tax cuts are still in effect and have been since they were promulgated.  Have you forgotten that the income tax cuts for the richest 1% were extended for two years by the Obama administration in 2010 as part of a budget deal?  They are still at 35% as opposed to 39% under the Clinton administration.  Oh yes, and certain long-term gains are still being taxed at 15% (Mr. Romney has personally taken advantage of this), and certain tax loopholes remain in place as well, including the total depreciation able to be taken on new equipment in the first year for certain business purposes.  I almost forgot: the so-called “death tax” was also reduced under Bush and has continued under Obama.  These tax cuts for the rich are continuing to slow the recovery because revenue enhancement is being stifled.

2)    Have you also forgotten that stimulus legislation began under the Bush administration when Treasury Secretary Paulsen bailed out Wall Street with the legislative package called TARP?  By the way, both presidential candidates, McCain and Obama, voted for the bill in the Senate.  So, stimulus for the economy from government is not unknown, even for Republicans.

    The much maligned Stimulus Bill (American Recovery & Reinvestment Act), a pared-down $819 billion economic stimulus package (signed into law February 2009 less than a month after Barack Obama became president) included tax cuts, as well as new spending for public works, education, clean energy, technology, and health care, targeted more toward Main Street than Wall Street.  Is that why Republican radicals have maligned it so vigorously: because it saved the jobs of millions of teachers, firefighters, police and other first responders, instead of the fat cats of Wall Street? 

Opposition from Republicans (and some blue-dog Democrats) in the form of restrictions and limitations on an inadequate stimulus for Main Street has led to an economy that is sputtering, instead of growing substantially.  Subsequent attempts at stimulus ((Jobs bill, Infrastructure repair, transportation bill),  have been entirely thwarted by the radical Republicans, who have thereby held back on growing the economy.  

    Romney proposes a “stimulus” plan of his own, hidden behind the concept of providing “job creators” with further tax cuts, tax incentives, and tax loopholes, so his rich friends and colleagues can personally prosper even more while the rest of us struggle to hold on to what we have.  Besides lowering the individual tax rates for the rich, Romney proposes to reduce the corporate income rate initially from 35% to 25% and then to reduce it further.  He also wants to eliminate the estate tax.  He even wants to establish a “robust” investment tax credit, extending the write-off for capital expenditures for an additional year.  Romney truly believes that all these tax cuts and write-offs for the rich will somehow “trickle-down” to the rest of us, but current and past experience shows only that the rich have kept their gains for themselves while the rest of us are lucky to see any gains at all.  The so-called “job creators” have prospered under the worst of conditions, and in business circles are sitting on about $2 trillion that are NOT being used to expand jobs or benefits for workers.  The job-creators are keeping their profits in limbo, earning even more money in off-shore accounts and Treasury bills. 

3)    Regulation reform is a GOP (and Romney) cornerstone concept.  In fact, Republican conservatives have touted the idea for many years, and the Reagan administration, and George W. Bush administration, gave us some of the most radical de-regulation (and regulation with the help of Wall Street and Big Oil) yet devised.  Every time the Republicans get their hands on power, the first thing they do is to re-write or undo regulations that tend to protect consumers and labor, so that businesses and corporations can thrive without being fettered and bound by untidy rules.
    Mitt Romney points his ire at the Dodd-Frank legislation (regulates Wall Street firms), “Obamacare” (regulates the health insurance industry), the Credit Card Accountability Act (regulates credit card companies), and most vehemently, the EPA as the highest profile regulator (protection of the environment) and the most detrimental to businesses by driving up costs and hindering investment.
   
    Let us not forget that the concept of regulation goes back to our founding fathers., and the objection to too much regulation is of patriarchal origin as well.  There is good reason to be cautious in the promulgation of rules and regulations; they do, after all, have the force of law, and thus must not be onerous in their intent or effect.  With that said, it is important to understand that the Obama administration has ordered and undertaken one of the most comprehensive reviews of current regulations ever attempted in our political history.
 
