COMMUNITY ORGANIZING: WHAT ARE CONSERVATIVES AFRAID OF?

Newt Gingrich accused President Obama of being an advocate of Saul Alinsky’s community organizing principles, and therefore, that Obama’s principles and policies are somehow foreign to American ideology and practice.  Is that true?  I don’t think so, and I will attempt to show how Alinsky’s basic principles are deeply rooted in this country’s ideals, and that those principles are, at heart, solidly constitutional.

Alinsky's own words, from his 1946 "Reveille for Radicals", capture his early perspective, his motivation, and his style of engagement:
”A People’s Organization is a conflict group, [and] this must be openly and fully recognized. Its sole reason in coming into being is to wage war against all evils which cause suffering and unhappiness. A People’s Organization is the banding together of large numbers of men and women to fight for those rights which insure a decent way of life. . . .
”A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. It is a war against poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair, and unhappiness. They are basically the same issues for which nations have gone to war in almost every generation. . . . War is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play. . . .
“A People’s Organization lives in a world of hard reality. It lives in the midst of smashing forces, dashing struggles, sweeping cross-currents, ripping passions, conflict, confusion, seeming chaos, the hot and the cold, the squalor and the drama, which people prosaically refer to as life and students describe as 'society'.”

So let us be clear.  Alinsky looks at community organizing as the way to approach the forces, the exigencies, the conditions - poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair and unhappiness -  that force people into ghettos of the body, mind and spirit.  His language scares the supporters of the status quo because they know that  the vehicles and support mechanisms for these forces and conditions include the very institutions and structures of which they are an integral part.  They are scared, and repulsed by talk of “conflict”, “war”,  “smashing”, “ripping passions”, etc.  

And there is the crux of the problem:  disadvantaged people, who organize to confront the forces that intend to keep them in their “place”, threaten the establishment with changes that the establishment does not desire, so the establishment reacts with vehemence.  Look around: what happened to community action agencies, to people’s lawyer groups, to the civil rights demonstrators of the 1960s, to government support for programs that aid the poor and disadvantaged; or for that matter, what has happened to affirmative action that grew out of community organizations and their advocacy, or lately to labor unions?  You KNOW what happened.  First with Nixon,  but certainly with the ascent of that conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, the neo-cons, with his administration’s help, launched an all-out war against these so-called liberal, socialist, undemocratic, communist-sympathizing radical ideas and organizations.  Today, there are remnants, but they are a  shadow of their former selves.  And today, there is the Occupy Wall Street movement which is experiencing that same ire and degradation that was unleashed upon the community action groups of an earlier time.  (Strange, isn’t it, that the conservative brand of “warfare” draws no ire?)

Gingrich is trying to do to President Obama what conservative Republicans did to community organizing: smear and destroy.  Remember what was done to ACORN?

But let‘s take another look.  In Alinsky’s Prologue to his later book, Rules for Radicals, first published in 1971, we find him trying to speak to the young protagonists of the ‘60s, and to future organizers, and there is a somewhat different tone.  He says he is writing “in desperation, partly because it is what they do and will do that will give meaning to what I and the radicals of my generation have done with our lives.”

He says things like:
--”What the present generation wants is what all generations have always wanted -- a meaning, a sense of what the world and life are--a chance to strive for some sort of order…. They are searching for an answer…to man’s greatest question, ‘Why am I here?’”
--”Let’s keep some perspective.  We will start with the system…. It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceded by reformation.”
--”A reformation means that masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values.  They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless.  They won’t act for change but they won’t strongly oppose those who do.”
--”Radicals should keep in mind Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to a reform delegation, ‘Okay, you’ve convinced me.  Now go on out and bring pressure on me!’”
--”People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others.  The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all of the people. The separation of the people from the routine daily functions of citizenship is heartbreak in a democracy.”
--”My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it…for a more equitable distribution of the means of life for all people….”

Is community organizing any different, fundamentally, from that “spirit of ‘76” that organized farmers, and traders and shop-keepers and other citizens to contend against an oppressive force in order to win “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?”  Not really, except in method.  The principles are deeply rooted in the American Way.

