Republicans “Debate”–REGRESSIVES Win!

On Monday of this past week, I listened to the entire debate of GOP candidates in New Hampshire.  It was definitely scary!  How regressive and reactionary can you get?  Without answering that question directly, let’s take a look. 

Republican candidates proposed solutions for the economy that will help just one segment of the population:  the rich, the corporations, the business leaders.  Not one thing was proposed to assist the working or broad middle class and the bulk of the unemployed (except maybe Ron Paul’s rant about getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya).

Here’s what they all seem to want to do to “boost” the economy: 
  
>Cut corporate tax rates that are already lower than they’ve been in decades 
>Cut taxes on foreign profits by allowing repatriation of those profits at little or no cost to the profit-makers 
>Lower tax rates for the rich to lowest levels in decades 
>Lower or abolish the capital gains tax 
>Let profits of the big guys trickle down (Santorum actually said it!) 
>Union-bash: UAW has taken over the car industry – I’m sure that‘s be news to them! Right-to-work laws are their mantra;  they want to repeal other laws that protect unions 
>Get rid of government job programs for the unemployed;    

>Repeal strong regulations that protect consumers 
>Get rid of regulatory agencies such as NLRB, EPA 
>They want to support the Ryan Budget plan, maybe with some amendments, none of which were delineated

These are the failed policies of the past that got us into this mess in the first place.  By the way, did you realize that at least two-thirds of these candidates (and the two most likely to declare soon – Rick Perry and Dan Huntsman) are millionaires?  Their views represent and benefit just 1% of the U.S. population, and they, themselves, stand to gain personally from their own proposals!

Where is the guarantee that these tax cuts, tax breaks, incentives, and de-regulation will produce any jobs for the average citizen?  Not one candidate brought forward a commitment on the part of any corporation or business that, if all of these proposals were instituted, they would commit to producing a certain number of jobs in the U.S.  Would Coca-Cola offer to expand its business in the USA when 80% of its profits come from its foreign enterprises?  How about GE, that didn’t pay any taxes on profits in 2010?  Will they commit to hiring a certain number of people in the U.S. in  2011 and 2012?  Not one candidate brought forward any such commitments.  Why? because they can’t.  Theirs is a “trickle-down” theory of job growth: give corporations and businesses enough incentives, and they will take some of their profits and create jobs.

But facts do not back up their theory.  Corporations have already made enormous profits, and are sitting on around $2 trillion dollars, but where are the jobs?  They are still going overseas where the huge profits are waiting.  The “trickle-down” theory is a sham and an illusion because corporations, manufacturers, businesses are not in the business of creating jobs; they are in the business of making profit -- for themselves, their Boards, their share-holders, and their paid lackeys (lobbyists, lawyers, and legislators) who keep fomenting the same old tired “solutions” to growth and joblessness.  Their incentives, no matter how generous, are not going to prevent the multi-nationals from closing factories and businesses here while moving jobs overseas, because they can make bigger profits elsewhere. 

You are being bamboozled if you think any of this works for you, the broad middle class.  It doesn’t; never has; never will.  Corporations and businesses are looking to put their efforts not only where taxes are the lowest, but where several more items come into play: they go where incentives-- like buildings,  equipment and infrastructure, are the best-- where regulations restricting business practices are at a minimum; where pensions are the lowest they can be if they exist at all; where health care as a benefit is not an issue; and where wages are so low as to be unmatchable.  This is what the Republican candidates want for you: to become like third world laborers who get a pittance for their labor, but who don’t mind because it’s better than what they had before. 

Did you hear anything that would lead you to believe that Republicans favor a decent wage, good-paying jobs?  No.  What you heard was an attack upon labor unions (that advocate for decent wages and benefits), an attempt to get rid of governmental regulatory agencies like the NLRB and the EPA, and maybe even the FDA.  What you didn’t hear is any actual job creation or enhancement.  They didn’t even offer enhanced job training programs (instead, they want to “consolidate” those under the Ryan Plan so they can contain them, and eventually get rid of them).  No guarantees of pensions, or health care benefits, or other benefits.  The efforts to restrict bargaining rights and union organizing by certain Republican governors, is also part of this well-orchestrated attack on the working middle class. 

About half of the jobs created last month were at McDonalds.  That’s what Republicans want; they want to reduce wages and benefits so that we become like developing countries where corporations and businesses can hire cheap labor.  Republican candidates won’t say it aloud, but they are working covertly to make sure wages remain stagnant and actually fall.  Is this what you want?

The candidates on that stage Monday night brought nothing but theory, ideology, and conservative think-tank propaganda and offered these as worn-out political solutions to overwhelming problems, at the expense of the middle class. 
 
In addition, Republicans have no idea what to do about health care beyond repeal of the Obama administration’s health care reform act, leaving solutions to the states, getting rid of Medicare & Medicaid, supporting PHAs for workers and inadequate vouchers for the elderly.

The “debaters”  presented no substantive ideas on reform of health care; instead, they distorted the $500 million cut in Medicare costs and deplored the Commission that will present ideas for further reform measures.  They all want to support the Ryan plan, maybe with other ideas added, but none of  them actually delineated specific proposals. 
    
We also heard a lot Monday about the States being the place for development, for experimentation, for handling of national issues in a way that doesn’t provide a national solution.  One-size-fits-all is not their rallying cry unless it suits their particular agenda (like a constitutional amendment on when life begins, or an amendment that prohibits same sex marriage).  

We actually tried giving such powers to de-centralized states in the 18th century (it was called Articles of Confederation) and produced such a hodge-podge that the founding fathers rejected the idea that our government should be a confederation of states.  Instead, they called for a stronger central government (Madison, Jay, Hamilton writing as Publius in the Federalist Papers) and argued against a mere confederation because they saw the dangers inherent in a structure that could not address national problems.  However, the Founding Fathers never did permanently resolve the question of powers left to the states.  That is why we still have arguments over states’ rights and central authority.

    Right wing radicals and Republican conservatives want us to believe that the national government is somehow evil, incompetent, interventionist, and obstructionist.  They want it to get out of the way, and let the states resolve most of our problems, and let the private sector conduct all of our business without any restraints.    Federal authority has been a developing concept, both helped along and restrained by constitutional amendments, Supreme Court decisions, and legislation.  What is more to the point is to decide what states should be allowed to do and not do.  That is the unresolved constitutional issue that causes problems.

Two points:

One, allowing states to solve problems like heath care puts a lot of people in jeopardy.  Let’s say you are an adult with an acquired disability like MS or MD or ALS.  The state you live in provides adequate health insurance options for you to live a reasonably normal life.  But now, because of circumstances beyond your control, you must move to a neighboring state that does not provide the same choices or supports, but has inadequate provisions for what you need.  What do you do?  You must move, but the lack of care and supports from the other state may be a matter of life and death for you.  If only there was some way to get adequate health care wherever you were to live in this country!  That is the dilemma, not only for health care, but for public education, safety on the job, pension protection, and a myriad of other problems that must have a national foundation in order to protect you from those exigencies that could arise if states are allowed to set up their own very different solutions to such problems (and don’t forget: some states would opt to do nothing!).

So, when Paul Ryan wants to block-grant Medicaid to the states and allow them to put together their own systems of care, watch out.  It is a disaster waiting to happen. For one, administrative costs will sky-rocket, taking dollars from actual care.