    On July 11, 2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order asking the independent regulatory agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, to take new steps to ensure smart, cost-effective regulations, designed to promote economic growth and job creation. He also requested the independent agencies to produce plans to reassess and to streamline their existing regulations, and to disclose those plans for public scrutiny. In addition, the President has asked the independent agencies to follow the cost-saving, burden-reducing principles in his January Executive Order on improving regulation.

    According to a report on the WhiteHouse.gov website:
    “With full respect for the independence of the independent agencies and for their impressive efforts in the recent past, the President has asked for their collaboration in the creation of a twenty-first century regulatory system, using state-of-the-art tools and smart approaches to protect public welfare while promoting economic growth and job creation.”

    And finally, the President has asked several times (including in the State of the Union speech) for Congressional authorization to re-structure government.  It has been rejected.

    Once again, a basic concept of the GOP has been addressed by the Obama administration, yet it is not acknowledged or supported by that party, and certainly not supported by Congressional Republicans who have yet to provide that statutory authority for re-structuring the Executive branch.

4)     Finally, and perhaps above all, is the Republican mantra that we must cut spending and reduce the deficit immediately.  This includes cutting discretionary spending, possibly capping spending and/or passing a balanced budget constitutional amendment, reducing the federal workforce, and entitlement reform.
    Once again, the Obama administration has taken actions to speak to each of these concepts.
    They offered a big package of cuts and revenue that would have trimmed $4 trillion from the debt over ten years. Rejected.  His Affordable Health Care bill reduced spending on Medicare Advantage plans.  Repeal, they cry.  Obama offered spending cuts that would trim departments and agencies, and that did not spare entitlements.  Rejected.  He capped salaries in the Executive branch.  The federal workforce under Obama has been trimmed far more than under G. W. Bush or even under Reagan. 

Once again, Obama is already doing what the Republicans say must be done to create an environment favorable to job creation, but the economy continues to sputter, and job creation continues to be anemic because Republicans continue to reject the very policies they espouse, just because the President wants to carry them through to fruition, and might get credit for doing so.

So, what’s my point?  Well, it’s not hard to figure out.  President Obama has either inherited certain Bush policies or, he has attempted to put in place some of the things Republicans desire, or he has proposed other ways to promote jobs, reduce the debt over a decade, plan for the future and move the economy toward rejuvenation.  Not only have Republicans tried to stop every measure that Obama has proposed, they have criticized him for every move he makes, and ended up saying that it is his policies that have failed to move the economy ahead. 

BUT, here’s the rub.  It is essentially Bush Republican policies that are still in place that continue to negatively affect economic recovery: tax cuts for the rich, stimulus for Wall Street, tax loopholes, cuts in programs and personnel, war in Afghanistan.  It is their policies that are at fault, not Obama’s policies.  It is their approach that has not brought a better recovery, not Obama’s.  Congressional Republicans have, for all practical purposes, blocked his proposals for change, for reform, for job creation, except what he was able to institute on his own or that passed a Democratic House and Senate between 2009-2010. 

Republican obstructionism and their leftover policies are exactly why we are not seeing a steady recovery, because their policies do not  work.  Without the jobs program, without the infrastructure repair program, without the balanced approach of raising revenue and making responsible program cuts, without responsible re-structuring of government, without more stimulus, we cannot expect to have a robust economy. 

Recovery of jobs, manufacturing, and services  that has occurred in the past few years, has been due to President Obama’s initiative, because the GOP has blocked every attempt at further stimulus or debt reduction, even refusing a deal of $10 in debt reduction for every $1 of enhanced revenue.  President Obama has had to weather the storm of the Great Recession with one hand tied behind his back.  Even then, he has succeeded in showing jobs returning (26 straight months of job growth), housing market up, stock market increase, an auto industry turned around and back in the driver’s seat ( forgive the pun).  Republican policies have not increased jobs, but have kept job growth and growth of the economy to a minimum by giving our  richest 1% a 17% boost during the worst of times, while wage earners have suffered stagnant wages and a greater burden in total taxes.

Giving Republicans any chance to control government is the gateway to austerity, to tax cuts and incentives for the rich, to another era of a failing economy, to the diminution of wage earners and the middle class. 