1.  Give people a voice in their own destiny (free speech and free association)
2.  Organize people to modify their own circumstances (take personal responsibility) 
3.  Utilize organizational power to bring about constructive change (continental congress; the minute men; Sons of Liberty)
4.  Make society more democratic and more equitable (Bill of Rights, franchise expansion, equal opportunity)
5.  Organize groups (like church groups) at the local level to solve community (and individual) problems (transportation; housing; jobs; renter rights, etc.)
6.  Neighbor helping neighbor (barn-raisings; Habitat for Humanity)
7.  Organize demonstrations to push those with power and authority to do the right thing (right of the people to peaceably assemble)
8.  Petition the Government for redress of grievances (first amendment).

In my opinion, those who vociferously oppose community organizing principles expounded by Alinsky and others, are the very ones of whom we have to be fearful.  They are, at their core, opposed to the principles of our founding, and to constitutional rights and principles that are fundamental to our representative democracy.  They are the ones who tear at our democratic fiber when they try to prevent people from using the rights and powers granted to them in the Constitution, and the principles of revolution enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. 

Never forget that constitutional Amendments IX and X support the idea that the people have a unique position in the body politic.  First of all, the enumeration of rights in the Constitution “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  That statement in the Constitution is too often overlooked or kept in check by those who try to have all power and authority reside in their particular views, or their group, or their community.  The word “disparage” here is apropos when looking at those who, like Newt Gingrich, try to “discredit” or “show disrespect for” or “belittle” the principles of community organizing and action.  In so doing, they border on undermining the right of any group of people to organize against, to make demands to, to oppose, to petition those who hold power or authority in governmental institutions.  At the very least, they are demonstrating opposition to the unique rights of the people granted by our Constitution.  

Secondly, Amendment X grants even more power to the people than can be tolerated by those who oppose community action.  “The powers not delegated to the United States… nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  As much as conservatives would like to deny such power to the people, while strongly supporting power to the elite, the Constitution stands in their way.  Again, a unique status is granted to the people in Amendment X, and the power that all those one per-centers want to deny to the poor, or the middle class, or senior citizens, or persons with disabilities, is a power that cannot be denied without denigrating Article X.

It’s the methods - not necessarily the aims -- of community action that most agitate the defenders of the status quo.  I believe the problem here is the concept of “power”, and its utilization.  Those who have power or who are in power are threatened by the rhetoric of community organizing that suggests that seizing power is the key to accomplishing their aims.  But the concept of power as coercion or violence is not what is being presented in Alinsky’s narrative.  “Power gained and exerted in community organizing is…not the coercion applied by legal, illegal, physical, or economic means, such as those applied by banks, syndicates, corporations, governments, or other institutions. Rather, organizing makes use of the voluntary efforts of a community's members acting jointly to achieve an economic or other benefit.”  The development of durable "power" and influence is a key aim of community organizing, in order that people power may confront the “powers-that-be.”

Alinsky is very positive about power indicating that it is the essence, the “dynamo” of life.  Power is “active citizen participation, pulsing upward, providing a unified strength for a common purpose; an essential life force always in operation…changing the world.”  He quotes Hamilton in The Federalist Papers who said, “What is a power, but the ability or faculty of doing a thing?  What is the ability to do a thing, but the power of employing the means necessary to its execution.”  He says that the only choice is between unorganized and organized power, and he indicates that every “organization known to man…has had one reason for being -- that is, organization for power in order to put into practice or promote its common purpose.”  Lobbying done by major multinational corporations is a form of such organized power.

While community organizing groups often engage in protest actions designed to force those in power to respond to their demands, protest is only one aspect of the activity of organizing groups. To the extent that a group’s actions generate a sense in the larger community that they have "power," they are often able to engage with and influence  powerful institutions through dialogue, backed up by a history of successful protest-based campaigns.  As Alinsky said, "the first rule of power tactics" is that "power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have." 