Two, not only was our early Confederation of States an example of how not to deal with national problems, it hindered us from becoming a “player” on the world stage at that time.  Now fast forward to today and take a look at India.  Here is the largest democracy in the world, and one of the reasons it is not as much of a international player as China, is its lack of a strong federal government.  Indian Regions or states have too much control and they cannot act together to make India the international powerhouse that it has the potential to be.  Fareed Sakaria, in “A Post-American World,“ put it this way: “India is Tip O’Neill’s dreamland.  ‘All Politics is local’… In India, that principle can be carved in stone.   This diversity and division complicate the work of the Indian state.  They make it difficult for New Delhi to define a national interest, mobilize the country behind it, and then execute a set of policies to achieve its goals, whether in economic reform or foreign policy.  In economic terms, this means a future of muddling along, minor reforms, and….a less active and energetic role on the world stage.”  Is that what reactionary Republicans want for our nation?

Finally, let’s be clear about one thing: as long as health care insurance is tied to work, corporations and businesses will continue to look to those countries where this is not an issue.  Republicans, by having nothing to offer but the repeal of “ObamaCare”, have opted out of resolving this issue for businesses.  In fact, because they have no other alternatives, they are as much the cause of “outsourcing” of jobs as anyone. 

They say they will reduce health care costs, but that is untenable if all they do is return us to the clutches of the huge health insurance conglomerates who have no intention of reducing premiums, but every intention of raising premiums and reducing benefits.  Republicans cannot resolve the health care issue for business until they remove it from the workplace, and they refuse to do that because they refuse to support a public option.  A single-payer system is the only viable way to get health insurance out of the workplace.  Republicans deride this concept as “socialism”, but they support the VA health care system which is run by -- guess who? -- the federal government!  Once again, these purists get caught in a contradiction that they will not, and cannot, resolve. 

    So remember voters: if that “whoosh” you hear is the sound of more jobs going overseas or to other countries in our own hemisphere, where having to pay for health care is not an issue for employers, you have a recalcitrant Republican party to thank for a substantial loss of jobs because they continue to burden businesses with responsibility for paying health care benefits!

BOLD ACTION is Imperative

Now that a large shift has occurred in the political scene, so that JOBs, JOBs, JOBs is only part of the equation (except for those without them), and “it’s the economy, stupid!” has taken over, it is time again to call for bold action on the part of the Obama Administration.  I say “again” because I, and others, called for this about a year ago, but the Administration did not respond adequately.  Now, time is of the essence; the administration either responds or the “game is over.”
First of all, however, let’s deal with some realities:
--Many manufacturing jobs are gone, and they aren’t coming back.  Constantly calling for return to “things as they were” is not realistic.
--The United States has lost key industries and services, its people have stopped saving money and are increasingly in personal debt, its government has become increasingly indebted to Asian central banks.
--We live in a world “different” from what we have known; global realities, such as the need for more necessities-- like water, fossil fuels, and electricity-- are affecting many nations, including our own.  How we react to global changes will affect our strength and status in the very near future.  American “exceptionalism” is not the most helpful response.   We continue to be quite unaware of the world beyond our borders, speaking few languages, ignorant of foreign cultures, unconvinced that we need to change anything.
--Corporations are sitting on profits (now near 2 trillion dollars); they are not spending profits on new jobs, new equipment, or R&D.  My take is that they may be deliberately sabotaging the Obama administration, and will only begin to spend if Republicans win in 2012.
--However, it is also a fact that multi-national corporations almost uniformly report that their largest growth is in their foreign markets.  Companies on the S&P 500 generate 46% of their profits outside the U.S., and many, like Coca-Cola, report much larger foreign profit percentages (80%), with a larger percentage of employees in foreign countries.  So, perhaps their focus is elsewhere than here.
--Unemployment is going to remain high no matter what is done to ameliorate it;  we are no longer an innovative, pot-boiler of a manufacturing society, but a slow-growth service society that has mainly low-paying jobs with few benefits to offer the broad middle-class. We desperately need innovation in new products. 
--College graduates are going to be less and less able to find high-paying jobs; and, as a matter of fact, if Republicans have their way, very soon only those with money and position will even get into the “prestigious” universities with a shot at the top echelon of jobs.
--Republicans are not going to “save” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; they will continue their efforts to gut and terminate FDR’s New Deal programs and government welfare for the poor and middle classes.  They will not compromise on tax cuts for the rich. 
--Negotiating with Republican radicals is like negotiating with a Grizzly bear: it’s futile and useless since the bear wants only to devour its prey.
Thankfully, President Obama has recently acted to push Treasury to increase the number of people saving their mortgages from foreclosure by going after the banks that are not following through on re-structuring mortgages.  He is seeking the stoppage of incentive payments to banks who continue to drag their heels.  This is bold action of the kind that is needed.  But, the roll-out of this action was so benign as to render it ineffective.  He should also strongly push his 2011 proposal for a financial crisis responsibility fee against banks with more than $50 billion in assets.
Moreover, what Obama needs to do is to come up with a PLAN of bold steps touted with massive publicity that is unrelenting.  Here’s some of what he must do (with thanks to people like Robert Reich, Fareed Zakaria, the CPC, Jacob Hacker & Paul Pierson, Bill Moyers, Kevin Phillips, etc.):
1) Substantially increase the run-down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Withdraw large numbers of troops; trumpet the savings; say to the world:  America must act on economics as its number one concern not only for itself, but for the world economy.  Iraq and Afghanistan must stand on their own.  Emphasize the war on terror continues and that more special ops and drone attacks will continue as we hunt down El Qaeda. 
2) Re-structure Foreign Aid.  Withdraw aid to dictators and potentates.  Give mainly to humanitarian causes through established vehicles other than failed governments.  Support institutions and organizations (including rebel groups) that support and encourage human rights, peace, freedoms and economic justice.  Cut back on arms and weapons supplied to other nations or bought from us with our aid money.  Give foreign aid only under a spending plan that is subject to audit. (Consult my Blog of  Feb. 20, 2011 for further discussion).
3) Present a massive infrastructure/jobs bill to the Congress.  Put people to work on highways, schools, bridges, roads, etc. etc.  Indicate that any opposition to the bill  must answer to the people who need jobs now; we cannot wait any longer for the private sector to act because they are sitting on profits and not aiding their countrymen and women.  In addition, expand already-existing government job programs that are showing success or that have potential to be successful: AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, STEP & SCEP, Job Corps, WIA, etc.
4) Support best provisions of “The People’s Budget”, and frame it as part of economic recovery:
+Eliminate subsidies for Big Oil and repeal corporate welfare provisions for oil, gas and coal companies; replace with incentives and penalties for innovation in new energy sources
+Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned rather than when earnings are repatriated
+Rescind upper-income tax cuts in the tax deal with Republicans, repealing the 33 and 35% rates and adding millionaire tax rates of 45-49%
+Tax capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income
+Propose a public option or “Medicare for all” to enhance health reform
+Negotiate Rx payments with Pharmaceutical companies
+Raise the taxable maximum on employee side of SS to 90% of earnings and eliminate taxable maximum on employer side
+Increase SS benefits based on higher employee side contributions
+Invest in job creation, education, clean energy and broadband infrastructure , housing and R&D
5)  Go to bat for the stimulus policies that have worked, and strongly challenge the deregulatory, Hoover-emulating policies that got us into this mess in the first place. 
6) Strongly oppose “spending caps”, “triggers”, and other process-related gimmicks that serve to divert us from real solutions, and that are nothing more than sneak attacks on entitlements.
7) Offer incentives for personal savings and for less consumption; for innovations in all areas, but particularly in the field of energy
8)  Expand the EITC on a progressive scale to cover people earning $20-50k.
9)  Expand unemployment insurance and institute a “wage insurance.” by which any loser of a job who takes a new job at lower pay would be eligible for 90% of the difference for up to 2 years.
10) Boost longer-term job training programs.  Increase adult and worker training programs in high schools, community colleges, universities, and on-the-job locations.  Provide income support (wage insurance) for an additional year for those training to become nurses or teachers, or in other positions for which there are labor shortages.
11) Impose a “severance tax” on profitable corporations that lay off workers perhaps equal to 75% of the full-cost of the laid-off worker’s annual salary.
12) Increase tuition loans and grants for young people, especially those performing national service.
Mr. President:  the time is NOW!  We can’t wait any longer.  We can’t continue to be at the mercy of the rich and powerful.  We can’t survive as an example to others if we can’t take bold actions to bolster our economy and save the middle class.  We can no longer dictate how foreign countries will act or how they will govern; we can only set an example.  Be less like Jimmy Carter and more like FDR and Truman.  Do not be reticent or cool or a capitulator.  Do not live up to early predictions of your being a “lightweight.”  Be The President: the most powerful elected official in the world; the head of the Executive Branch; the leader of the Free World.  We need you now, not as a candidate, but as our BOLD, UNCOMPROMISING, ASSERTIVE leader.  