So, do you get it yet?  Republican policies and obstructionism are the problem.  They are the ones who have failed us, and they continue to fail to help rejuvenate this economy.

Hung-up On Polls?

The time has come to challenge the newscasters and pundits (or, more correctly, the employers of same) about the use of polls to report what appear to be facts.  Polls are tricky.  They can contain biased questions, skewed cohorts (interviewees), and a limited total number interviewed.  However, the worst abuse is the fact that these polls are provided by pundits and newscasters as though none of their shortcomings exist.  It’s past time for polls to see the light of transparency.

No radio station, TV channel, newspaper, magazine, periodical, or any licensed communications entity should be allowed to use any poll results unless all the aspects of that poll are revealed to the public, either by announcing them along with the poll’s results, or by posting them on a related website.  It is time for transparency instead of misleading impressions.  Polls are not facts, and should not be reported as such!

“It's amazing how apathetic and accepting Americans have become to the relentless barrage of half-truths masquerading as hard-core fact. Sure, everybody with common sense assumes advertisers use questionable data, and political polls are notoriously loaded with inaccuracies. But how often are the motives of scientific research funders examined? And how many people realize the influence a Gallup has over legislative policy? In reporter-editor Crossen's book, such questions are vigorously prosecuted, and the answers are frightening. Her extensive research points to the way major businesses (pharmaceutical and tobacco companies are two notorious examples) produce sham data to support their own products' benefits and have been able to convince people despite such data's variance from common sense.” (book review on amazon.com)

Wikipedia provides us with some basic polling inaccuracies:

Polls based on samples of populations are subject to sampling error which reflects the effects of chance and uncertainty in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error.  One example is the percent of people who prefer product A versus product B. When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey.  Others suggest that a poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population.
A 3% margin of error means that if the same procedure is used a large number of times, 95% of the time the true population average will be within the 95% confidence interval of the sample estimate plus or minus 3%. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if pollsters wish to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people.  In practice, pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500–1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls. (Note that to get complete responses it may be necessary to include thousands of additional participants.)

Another source of error stems from faulty demographic models by pollsters who weigh their samples by particular variables such as party identification in an election. For example, if you assume that the breakdown of the US population by party identification has not changed since the previous presidential election, you may underestimate a victory or a defeat of a particular party candidate that saw a surge or decline in its party registration relative to the previous presidential election cycle.  Over time, a number of theories and mechanisms have been offered to explain erroneous polling results. Some of these reflect errors on the part of the pollsters; many of them are statistical in nature. Others blame the respondents for not giving candid answers.

Non-response bias
Since some people do not answer calls from strangers, or refuse to answer the poll, poll samples may not be representative samples from a population due to a non-response bias. Because of this selection bias, the characteristics of those who agree to be interviewed may be markedly different from those who decline. That is, the actual sample is a biased version of the universe the pollster wants to analyze. In these cases, bias introduces new errors, one way or the other, that are in addition to errors caused by sample size. Error due to bias does not become smaller with larger sample sizes, because taking a larger sample size simply repeats the same mistake on a larger scale. If the people who refuse to answer, or are never reached, have the same characteristics as the people who do answer, then the final results should be unbiased. If the people who do not answer have different opinions then there is bias in the results. In terms of election polls, studies suggest that bias effects are small, but each polling firm has its own techniques for adjusting weights to minimize selection bias.

Response bias
Survey results may be affected by response bias, where the answers given by respondents do not reflect their true beliefs. This may be deliberately engineered by unscrupulous pollsters in order to generate a certain result or please their clients, but more often is a result of the detailed wording or ordering of questions (see below). Respondents may deliberately try to manipulate the outcome of a poll by e.g. advocating a more extreme position than they actually hold in order to boost their side of the argument or give rapid and ill-considered answers in order to hasten the end of their questioning. Respondents may also feel under social pressure not to give an unpopular answer.