According to Wikipedia, “Where negotiations fail, these organizations seek to inform others outside of the organization of the issues being addressed and expose or pressure the decision-makers through a variety of means, including picketing, boycotting, sit-ins, petitioning, and electoral politics…. This allows them to draw in and educate participants, build commitment, and establish a reputation for winning.”

Community organizers seek to build groups that are democratic in governance, open and accessible to community members, and concerned with the general health of the community rather than a specific interest group. Organizing seeks to broadly empower community members, with the end goal of distributing power more equally throughout the community.  That is the key, and as a matter of fact, is that which gives rise to that ever-present canard used by conservatives to scare or intimidate those who might want to support community groups in their goals, and that is -- “class warfare” (discussed in last week’s Blog).

For now, let us resolve not to let elitists, like the present cadre of Republicans, define community organizing as wholly negative.  It is one of the most positive and constitutional, as well as fundamentally conservative, views of our republic: the people have the right to speak out, the people have the right to organize, to assemble peaceably, and to petition their government for a redress of their grievances.  The people have rights beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, and these shall not be disparaged or denied.  The people have powers reserved to them alone. 

It is past time to acknowledge that community movements and organizations (like ACORN and Occupy Wall Street) that seek a level playing field, greater voice in the decisions affecting people’s lives, and greater power to influence the power brokers, are not to be belittled and demeaned, but to be respected as true inheritors and progenitors of the revolutionary founding and spirit of this country.  It is time to embrace and encourage those who seek to strengthen a system of governing that embodies the hallowed phrase: government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Class Warfare?

Some say class warfare began when Karl Marx (1818–1883) (often with Richard Engels) published his economic works, and when the communist party became a reality.  Wrong!

Class warfare has been going on for as long as there has been an elite that possesses power through the accumulation of wealth and position.  Whenever the elite recognize that chaos or envy could work against them in the form of a rebellious under-class, they become very possessive and obsessive about their assets.  Some of the elite recognize that they must give back to those who helped to put them where they are, while too many believe that it is incumbent upon them to keep the “others” in their place lest the “others” demand and take back what is needed to fill their own desires.

So before we go any further, let me be clear in my opinion that “class warfare” is not the battle that the poor and the working class -- the proletariat according to Marx -- foment against the powers that be in the elite class.  Class warfare -- or the maintenance of privilege through the utilization of power -- is the instrument of the rich and powerful used to keep “lesser beings” in their place in society, and to maintain a status quo favorable to themselves.

This classic warfare has evolved through the centuries, especially noted in that European country that bequeathed so much of itself to America.  England was a bastion of an aristocracy that took every advantage of its standing and position in relation to the  lesser classes.  Just one example of their rapaciousness was the enclosure of in-common lands so that they could expand ownership of such lands for themselves.  That led to peasant revolts and even some riots by returning soldiers and sailors who found it difficult to make a living.

The class warfare of rich upon the poor and “middling” folk pushed the latter into periodic rebellious actions throughout the long history of humankind.  In fact, downward pressure on the poor by the nobility, and the suppression of their yearnings for greater prosperity, resulted in popular uprisings across Europe as early as the 14th and 15th centuries.  However, to characterize such historic rebellions, revolutions and riots of the poor as “class warfare” is a misnomer; they are simply the reactions of those without power to those  in power who suppressed, repressed, coerced, manipulated, and ridiculed the “others” who the elite claimed fed off of their riches, the largesse of their charity, and the “welfare” of governments and organizations.

When modern-day politicians charge President Obama with class warfare because his administration wishes to allow tax cuts for the rich to expire, or tries to establish improved programs for the poor and broad middle class that require some re-distribution of wealth by taxing the rich their fair share; this is not class warfare.  It is a social contract in action whereby all who can afford to be are taxed fairly, and all who cannot contribute monetarily are helped, aided, lifted up, provided with supplements they might not otherwise have.