A Budget Solution You Won’t Hear Much About

There is a solution to the Budget mess floating around Congress right now that you will probably never hear much about. It’s called “The People’s Budget”, and it is a budget proposal for 2012, but also a roadmap for controlling the national debt, and investing in the future. Why won’t you hear about it? Because it comes from a group of about 80 congress persons that the Media love to ignore simply because it is not the Tea Party, not conservative, not well-known, not well-publicized, not much thought about even by the constituents of its members. On top of all that, it is composed of “progressives” (or “liberals” if you prefer) who are out-of-favor right now, and whose solutions are sometimes shunted aside by the electorate. Too bad, because here is a proposal that actually meets many of the tenets that the polls say are wanted by the public.

So let me quote the first few paragraphs of the Executive Summary of this budget, which should give you the flavor of its content.

“Budgets are more than collections of numbers; they are statements of our values. The Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget is a reflection of the values and priorities of working families in this country. The ‘People’s Budget’ charts a path that keeps America exceptional in the 21st century, while addressing the most pressing problems facing the nation today. Our Budget eliminates the deficit and stabilizes the debt, puts Americans back to work, and restores our economic competitiveness.

“The CPC Budget addresses these problems by listening to the American people. In poll after poll, they are telling us, their representatives in the American government, that they want to preserve Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, to make higher education more affordable, to expand job-training programs, to cut taxes burdening the middle class, to subsidize affordable housing, and to provide financial assistance for those struggling to prevent foreclosures.” They find cuts in heating assistance to low-income families, student loans, unemployment insurance, and scientific and medical research as completely unacceptable to most Americans.

“Americans find a progressive tax policy very acceptable. The overwhelming majority of America supports additional taxes on millionaires and billionaires, eliminating unnecessary weapons systems, eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries, phasing out Bush tax cuts, and eliminating subsidies for new nuclear power plants.

“Our Budget, in response, listens to what the American people are telling us. It does all of the above in a fiscally responsible way that dramatically reduces our borrowing from banks and foreign governments, and ensures our long-term economic competitiveness. It does all of the above recognizing that in order to compete, we need every American to be productive, and in order to be productive, we need to raise the skill level of every American and meet the basic needs of every working family. It does all of the above while remaining rooted in fairness, recognizing that America works when everyone has an opportunity to make it in America.”

Let’s take a closer look at a few of the components of this “People’s Budget”. First, it targets the “true drivers of deficits”: the Bush Tax cuts, the unfair tax code and the wars overseas. By addressing these, it is indicated they will achieve a budget surplus of over $30 billion by 2021, ending up with a debt that is less than 65% of GDP.

Income Tax:

Allow Bush-era tax cuts to expire at end of 2012; extend marriage relief, credits and incentives for children, families and education.

Immediately rescind upper-income tax cuts in December’s tax deal

Establish Millionaire tax rates to include 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates

Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income

Institute a Progressive estate tax (progressive tax rates after a $3.5 million exemption)

Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can reduce tax liability (to 28% for high earners)

Corporate Tax Reform:

Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned (not when it is repatriated to the U.S.)

Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas and coal companies

Enact a financial crisis responsibility fee (.15% of covered liabilities on large banks with over $50 billion in assets)

Financial speculation tax (on derivatives, foreign exchange - levied against those who caused the financial crisis)

Social Security:

Raise the taxable maximum on the employee side to 90% of earnings and eliminate taxable maximum on employer side

Increase benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side

Defense Spending:

End overseas contingency operations emergency supplemental starting in FY 2013, saving more than $1.8 trillion from current law spending

Reduce baseline defense spending by reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement and R&D programs

Comprehensive Jobs Program:

Invest $1.5 trillion in job creation, education, clean energy, broadband, infrastructure, housing and R&D

The latter category indicates that the People’s Budget not only reduces spending, but centers on investments that are not only necessary, but critical for restoring American competitiveness. More on that next time. For the moment, just one comment: too bad the Congress, the President, and the Media are all pretty much ignoring the importance of listening to what Americans want. This Budget puts forward real cuts, real reforms, real policies that could move us forward in a balanced and stable manner.

REPUBLICAN SNEAK ATTACK

If you don’t understand how Republicans in Congress use stealth tactics to attack what they don’t like and what does not benefit their benefactors, you are in for a long, hard ride to the bottom of the barrel.

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a strong, independent consumer protection agency that would have the tools to detect and rein in the tricks, deceits and traps of the financial industry, like the fine print in their contracts?  Wouldn’t it be terrific to have a financial regulator in Washington D.C. watching out for families instead of banks?

Guess what?  We already have it, and it’s called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (C.F.P.B.) created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  It is not as independent as one might like, but it does have potential to rein in the financial industry.

Fearful of its potential, Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress made sure that it was not an entirely independent agency (its housed in the Treasury Department), that its rules are subject to appeal, its budget is capped by law, it is subject to Government Accountability Office oversight, and its executive officer must report annually to Congress. 

Even with those restrictions, three financial industry-courting Republicans are launching a sneak attack on the agency by targeting the very competent candidate to lead the agency, Elizabeth Warren (also attacked today by Sen. Mitch McConnell on Meet The Press).  First, they introduced three bills that would limit the agency’s potential: one, by replacing a single director with a five-member commission (guaranteed to obstruct rule-making); second, by lowering the number of votes that would be required to overturn a C.F.P.B. rule; third, by requiring Senate confirmation of the agency director.  These bills are intended to weaken the agency from its start, and to make it much harder to do its work.