Wording of questions
It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence results of polls. For instance, the public is more likely to indicate support for a person who is described by the operator as one of the "leading candidates". This support itself overrides subtle bias for one candidate, as does lumping some candidates in an "other" category or vice versa. Thus comparisons between polls often boil down to the wording of the question. On some issues, question wording can result in quite pronounced differences between surveys. This can also, however, be a result of legitimately conflicted feelings or evolving attitudes, rather than a poorly constructed survey.  A common technique to control for this bias is to rotate the order in which questions are asked. Many pollsters also split-sample. This involves having two different versions of a question, with each version presented to half the respondents.

Coverage bias
Another source of error is the use of samples that are not representative of the population as a consequence of the methodology used. For example, telephone sampling has a built-in error because in many times and places, those with telephones have generally been richer than those without.

In some places many people have only mobile telephones. Because pollsters cannot call mobile phones (it is unlawful in the United States to make unsolicited calls to phones where the phone's owner may be charged simply for taking a call), these individuals will never be included in the polling sample. If the subset of the population without cell phones differs markedly from the rest of the population, these differences can skew the results of the poll. Polling organizations have developed many weighting techniques to help overcome these deficiencies, to varying degrees of success. In previous elections, the proportion of the general population using cell phones was small, but as this proportion has increased, the worry is that polling only landlines is no longer representative of the general population. In 2003, 2.9% of households were wireless (cell phones only) compared to 12.8 in 2006. This results in "coverage error".

So what can be done about media reporting of poll data without the actual data components?  Probably very little without enormous pressure from consumers.  A petition might be a place to start.  Letters, phone calls and e-mails to major media corporations might be another.  The same to corporate sponsors might be helpful.  But no effort to change this biased reporting can be successful without the tenacity of a bulldog!  Because polls sometimes create sensational news, and because they get the attention of many in the media audience, there is a reluctance to change the deception of this reporting into a modicum of transparency. 

The tragedy is, of course, that voters tend to be influenced by political polls in their voting.  Again from Wikipedia:

“By providing information about voting intentions, opinion polls can sometimes influence the behavior of electors, and in his book The Broken Compass, Peter Hitchens asserts that opinion polls are actually a device for influencing public opinion.  A bandwagon effect occurs when the poll prompts voters to back the candidate shown to be winning in the poll. The idea that voters are susceptible to such effects is old, stemming at least from 1884.  George Gallup spent much effort in vain trying to discredit this theory in his time by presenting empirical research. A recent meta-study of scientific research on this topic indicates that from the 1980s onward the Bandwagon effect is found more often by researchers.

The opposite of the bandwagon effect is the underdog effect. It is often mentioned in the media. This occurs when people vote, out of sympathy, for the party perceived to be "losing" the elections. There is less empirical evidence for the existence of this effect than there is for the existence of the bandwagon effect.

“Some jurisdictions over the world restrict the publication of the results of opinion polls in order to prevent the possibly erroneous results from affecting voters' decisions. For instance, in Canada, it is prohibited to publish the results of opinion surveys that would identify specific political parties or candidates in the final three days before a poll closes.
However, most western democratic nations don't support the entire prohibition of the publication of pre-election opinion polls; most of them have no regulation and some only prohibit it in the final days or hours until the relevant poll closes.” 

We desperately need such restrictions in addition to the full disclosure of every poll’s methodology and questions.  So, don’t get hung-up on the latest poll. Just keep harboring a great deal of doubt as to accuracy when you hear about those latest political polls.

Unleashing the Beast in Wisconsin

Apparently,  many Wisconsinites are living too close to Illinois, and have absorbed a tendency to support a corrupt Governor.  Maybe they will get to realize their fondest dream if Scott Walker is indicted for crimes against the state.  We can only hope….

But, let’s be serious folks.  A sizeable majority of Wisconsin voters has just voted to maintain in office a Governor who supports subsidies for the richest 1% while he destroys collective bargaining, and union membership,; while he diminishes the public schools and fires the teachers who teach Wisconsin’s children.  The electoral majority evidently prefer austerity to investment, loss of a middle class while a small minority benefit from the burden placed upon that middle class by higher taxes, higher fees, and higher prices. Just wait until the citizenry finds out that destruction of public employee unions equates to diminution of state services and the loss of skilled, effective workers.  Apparently, they also prefer outside influences taking over their state, by which they are held hostage to a monied elite whom they don’t even know.