The social contract is a fundamental agreement that says that to lift up all in a society is the wise and prudent thing to do because it strengthens the whole society and provides for that society to utilize the  talent, wisdom, innovation and entrepreneurship of all, not just of a privileged class.  How does this differ from Communism or socialism?  It differs fundamentally in that the state is not the controller of all life and work, nor are workers at war with the rich.  The State -- democratic government in our case -- is seen rather as the primary means by which fair, equitable and just solutions are legislated and arbitrated so that all may prosper, all may achieve, all may give back, all may rise to a level to which they aspire.

So, I would argue that every “battle” fought by the lower or “middling” classes to counter the oppression of a ruling class, is not class warfare, but simply an attempt to stop oppression or repression; to gain greater rights; to awaken both rich and poor to injustice; or, to gain a foothold on another rung of the ladder toward freedom, prosperity, and even ownership.  Rarely do the poorer classes initiate a rebellion or riot out of thin air.  It always has a context and that context is the overt and covert attempts of the oligarchs, the plutocrats, the aristocrats, the barons of industry, the rich and powerful, to be taxed less, to gain special privileges at someone else’s expense, to be free from regulation or restrictions on their enterprises, to protect their property and assets by any means, to gain more wealth by quasi-legal and even illegal means, to gain more power by controlling the mechanisms of government and free enterprise.

Right now the cry of the “shills” for the rich -- mostly conservative Republican politicians -- is that all social programs that aid the poor (food stamps being the latest straw man) and entitlements (social security, Medicare and Medicaid) are socialistic attempts to control where the wealth goes in this country.  Even Universal health care (known by the derisive term, “ObamaCare”), controlled by for-profit private companies, is decried as socialism, as government controlled, as re-distribution of wealth.  It’s all a smokescreen for the age-old complaint of the rich and powerful that “their money” is being unfairly given to the lower classes which contain unproductive and irresponsible people.  They are doing everything they can to protect their assets and property and to deny their riches being bestowed on unworthy people, and their shills in the political world are assisting them in this enterprise, attempting to undo their contractual obligation to the whole of our democratic society.  The following are a few of their machinations:

**They have so taken over the institutions of governing that the ability to do what is best for most people at any point of need is rejected out-of-hand (the Jobs bill; infrastructure improvement; public option in universal health care; extension of the payroll tax cut, protection of the environment, etc.). 
**They are so influential within the court system that the Supreme Court has taken their side (Citizens United decision) allowing corporations to become the voice, not of ordinary people, but of the moneyed interests so that their allies can be elected by the infusion of 3rd party cash and negative advertising. 
**They so control the institutions of government that labor unions are in jeopardy along with their bargaining rights; that school curricula based on facts and science are threatened; that environmental improvements and alternatives to oil are not even considered. 
**Elections are currently being rigged to support their supporters, first, through re-districting and second, by the passage of  laws that restrict the registration of the poor, the elderly, and the disabled, along with minorities. 
**When a consumer protection agency is proposed, and legislated, all kinds of restrictions are imposed upon it (by the very people who decry restrictions and regulations on business enterprises), and its director’s appointment is delayed endlessly until a recess appointment is the only alternative (which, of course, is time-limited and can be overturned).  Recognizing that the original Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights omitted any protection for common people against corporations or capitalist profiteers, modern-day elite intend to keep it that way.
**The tax code is so shot through with their exemptions, incentives, loopholes, special privileges and deductions that some billionaires like Warren Buffet (and multi-millionaires like Mitt Romney) get to pay a lower rate than their secretaries.  At the same time, their cronies in Congress seek to reduce their taxes even further (helping themselves as well, since almost half the members of Congress are millionaires):  lowering the regular tax rate, the corporate tax rate, the capital gains tax, the inheritance tax and who knows what-all. 
**And now, that structure of communication for all people, but especially for the broad middle class, the internet (which has been successfully utilized against dictators to bring down oligarchic regimes, and to fight by petition against unjust actions by banks and others) is under an attack to gain control of its uses.  Bills in the House and Senate (lately put on hold) masquerading under the guise of controlling pirating of intellectual and artistic property, are nothing more than an attempt to gain control over advocacy by the “others” in their quest to gain some justice, equality, and advantage for the 99% of the population whose voices are being drowned out by the 1% in power.  (Does it seem a bit ironic that the Party that insists on free markets and lack of restriction or regulation from government, is using government to control a particular market when it should instead be encouraging the manufacturers affected to find their own ways to stop the pirating?).