Moreover, these bills have made it possible for the Republicans on the Financial Services Committee in the House to call the intended director before their Committee (when they hold hearings on any of the bills) and to harass her.  One House committee-watcher has said, “I cannot recall one witness treated so badly by so many.  Republicans on the Committee  are out to gut the consumer protection agency and to kneecap Warren.”

Why are the Republicans and Tea Partiers fighting so hard against this agency and its intended director?  Simple.  Consumer protection that is now scattered across at least 12 different federal agencies will be brought together in a quasi-independent Bureau that can regulate mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders and servicers, payday lenders, credit card companies, private student loan providers, and all banks with assets over $10 billion.  Mainly Republican campaign donors, patrons, and supporters are the heads of such financial institutions, so Congressional Republicans are under pressure to do something to stop this agency in its tracks.  Republicans in Congress are scared to death of the potential power of this agency and its director, not only because of its regulatory power, but because it draws its funding directly from the Federal Reserve, and only needs to go to Congress if additional funds are required.

President Obama needs to use a little stealth of his own and make a recess appointment of Ms. Warren to head the agency, and to get it underway.  Republicans may not like the idea of this agency, but consumers like us are going to love it!

Republicans Resist Available Government JOBs and Training

Republicans generally oppose government programs; they claim such programs make people less responsible for themselves, and more dependent on government to solve their problems and to provide funds as needed.  The GOP believes that most issues and problems and help should be addressed by and through the private sector.  Any help that desperate unemployed people might expect from government is being opposed or blocked by a party of ideologues who do not want any government-sponsored jobs program.  Indeed, this party is even reluctant to extend unemployment benefits for anyone out of work for more than 90 days. 

Of course, these same ideologues are often the first to feed at the government trough when they can benefit, or when they can benefit their home district or state which will ultimately benefit them when they campaign.  Their evident hypocrisy leaves the unemployed in a situation where no immediate help is forthcoming.  There will be no JOBs bill.  All that they will make available is their inadequate JOBs Plan, which gives unemployed persons one option: wait for private industry to start hiring again!

Amazingly, there are already several “job” or “job training” programs within various federal departments that could be used to help many people who are unemployed.  These programs could simply be expanded, without having to establish a new or tremendously expanded bureaucracy to oversee them.  Of course, instead of expanding them, the ideologues want to either consolidate them, under-fund them, or end them.

Corporation for National and Community Service

The Corporation for National and Community Service is a federal agency that engages more than five million Americans in service through Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America, and also leads President Obama's national call to service initiative, United We Serve.  The long and painful Great Recession means there is an increasing need for poverty services at a time when there are decreasing resources for government and nonprofit organizations that provide these services. National service workers can play a role in addressing these disparities.

Some National Service programs create full-time positions that are—in most cases—jointly paid for by public and private resources.  National service programs are not designed as long-term career positions, but they have historically helped boost job creation by providing opportunities for difficult-to-employ youth, senior citizens and recent college graduates, while also building nonprofit organizations’ capacity to continue this important social service.

AmeriCorps State and National  The largest of AmeriCorps programs provides funds to local and national organizations and agencies committed to using national service to address critical community needs in education, public safety, health and the environment.    AmeriCorps State and National programs are open to U.S. citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent resident aliens age 17 and older. Members may serve full- or part-time over a period not to exceed 12 months.  Members receive a modest living allowance, student-loan forbearance, health coverage, and child care for those who qualify. After successfully completing their term of service, they receive an AmeriCorps Education Award of up to $5,350. This award can be used to pay off qualified student loans or to finance college, graduate school, or vocational training at eligible institutions.

AmeriCorps VISTA is the national service program designed specifically to fight poverty. VISTA has been on the front lines in the fight against poverty in America for more than 40 years.  VISTA members commit to serve full-time for a year at a nonprofit organization or local government agency, working to fight illiteracy, improve health services, create businesses, strengthen community groups, and much more.
In return for their service, AmeriCorps VISTA members receive a modest living allowance and health benefits during their service, and have the option of receiving a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award or post-service stipend after completing their service.  It is open to both young people and mature adults.

AmeriCorps NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps) is a full-time, team-based residential program for men and women ages 18–24, assigned to one of five campuses.
Drawn from the successful models of the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s and the U.S. military, the mission of AmeriCorps NCCC is to strengthen communities and develop leaders through direct, team-based national and community service.  AmeriCorps NCCC requires an intensive, 10-month commitment. Members receive a living allowance of approximately $4,000 for the 10 months of service (about $200 every two weeks before taxes), housing, meals, limited medical benefits, up to $400 a month for childcare, if necessary, member uniforms, and a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award upon successful completion of the program.

Foster Grandparent Program:  Foster Grandparents serve children with special needs as role models, mentors, and a friend. Serving at one of thousands of local organizations—including faith-based groups, Head Start Centers, schools, and other youth facilities—they help children learn to read, provide one-on-one tutoring, and guide children at a critical time in their lives. Foster Grandparents, age 55 and older, serve up to 40 hours per week. Some volunteers with a low income can qualify to earn a tax-free, hourly stipend of $2.65 per hour. They also receive transportation reimbursement, pre-service orientation, training from the organization where they serve, supplemental accident and liability insurance while on duty, plus a meal while on duty.

Senior Companion Program:  Similar to the Foster Grandparent Program, the SCP serves older adults with special needs, especially helping persons who are frail to remain in their own homes. Whether giving families or professional caregivers much-needed time off, running errands, or simply being a friend, Senior Companions make a difference that strengthens and helps preserve an individual’s independence.  SCs also join with thousands of others to help control the rising costs of health care.   SCs are age 55 and older, serve up to 40 hours per week, and receive a stipend (if qualified), and other benefits listed for FGP.

Find out more at: www.nationalservice.gov

Office of Personnel Management:

STEP provides part-time federal jobs to students that can last as little as one summer or as long as the duration of a college career. STEP positions are paid. The work does not have to be related to one’s field of study.  To be eligible applicant must be in high school, college, vocational school, or graduate school, and must be a U.S. citizen or national in most cases.  If the hiring agency’s appropriation act permits non-citizen employees, and the  client is eligible to work under U.S. immigration laws, participation is allowed.

SCEP allows applicant to gain experience working for the government in a job related to his field of study. Most positions are paid and some also provide academic credit towards a degree.  To participate in SCEP, the hiring agency must have a formal agreement with client’s educational institution. SCEP positions are available to undergraduate and graduate students. Must be a U.S. citizen or national in most cases. However, if eligible to work under U.S. immigration laws, non-citizen applicants can participate in the program.  Successful completion of 640 hours of work within the SCEP program means a person is eligible to be hired to a permanent position without going through the traditional hiring process. Recent additions to the program allow agencies to waive up to half of the required 640 hours for students with certain job-related experience. 