That is the real tragedy here.  Obscene Money has won; middle class values and influence have lost. .  This is a first major test of the ruling by the Supreme Court that equates money with free speech; that sacrifices democracy for influence; that enables a few to control the many.  The corrupt Supreme Court - containing Justices unabashedly affiliated with Right-wing groups - has enabled a plutocratic few rich people to control and deliver elections to their own advantage.  The corporate robber barons contribute as much as they want with no one being able to call them out or even to identify them.  The secretiveness by which they operate is almost as bad as their ability to spend obscene amounts to have their way.  Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and who knows who else, have won the Wisconsin election, and have possibly turned Wisconsin into a swing state for the 2012 presidential election. 

That is their real goal; they don’t care about Scott Walker.  They aim much higher where the stakes are so much larger, because their quest is for permanent control of the Presidency and the Houses of Congress.  They want a perpetual majority of conservatives running both state and federal governments so they never have to worry again about: adverse regulations, restrictions on profits, being held accountable for abuses of the environment or for disobeying consumer protections; or facing the loss of lucrative tax loopholes and tax incentives.  They want “free enterprise”, meaning unfettered ability to apply their “business practices” in whatever way they see fit, no matter who gets hurt in the process. 

Unfortunately, the majority of voters in this recall election have failed to recognize the larger implications of their vote.  Not only have they unleashed the Beast of Plutocracy by giving over control of their elections to a few monied people, they have also brought upon themselves the destruction of cherished public institutions, because they have swallowed the line that “big government” is their enemy.  Now they must learn to live with the austerity measures that are sure to come upon them.  Wisconsin used to cherish their educational system which they have now turned over to the budget-cutters who will gut it.  Wisconsin used to cherish its schools of higher education; no more.  Now their universities and colleges will be the wasteland of the monied class as costs continue to rise and subsidies from the state continue to diminish. Wisconsinites have placed their hospitals, their health care, and their insurance coverage in the hands of people who oppose any government influence or control in such matters.   Wisconsin used to cherish their farmers, and their small businesses;and, their manufacturing plants such as the auto and auto-related industries.  Now they have turned them over to those who favor the operating principle that it is desirable, in the name of global free enterprise, to move industries out-of-country to where they can be more profitable.  What is the latest job creation statistic under Governor Walker?  Oh yes, Wisconsin is dead last! According to a June 2nd article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “For months now, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have unambiguously shown that under Walker's leadership, employment "growth" in Wisconsin has ranked among the worst of any state in the country. The most recent monthly "year-over-year" data, for example, from the BLS' Current Employment Statistics, show that employment shrank by 21,400 in Wisconsin between April 2011 and April 2012 - a period that nicely coincides with the first full year after passage of Walker legislation (i.e. the budget-repair bill and June 2011 budget).  This "job creation" performance, a decline of 0.8%, places Wisconsin dead last among the 50 states in job growth during this period.”

Wisconsinites used to cherish a Progressive approach to questions of a political nature.  That has all but disappeared, as a majority have given in to a regressive approach on all matters of governing. 

People of Wisconsin:  “you ain’t seen nothing’ yet!”  You have set a course that can only hurt your citizenry in both the short and long term.  Good luck with austerity, and good luck with your newly revived state administration, run by outside influences that seek the destruction of public institutions, of government programs that help and protect the middle class, of “liberal” institutions of higher learning; but that simply adore anything that tends to free them up to swallow up more money, more profit, more control.

When you unleash a Beast, you must be prepared to be destroyed.

Capitalist Businessman vs. Community Organizer

 

By saying that the President is attacking free enterprise because he points out the difference between Romney working to create profits for Bain Capital and certain stockholders, as opposed to being the President of the United States (who must work on behalf of all the people; who must provide equal justice, fairness, and rules that apply to all citizens), Romney sets up an obvious question.  Do you mean, Mr. Romney, because of your tenure at Bain Capital, that as President you would work on behalf of a few citizens to increase their profits? work to make the economy more profitable for certain groups?  work to destroy any rules and regulations that level the playing field, so that certain of your constituency will profit from government policy and procedures?  Is that what we can expect from you based on your “business experience”?

It is difficult to know how Romney’s experience at Bain Capital has any valid relationship to operating a government since capitalism and free enterprise require quite different principles and skills, that often stand in opposition to each other.  For instance, in capitalism, advantage is prized above fairness; connections and favors above relationships; competition is far more invasive and prized than is cooperation or compromise; profit-making is the ultimate goal, prized far above a sharing of revenue, equitable distribution of wealth, or a philanthropy born out of gratefulness, such as a safety net for the poor;  producing stock dividends for a privileged few able to hold a substantial portion of the company’s stock is the mission, not an equitable pay-out for the broad spectrum of non-owners like workers and consumers. 

Overall, Capitalism is not democracy; in fact, it is more dictatorial and oligarchic than democratic, operating on a top-down model, not on an electoral, people’s will, model.  Free enterprise is not based on broad legislative guidance as representative democracy is -- it is based on the guidance of a relatively few “officers’ and board members, and shareholders, most of whom share a certain ethos and ideology.

It seems fair to say, then, that Mr. Romney’s skill set is lacking fundamental components that are necessary for governing; for executing the laws on a broad basis to the advantage of the many, not the few.  So, let us count what he is missing:

-- an ability to guide the ship-of-state through good times and bad by persuasion and vision, rather than “command & control” (over-hauling and firing and reducing the work force);

-- an ability to lead others to a position or a point of acceptance rather than monetarily rewarding those who agree, and firing those who do not;

-- an ability to take a long-term view and to propose solutions to problems that may take several years to complete as opposed to short-term directives and actions, such as moving a company overseas instead of finding ways to keep that company on our own soil;

-- an ability to seek consensus, as opposed to bringing solutions to the table that exclude many while benefiting a few and that are not put forth for consensus but for compliance;

-- an ability to settle for a piece of the pie, rather than imposing a solution that seeks to steal the whole pie;

-- an ability to work with a Congress that is an independent body with its own rules and ideas and which can override a President’s cherished ideas.  A Board of Directors, chosen for their similar beliefs and approaches, and not elected by a broad constituency, are not anywhere near the same as an independent Congress (although a bought Congress is something else to consider);

-- an ability to lead a group of agencies and departments to carry out one’s cherished ideas and policies rather than telling underlings what to do and what to carry out;  if Romney is ever elected, I can’t wait to see the results of his top-down Executive Orders, such as repealing Obamacare.

-- an ability to work closely with unions and the Civil Service in order to ensure positive results that must be accomplished by the federal workforce, not by a bunch of people hired to obey the CEO’s every order.

--  an ability not to deceive, mislead, convince by half-truths, deceptions and outright lies; perhaps this is part of a skill set that enables capitalists to hide their motives, keep secrets, or denigrate their rivals.  It certainly seems to pervade the capitalists at equity firms and banks, and big oil.  In government, one’s constituency expects transparency, honesty, integrity, stability, pragmatism, and common sense.  A President, unlike a CEO, must answer to the people for violations of their trust.

Mr. Romney‘s business experience has not prepared him for the presidency; it has, instead, simply prepared him for another capitalistic CEO position.  The two are not the same; nor are they truly compatible.  I would much rather have a “community organizer” in the White House with his skill set, than have an equity capitalist there vainly trying to make government work like a Bain Capital business.

In his book, Community Organizing by Training, Phil Bartle, PhD, asks us to remember the principles that are the parameters of organizing: “they include democracy, participation, empowerment, gender balance, involvement of the marginalized, transparency, honesty, preventing disease, sustainability, self reliance, partnerships, fairness, poverty elimination, the greater good for all, development.”