The Presidential Management Fellows Program (PMF) is a prestigious two year program which is designed to prepare a participant for upper-level management positions in the federal government. Must be in the final year of a graduate program and must receive a nomination from applicant’s school before being considered for the PMF program.
For more, see www.opm.gov

Government needs to fill medical jobs and maintain the staffs at 153 Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals and 745 community based clinics, plus there are health care job vacancies at many other federal agencies. When you include civilian medical personnel at military hospitals and administrative personnel that are needed under the new health care legislation, many more are needed.
For more, see http://federaljobs.net/healthcarejobsva.htm

Job Corps of America Job Corps is a free education and training program that helps young people learn a career, earn a high school diploma or GED, and find and keep a good job. For eligible young people at least 16 years of age that qualify as low income, Job Corps provides the all-around skills needed to succeed in a career and in life.  Transitioning from the military and starting a new career can be challenging.  Job Corps can help also help Vets through the VETS Demonstration Project.

Preparation for work in nontraditional fields is a major pathway out of poverty for women, but the only federal grant program specifically designed to train women for nontraditional occupations is the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO), which is 17 years old, funded at only $1 million, and focused entirely on construction.

A number of states are using short-time compensation programs to prevent layoffs and maintain employment. Short-time compensation, also called work sharing, is an option within the federal-state UI system that provides some employers with an alternative to layoffs. Employers can reduce work hours instead of laying people off, and workers can collect partial UI benefits to help make up for lost wages. Seventeen states have short-time compensation programs. Some of these states have experienced a dramatic increase in the program’s use.

Congress should consider appropriating additional funds into the WIA Title I youth program to allow the extension of jobs and supports beyond summer for out of school youth ages 16 to 24. Congress should also consider an additional appropriation to reactivate Youth Opportunity (YO) Grants that are already authorized in the WIA legislation. These grants direct funding to areas of concentrated poverty to implement education, training and employment activities directed at getting disconnected youth connected to pathways to employment. 

Enough for now.  Republicans in Congress are simply short-sighted (or myopic) because of their so-called principles.  There are plenty of ways they could get jobs to people immediately, but they continue to resist, unsympathetic to the very basic needs of real people.  More next time on alternative approaches to this problem of JOBS.

Rhetoric: JOBs, JOBs, JOBs; Reality: NO JOBs

A Republican JOBs Bill?  Who do they think they’re kidding?  It’s an absolutely flagrant misuse of the word.  What their JOBs Bill really is: more profit for the rich and powerful;  more blatant attacks on the federal government as an unworthy source of jobs, and as an incompetent organization.  By the way, this isn’t the first time that the GOP has equated incentives, deductions, and exemptions for small and big businesses as a “Jobs Bill.”  In 2004, G.W. Bush signed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 that was simply chock full of “goodies” for businesses (the tax breaks estimated to cost $143 billion over 10 years).  That “job creation” resulted in more layoffs, more closings, more shipping of jobs overseas.  In the latest rejuvenation of this formula for “creating jobs” we can expect similar results!

First, they say that “government should not try to create jobs by growing the size of government”.  On the surface, that looks like a reasonable statement, but it’s not because we need JOBs now, no matter from where they emanate.  Besides, adding government-sponsored JOBs does not necessarily mean an expansion of bureaucracy.  Several departments of national and state governments already have responsibility for job creation and training and they are not looking to expand their departments. 

Second, they say “it’s time for a new approach. Government should create an environment for private sector growth through fiscal discipline and pro-growth…policies.”  Then, they trot out all the old remedies that haven’t worked for the last 30 years; the same policies and programs that have widened the gap between the rich and the broad middle class in the last generation. 

Third, corporations are already boasting record profits, but they are not sinking profits back into their U.S.-based businesses.  Instead, corporations continue to close plants, lay off workers and ship jobs overseas where they can minimize wages, benefits, taxes and unionization.  In addition, they are currently sitting on nearly $2 trillion in profits, without turning that into jobs.  So, Republicans want to increase profits and earning-power for executives while not creating job one for the rest of us!  Their JOBs Plan is one of the biggest FARCEs ever perpetrated on the American people.  R U Bamboozled?

The first part of their proposal is to “live within our means” by requiring a Balanced Budget Amendment, a statutory spending limit, and deficit reduction. These ideas may have some merit in themselves as possible ways to deal with government spending, but not one of them can guarantee the creation of one JOB. 

Their second mantra is that “we must create incentives for our entrepreneurs to invest in the future, innovate and grow.”  Certainly a worthwhile objective, but how they say we get there is through the same old, tired canards that have not served us (the middle class) well in the past 30 years:
--Reduce business and individual tax rates (by which they mean the rates for the 1-2% at the top of the ladder who have been pocketing their gains at the expense of everyone else!);
--Make research and development tax credit permanent:  a worthy goal if targeted to the United States, and if made broadly available, not just to large corporations
--Extend and make permanent the Small Business Investment Tax Incentive: letting small businesses immediately write-off equipment purchases as tax deductions.  Unfortunately, larger businesses, by “branching” into smaller units, have been able to claim this deduction that they don’t deserve.  The definition of “small” businesses is key here.  To be totally fair, the same incentive should be given to the self-employed, so that they might grow into small businesses.    
--Reduce taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends: once again, who benefits the most? And who sits on the profits?  There is no incentive here for creating JOBs; just for making the rich richer!

They also want to remove burdensome regulations on businesses.  But that’s one of the big reasons why we got into the huge economic trouble we’re in: deregulation and less governmental oversight led to abuses in financing, mortgage-lending, banking, Wall Street investments, Big Oil gouging and lack of safety provisions, etc.  Government regulation is key to keeping the excesses of capitalism under control to the benefit of a broad working middle class.  This idea of deregulation is not a prescription for JOBs, but it is a prescription for robbery, fraud, and abuse.  Don’t buy any of it!  That being said, truly burdensome, poorly conceived, and biased regulations are not helpful to anyone. 

There does need to be a broader input mechanism for opinion, data, and suggestions for regulations from those immediately affected, and from those indirectly affected.  There does need to be a sunset provision on each set of rules and regulations so that they will be reviewed (and reformed) on a reasonable timetable.  Rule-making and regulation-formulation are the mode by which laws are executed.  There needs to be as much attention to this process as there is to legislating the laws of the land, because rules and regulations have the force of law.

The GOP Plan calls for two measures that, they say, would help to create a “competitive” workforce:  reform of federal training programs and stopping “card-check”.  Once again, the GOP is using code words to cover their true intentions.   The intention is not to reform federal job training, but to gut it, so that it becomes a shadow of what it is.  They intend to do this by combining all training programs into one (smaller) program that then will present training on a very limited basis, unable to meet the needs of very different clients who have entirely different needs and issues.  So, they are advocating a situation where “one size fits all.“  Not at all what is needed.  AND YET, on the very next subject of  “Card-Check (a euphemism for “unionization”), they say specifically that the reason this is unacceptable is because it “creates a one-size-fits-all approach to wages and benefits.”  So apparently, it’s o.k. to have a one-size-fits-all approach to training, but not for an approach to wages and benefits.  Why is that, you ask?  Because in one case (training) it works to undermine job training, but in the 2nd case, it works against their anti-union ideology!

While making a brief reference to “the imperative” of educating our children to be the innovators, entrepreneurs and workers of tomorrow, the Republicans otherwise steer clear of the role of public schools in job preparation.  Are they prepared to take the steps necessary for enhancing public education so that our children can compete with the rest of the developed nations?  Not on your life.   Public education is a key priority in the training of leaders and workers, but the GOP and Tea Partiers are intent on privatizing education in this country so that government will no longer be able to exercise any control over what happens in our schools.  That means no strategic planning for the future jobs market, or for anything else that begins with a public education. 

The rest of the Plan is devoted to equally inane recommendations, most of which have more to do with political in-fighting than with JOB creation, i.e. increasing exports, doing more oil-drilling on the outer continental shelf and on federal lands, and addressing health care reform by malpractice reform, allowing purchase of insurance across state lines, risk pools for small businesses, and strengthening HSAs. 

All of which brings us again to the question: where are the JOBs?  The GOP speculates that the measures they propose will create an “environment” in which growth will occur.  But what if it simply doesn’t do that?  What if their provisions do what they have done before: create an atmosphere in which the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets robbed and stagnated? 

What we need is a REAL JOBS plan.  More next time…

What About REAL Medicare Reform?

Republican Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, told David Gregory today on Meet the Press that the Ryan Plan for Medicare is the best proposal available right now, and that anyone with a better idea should come forward and make a serious proposal. 

First, we need to ask: how much research went into Paul Ryan’s proposal to put Medicare on a premium-support (government voucher) basis?  Well, apparently not much, since the Congressional Budget Office made it clear that he didn’t take into consideration that his Plan would actually add to the total debt, cost more for seniors buying private plans, and that typical 65 year olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of their coverage (premiums, deductibles, other out-of-pocket costs), compared with the 25 percent they would pay under current law!

Second, Ryan’s Plan does nothing to solve the issue of affordable and effective health care for seniors (and for those who are younger but disabled). Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 went only part-way toward reforming health care costs and provisions, it at least tried to do so in a timely manner.  Ryan’s provisions for vouchering premium support for Medicare would not take effect until 2022!  His changes to Medicare are really not intended to solve the problem of health care administration, but ostensibly to address the problem of debt reduction!  His Plan does neither and Sen. Rubio is much to blame for not proposing a better solution (other than denigrating Obama’s health care reform bill by which Rubio solves absolutely nothing). 

This is exactly what many have come to fear from Tea Baggers and Republicans (as well as some Democrats): they knowingly divert public attention from the real issues to political theater which is totally unproductive.  No wonder so many out here feel they are being bamboozled!

Third, perhaps Sen. Rubio has missed the fact that there actually are other proposals for addressing health care in this country (along with the national debt), at least one of which has not received the attention it deserves because of over-protection of private insurance giants and private drug companies by Congress, and because of the false bogey-man of socialism. 

Here’s what Physicians for a National Health Program have to say about a Single Payer System:

“Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.
Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 51 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

“The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy.
Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

“Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $400 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do (underlining added).

“Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

“Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO/group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

“A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.”  >http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources>

It’s time to get serious about REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM, and a single-payer system like this is worth an in-depth look.  At least it would do what Senator Rubio and Congressman Ryan so inadequately proposed to do.  It would potentially replace Medicare and Medicaid, but this time, with a much better system available to all citizens!!

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

Will the off-year elections of 2010 go down in history as the culmination of the turning of the United States government toward something other than democracy?  Is the United States national government now an Oligarchy rather than a Democracy?  That is, are the richest 1-2% of the electorate dictating what will happen to the other 98-99%?  Interesting questions, but not necessarily the most probing.  Maybe we should ask more personal questions of ourselves to bring home what is really happening in our beloved country.  Consider then:

1)  Have your personal views ever been solicited by a Congressional Committee?
2)    Have you ever been asked to suggest or to write a piece of legislation or regulations that would benefit you or your business?
3)    Do you pay a lobbyist who represents your views (and wants) to your Congressman or Senator?  Do you have your own lawyer who finds legal loopholes that benefit your income or your business?
4)    Have you ever met personally with your Congressman or Senator, like on a golf course, at a special resort, or at a private dinner or party?
5)    Has your Congressman or Senator ever voted to help enhance your personal situation or business?  Or, more to the point perhaps: has your Congressman or senator ever not voted, or delayed a vote, or negatively impacted a piece of legislation that would have hurt you or your business?

If you answered “NO” to most of these questions, you have to ask yourself who can answer “YES” ?  It’s very simple.  The rich and powerful can answer YES to every question because they have been given, or taken, special privileges that are not available to the ordinary citizen.  The rich and powerful, like CEOs of major companies, or wall street brokers, or bank execs can “buy” access to their government representatives that you can’t afford.  Your access to your representatives is limited to writing letters, making phone calls, protesting in the streets, and voting.  Some among us believe that this is the way it should be: that the rich have earned their right to call the shots, while the rest of us should support them because they know what is best for all of us! 

YOU don’t have any real access beyond the basics, because the government of this country does not, at the moment, belong to you!  It is totally in the hands of the rich and powerful: both houses of Congress have a majority of millionaires; the Presidency has been occupied by a millionaire for some time now (and the current Cabinet is afflicted with the same oligarchical malady); the Supreme Court has millionaires in the majority (and some of them live in gated communities to separate themselves from YOU). 

And, guess what, it’s your own damn fault, because you have allowed our electoral system to become a system tilted toward electing millionaires when few others can afford to run unless they raise scads of money from the very people who have it, and who want to “buy“ access!  Ask any politician what the bane of their existence is: raising money, is the answer, and money is at the heart of the corruption of our democratic system.

But, back to the questions:

6)    How much of your household income do you spend on necessities: housing (mortgage & maintenance), food, clothing, medicine, all taxes and government fees, transportation, child care, work-related expenses?  How much of that budget do you spend on luxuries: vacations, recreation, club memberships, fine jewelry, art work, “baubles”, collector items like cars, a yacht,  redecoration of your home, etc.?
7)    Can you pay a lesser rate on a portion of your income, say up to $50,000? 
    Can you hide any of your income in overseas bank accounts where taxes are much less? 
8)    Can you deduct for all of the depreciation of a (work-related) piece of equipment at once instead of over the 20 years it actually takes to depreciate (computer, cell-phone, car)?
9)    When did you last receive a raise in pay or a bonus or have an enhancement made to your benefits like health care or pension?
10)    How many in your household have to work to make ends meet?   How many are finding it almost impossible to find a job?  What kinds of temporary or permanent jobs have you had to take to keep afloat?
11)    How much have you had to cut back on in the last decade to make ends meet?
12)    How much debt is your household carrying right now?

These are not questions to be taken lightly.  Do your answers scare you at all?  Do they make you angry, frustrate you, discourage you?  Does it make you the least bit worried that the majority of those in positions of power in this country are not feeling what you feel as you answer these questions; that they are not even having to concern themselves with these questions because they can afford the necessities and the luxuries?  That they are getting bonuses, stock options, pension securities, and Cadillac health plans that you can’t even imagine? That they have special tax breaks that are not available to you?  That when they lose a job because of poor performance, they get a multi-million dollar settlement package that enables them to retire with ease?  That they haven’t had to cut back to “make ends meet” because they have done just fine while the rest of us are taking it on the chin (and everywhere else) during these hard economic times?  And does it bother you at all that the rich and powerful are dictating monetary and economic policy and legislation that continues to benefit them, while cutting back on, and zeroing out, programs that help the middle class and the poor? 