These are not necessarily the principles adhered to by a company such as Bain Capital, and certainly not by its CEO.   Take “involvement of the “marginalized”, for instance.  Is Romney prepared to involve persons on the margins of our society, instead of cutting off their Medicaid, food stamps and housing programs?  Is he even prepared to seek their input and opinions, or to give them a ’say’ in the policies and programs developed by our “representative” government?   How about gender balance?  Is support for the Lily Ledbetter Act and an ERA in Romney’s repertoire?  How about the Violence Against Women Act -- does Romney agree with his Republican colleagues that this should be watered-down instead of strengthened?  Of course he does.  How about preventive measures like contraception services, or mammograms and all other women’s issues in health care?  Is he planning to fight for women’s rights in that area, or is the elimination of the Affordable Care Act his primary goal?

In stark contrast to Mr. Romney’s skill set, a community organizer has had occasion to learn a plethora of skills that fit well with the presidency, some of which include:

-- the understanding that broad input must be gathered from those involved and affected in order to reach equitable decisions that will affect many lives;

-- the understanding that one cannot always obtain the broadest goal, but must take concrete steps to achieve that goal or policy or program over time;

-- the understanding that opposing entities cannot always be looked upon as the enemy, but must be treated with respect, must be won over if possible, must be seen as a possible ally, must be coaxed, stroked and stoked; strong opposition must only occur where it serves as a catalyst or an awakener, especially of the general public.

-- the understanding that people want two things, basically: to be seen as a unique individual and as part of something greater than themselves

--the understanding that what works for organizations is person-to-person, one-on-one, contact

--the understanding that listening to others is a large part of the job

--the understanding that people like to be appreciated, not just rewarded monetarily; people want to know that their presence matters

--leaders think about the whole group (America) and what it needs

--the understanding that all individuals share common values, a shared responsibility for one another, and a mutual interdependence (there is no “us and them” or “our side and their side”)

--the understanding that problems get solved when people are given power to solve them; not when they are disenfranchised or ignored or told what to do by a few experts.
 
So, if you want a President with the understandings and principles of a community organizer, President Obama is your man!  He has already demonstrated many of these qualities, and will continue to do so, in contrast to the principles and ideology of a capitalist like Romney, who doesn’t have a clue about most of the principles just mentioned.

Michael B. Keegan, President, People For the American Way, posted some words on 05/22/2012  that can serve as our conclusion for today:

“Obama supporters are seething and the RNC is dancing with delight in the aftermath of Newark Mayor Cory Booker's nonsensical comparison of ads exposing Mitt Romney's real record on job creation with racially tinged attacks on Barack Obama's former pastor.

The RNC thinks that it caught the Dems with their pants down, inadvertently admitting that Romney's work at Bain Capital should be off limits. But the indisputable fact is that Romney's experience at Bain is completely fair game -- Romney himself made that choice when he decided to present it as his chief qualification for the presidency. In fact, it's beyond fair game: if this election is truly about jobs and the economy, then Bain is one of the only games in town.

Romney, attempting to shed his record as Massachusetts governor as fast as he can, has chosen to run almost exclusively on his record as a "job creator" at Bain. Pay no attention to the governor behind the curtain, whose state ranked 47th of 50 states in job creation during his term! In the process, he's mixed up some of his "job creation" numbers and cherry-picked the facts he's chosen to tell the American people. Romney keeps telling us his side of the Bain story. But are we to completely ignore the very real stories of factories shut down and American jobs lost? Let's hear all sides of the story. Isn't that what elections are all about?

And let's also have an honest conversation about whether or not Romney's success in making money for investors through his position at Bain qualifies him to be president. Venture capital and private equity have a role to play in our economy. But making money for investors doesn't mean that you know how to make the economy work for all Americans. As President Obama pointed out yesterday, the goal of a private equity firm is to create wealth, not jobs -- most often, to make as much money as possible for a few investors. The goal of a president needs to be an economy that works for everybody. That's a critical difference.

Both candidates agree that this election is about the fundamental direction that our country will take for the next four years. We should embrace this. How about this simple concept: Let's have that full debate about all aspects of the relevant experience of both candidates and let the voters decide.”