How long do you plan to take the abuse, the condescension, the arrogance of people in power who refer to the other 98% percent of us as “the little people”, the “small people”, “unfortunates”, “lower classes,” and who rant and rave about “welfare cheats” and “those who ought to stand on their own” or “pull themselves up” and make “something of themselves”? 
How long will you stand for the loss of your right to earn a decent wage while those in power cut back on union bargaining rights, and bemoan the audacity of government workers like police, firemen, teachers, health care workers, bargaining for adequate wages, benefits, and pensions. 
How long will it be before you realize that every time the rich and powerful gain another loophole, or privilege, or incentive, or tax break to their benefit that you lose because you have to make up the difference in retail prices or taxes you pay?  In the last 30 years, the rich have gained more money, more riches, more access, more clout, more power while you have gained very little, not only in access and clout, but in wages: just about an additional $300 (adjusted for inflation) over that same span.

But, you did gain some other things caused by those same powerful owners of government: higher (total) taxes; higher prices but less buying power; more inadequate schools; loss of housing; higher interest rates on credit cards; restricted loans from banks;  fewer consumer protections through regulation and legislation; health care insurance premiums up and benefits restricted; health care adequacy down; prestigious private schools for them, diminished public education for you.  You can fill in many of the blanks yourself because you know exactly what has been taken from you.

How long will it take before you realize that our wonderful unique representative democracy has been stolen out from under us by an Oligarchy that rules our lives in much the same manner as the dictators and oligarchs of certain Middle Eastern countries?  The Tea Party missed it entirely, targeting government as the culprit and supporting more robbery (of them and us) by the Oligarchs and Plutocrats.

How long will it take before you realize that nothing short of a revolution will reclaim what has been lost? 
A revolution that requires peaceful demonstrations, constitutional amendments, electoral reform, and term limits;
A revolution that denies the oligarchs the loopholes, breaks and privileges that they now enjoy;
A revolution that requires of the rich (and the rest of us) the responsibilities of liberty and of power: to help the poor, the disabled, the disenfranchised, the prisoner, the elderly, etc. etc.
A revolution that opens up the records and transactions of government - and those of the contributors to legislators - for all to see;
A revolution that does not involve us in preemptive warfare or any more unjust military excursions into other countries, all of which rob us of young lives, money, and prestige as well as our sacred honor, no matter how upright, decent, and dedicated our brave military men and women may be.

How long will it take?

WHAT DO PROGRESSIVES WANT?

If former Senator Russ Feingold’s latest effort -- ProgressivesUnited.org -- is any indication, the initial mission is quite focused, as indicated by the following Mission Statement:

“In January of 2010, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision greatly expanded the corrupting influence of corporate special interests. It's time we fought back. Launched one year after that decision, Progressives United will:
--Empower Americans to stand up against the exploding corporate influence in Washington, especially since the Citizens United decision.
--Hold our representatives accountable to every constituent, regardless of economic class or insider access.
--Support national, state, and local candidates who stand up for our progressive ideals.

Progressives United aims to build a massive grassroots effort dedicated to mitigating the effects of, and eventually overturning, the Citizens United decision. It is an organization that works to provide means for individuals to stand up to the big money special interests ruling Washington. We will work to ensure that elected officials are held accountable to their constituents and are not beholden to corporate interests. Additionally we will work to elect leaders at all levels of government who will stand up for progressive ideals.
We will also closely monitor all elected officials, calling them out when they are acting against what is best for their constituents in order to benefit a special interest. And we will ensure that campaign finance is a prominent issue in the 2012 campaign; we want all candidates to take a strong public stand on campaign finance reform.
Progressives United is dedicated to opposing corporate dominance over our elections. We will work every day to ensure Abraham Lincoln’s words that we are ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ remain true.”

Right now, there is a website connected to Progressives United that is asking people to help build an agenda for this new endeavor.  Strangely enough, there are many items suggested there that this Blog has advocated in past publications, and  there are others worth mentioning, as well.  The following list is a summary of what I regard as the most plausible and interesting of these proposed Progressive agenda items.

1)   Overturn Citizens United decision. 
--a constitutional amendment 
--outlaw corporate spending on election process 
--pass the DISCLOSE ACT requiring  corporations to reveal their contributions

2)    Campaign Finance and electoral reform. 
--limit amount that can be spent on all elections 
--public funding of all elections 
--abolish PACs 
--abolish the Electoral College

3)    Restrict Lobbying. 
--prevent all lobbyists from interacting with members of Congress (unrealistic) 
--prevent monetary inducements for members of Congress
   
Comment: I find little of substance in these proposals.  I have called for constitutional amendments that would:
    --prevent members of Congress from receiving any compensation, privilege, emolument, gift or any other form of contribution from any entity that could benefit by particular legislation or committee process.
    --I believe this needs expansion into preventing any influence on the writing of regulations
    --restrict the revolving door of legislators becoming lobbyists or legislative consultants for a period of five years after leaving elective office; and this needs to be expanded to cover civil servants and appointees, as well as judges.

4)    The rich -- individuals and corporations -- must be made to pay their fair share. 
--the richest 2% must pay their fair share 
--rescind the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 
--remove the FICA tax cap 
--establish a Minimum Tax for corporations at about 20-25% (my recommendation) 
--close corporate loopholes and tax shelters

5)    Turn the attack on the middle class into an assault on the power of the rich. 
--pass the Employee Free Choice Act 
--recall Wisconsin Republican Senators 
--reform Wall St. and investment banking by stricter regulation 
--put bankers, investors, mortgage CEOs, etc. on trial for criminal offenses 
--eliminate Big Oil subsidies 
--no more tax breaks for companies who outsource 
--restrict subsidies and low-interest loans to large agricultural conglomerates 
--raise awareness of corporations that avoid paying taxes or receive large tax breaks 
--expose the activity of the Koch brothers to put a ‘face’ on corporate corruption 
--use media to fight back against right-wing lies and distortions 
--boycott products of corporate supporters of right-wing agenda

6)    Fight for single-payer universal health-care for everyone. 
--stop corporate efforts to block real health care reform

7)    End foreign wars and bring our troops home. 
--stop sending money and arms to dictators and thieves 
--cut defense spending

8)    Make education reform a priority. 
--divert defense spending cuts to education

9)    Use media to promote Progressive agenda and to promote fair and factual information. 
--reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to stop corporate propaganda 
--use media, social media and DVDs to influence young people for the future 
--protect the internet from government intervention 
--break up corporate mass media ownership 
--strengthen the hand of the FCC 
--develop a website and our own media sources 
--promote media sources that promote in-depth reporting and analysis 
--enact a ‘Truth in Broadcasting’ law like that in Canada

10)    Progressive groups need to unite
   

This is a Ten Point Program that most progressives (at least on this particular website) seem to endorse.  What’s holding us back from working together and forming a Progressive Coalition?  If you want to help, please go to the website below (by copying or typing it into your browser) and add your own agenda item(s), or vote for those already listed (and don’t forget to check out ProgressivesUnited.org).

http://agenda.progressivesunited.org

A MORAL CRISIS, PERHAPS?

The United States is facing a crisis in social values!  Some may think that such a crisis has to do with being too lax in regard to abortion, homosexuality, and crime.  Others may think it means that we are not giving greater support to the 2nd Amendment, to cutting national and state budgets, and limiting spending on social programs.  Even more may think it simply concerns loyalty to God, family and country.  But, none of these constitute the values crisis of which I speak.

What it does have to do with is a more than obvious deviation from the Judeo-Christian tradition of the enormous value given to caring for the poor, the downtrodden, the widow and the orphan, the stranger and the prisoner, the afflicted and the needy.  Churches and synagogues have moved farther and farther away from their own heritage -- and from Biblical principles -- in these areas.  Moreover, our national governmental entities, that were purportedly built on Judeo-Christian laws and principles, have essentially been moved to support a wholly different theology or ethic: one of prosperity for the few, backed up by a system that now actually discriminates against the poor, the afflicted and the needy.  Instead of a system of equal justice and non-discrimination, we now have a system that supports the perpetuation of rules and laws that take from the poor to enhance the standing of the rich.  Instead of righteousness “flowing down like living waters” we are dealing with a “trickle-down” theory of benefits to the middle class and the poor and the downtrodden. 

As more proof of the moral bankruptcy of the radical right, we now have in Congress a bill known as HR 1, in which are found some budget cuts that will have a devastating effect upon those who need help the most.  A recent letter received regarding this spells out some of the devastation:  “when Congress can seriously debate forcing veterans into homelessness and cutting food aid to pregnant women and children, while giving tax breaks to billionaires, something is very, very wrong.” 

To go a bit further, a recent column by Mark Bittman in the NY Times points out the following:  “I stopped eating on Monday and joined around 4,000 other people in a fast to call attention to Congressional budget proposals that would make huge cuts in programs for the poor and hungry.  Who are — once again — under attack, this time in the House budget bill, H.R. 1. The budget proposes cuts in the WIC program (which supports women, infants and children), in international food and health aid (18 million people would be immediately cut off from a much-needed food stream, and 4 million would lose access to malaria medicine) and in programs that aid farmers in underdeveloped countries. Food stamps are also being attacked, in the twisted “Welfare Reform 2011” bill. (There are other egregious maneuvers in H.R. 1, but I’m sticking to those related to food.)  These supposedly deficit-reducing cuts — they’d barely make a dent — will quite literally cause more people to starve to death, go to bed hungry or live more miserably than are doing so now.”

Too many Americans now hold fast to attitudes that show disdain or fear in regard to the less fortunate, as did that well-dressed Tea Party demonstrator who yelled and screamed near-obscenities at a counter demonstrator who was obviously less fortunate than he and who was, in fact, disabled (perhaps you saw the incident on your TV evening news last summer!).  They fear the poor as different and dangerous, regarding them generally as dirty and apt to act in a criminal manner.  Even more vividly, such Americans view the poor, the immigrant, the unfortunate, the handicapped as indecent, filthy, impure, gross, lewd, coarse, disgusting, bawdy and offensive!  Not all Americans feel this way, mind you, but enough of them to warrant the judgment that too many now buy into this set of adjectives.

Moreover, a suspicion prevails that the less fortunate are simply lazy or inferior and that their condition is their own fault.  Thus, the principle is now expounded in many quarters that the poor should be able to pull themselves up “by their own bootstraps.”   Unfortunately, these same expounders keep finding ways to put obstacles in the path of the less fortunate so that they have a Herculean task if they try to pull themselves up to another level.  Let us count the ways: removal of funding from community action groups; removal of access to free legal aid;  school-aid formulas that send disproportionate amounts of aid to suburban districts while inner-city districts deteriorate; destruction of bargaining rights for the working poor who join unions; cut-backs for inner-city health clinics; the limiting of health-care access to those who can afford it; the encouragement of  large grocery chains to avoid building within ghettos, keeping food prices there higher than average; punishment of  the homeless as vagrants; attacking of Medicare and Medicaid as well as healthcare reform; privatizing of social security or getting rid of it altogether.  Need we go on? 

We have come to a point where the rich and powerful have decided that government, and corporations, should promote, not the welfare of the people, but the avaricious attitudes and acquisitiveness of themselves, and their cohorts.  They believe the outright acclamation that “greed is good.”  They hire lobbyists to do all they can to get legislation passed that favors their class, their position, their companies, their way-of-life.  Their large companies, making billions each year from a captive consumer population, give back as little as possible to their government or their society, many paying less than 5% in taxes, and giving less than 1% to charities.  Even their churches - and they do love their churches - fail, to a large degree, to support anything other than their own congregations, structures and activities.  The Biblical mandate to support the poor and less fortunate falls on deaf ears and hardened hearts.

The Bible contains more than 300 verses regarding the poor and social justice, as well as  God’s compassion and deep concern for both of these.  It is more than simple compassion that God exhibits, however, for in many of those verses, He is depicted as being on the side of, and walking in the shoes of, the poor and the weak.  This flies in the face of the tepid response of most churches and synagogues to the call for support of the poor.  It challenges our growing belief, stoked by the rich and powerful, that the poor should lift themselves up, or that the government should stay out of social programs and let “faith-based” communities take care of the needs of those less fortunate.  With the growing crisis in all areas of poverty and need, those solutions are bound to bring about an enormous calamity!

One more important attitude or principle must be addressed: the attitude that “rugged individualism” should be the norm for our society.  Again, such a principle flies in the face of the biblical attitude that we are responsible for the well-being of each other.  It flies in the face of the principle that the people of God are a united entity, and that our outcomes and our destiny and our salvation are not tied just to individual belief and action but to the quantity and quality of a society’s response as a whole.  The society that the bible envisions is an interdependent one, with a mutual responsibility placed upon all of us to care for each other.  The “contract theory of government” from John Locke, that motivated many of the Founding Fathers, is clearly built upon these principles.  The Declaration of Independence enshrined such principles in our nation’s fabric by asserting that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is incontrovertible that Government, deriving its powers from the consent of the governed, is seen here as the instrument by which people in a society might achieve their God-given, natural rights.  Today, we hear far too often that government should not secure the rights of all the people to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, but rather that government should be limited in its scope and that poor people should be on their own in their quest for a better life.  We do hear constantly a drumbeat that focuses on special privileges for the rich and powerful, and that secures those privileges through the moneyed system of unlimited campaign ads by third parties, through well-paid lobbyists working to influence legislation and regulations in favor of large corporations, through special junkets, parties and campaign contributions for officials to spur their vote in the right direction, and through a revolving door of public office to private sector positions that enhances the ability of the rich and powerful to get what they desire, but not what is good for society as a whole.

Against all of this stands the message of a Book that has, in the past, inspired the foundations of our democracy and many of the progressive movements that have expanded civil and economic rights for the American people as a whole.  Lately, the overwhelming message of that Book seems to have been lost in a 30-year onslaught against the very fabric of our Democracy.  Radical right-wing conservatives, under the guise of religiosity and “values” issues, have despised and denuded the vehicle by which people might achieve rights and support, and some protection against the forces of oppression and injustice, of hate, of discrimination, of taxation without representation, of the diverting of wealth from poor to rich, and the granting of special privileges to a chosen few.  As a result, we now have a Plutocracy (governance by the wealthy) that is also an Oligarchy (a privileged few dictating to the vast majority).

We are in a crisis of governance, and as in all such crises, it is a good idea to return to our roots and to ask:  what can we learn from one of the primary foundations of the Judeo-Christian tradition that can inform the further progression of our rights and liberties?   More next time….