In light of all of these examples, is it any wonder that the “Occupy Wall Street” movement has materialized?  This is the same grassroots type of movement that has arisen throughout our history (e.g. the Patriotic Society of Philadelphia, Shay’s Rebellion, the Dorr movement, the labor movement, etc.), and the history of other countries.  Unfortunately, without the wealth of the rich, or the advocacy of lobbyists and lawyers, or the backing of a Super-PAC, or the organization of a political party, this movement is probably headed to the trash-heap of history wherein lie the hopes and dreams of so many movements that could not flourish in the midst of the class warfare being waged against them by the rich and powerful. 

It is a very sad commentary that the poor, the downtrodden and the needy of most societies have failed in their attempts to achieve substantial victory against the class warfare perpetrated by the rich and powerful.  Although the rich have been able to use the power of government to quell most demonstrations of discontent, our American enterprise is one ray of light in an otherwise defeated enterprise.  We have seen victory over an oppressive king; the emancipation of slaves; the legitimization of labor unions and their bargaining rights; the triumph of women’s suffrage; the acquisition of civil rights for African-Americans and other minority groups; the rise of a broad middle class; the vote for 18-year olds; the acquisition of universal health care, old-age insurance, and medical care for the poor and disabled.  

But we now face the annihilation of so many of the gains we have made, all because the rich and powerful - “Greedy Bastards” as Dylan Ratigan calls them --  want to control, and direct the government to their ends and not to the ends that we have long proclaimed as our credo: “liberty and justice for all”; “government of the people, by the people and for the people”; “that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, … life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;” “to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Can we reclaim the social contract that expresses the common welfare of all?  It is an open question.  Part of the answer will occur in the elections of November 2012.  But the other parts of the answer will only come as we try to prevent, by all necessary means -- including an amended Constitution and nation-wide demonstrations -- the complete takeover of our governmental institutions and economic system by a small 1% of our population. 
 
Voting for shills for the rich is the greatest single failing of our electorate.  Putting more control in the hands of radical Republicans will continue to put more money and power in the hands of the 1% of elite power-brokers who are reaping all the rewards, while the middle class keeps struggling to maintain what little they have.  

Don’t continue to be bamboozled by politicians acting as shills for the rich proclaiming “class warfare.”  Class warfare is overwhelmingly initiated by those in control, not by those who are being controlled.    

“FOOD STAMP” PRESIDENT?

Newt Gingrich (he of doubtful ethical standards) has called President Obama the “Food Stamp President”, and alleged that under this President, more people have been put on food stamps than ever before in American history.  The self-styled historian failed to mention that both Democrat and Republican administrations have distributed food stamps or food surplus to the unemployed and the needy.  The food stamp act that created a program much like we now have was passed under Lyndon Johnson, and the program got underway in 1969.  So the great historian failed to clarify that “ever before in American history” is a bit of an exaggeration since the food stamp program has had a relatively short span of just 43 years.

In that same 43-year history, we have never been in a more difficult economic period than we are living through right now.  Thank goodness, President Obama’s administration has seen fit to uplift, rescue and sustain the many people who have had to apply for food stamps in order to keep body and soul together.

Politifact.com says that Newt is only half-right about all this and concludes that the economy, not Obama, is the major reason for the increase. 

“The number of SNAP beneficiaries is at a record level, and it has risen in most months of the Obama presidency. But Gingrich oversimplifies when he suggests that Obama is the root cause. Much of the reason for the increase was a combination of the economic problems Obama inherited combined with a longstanding upward trend from policy changes. But Obama has supported those policies. On balance, we rate Gingrich’s statement Half True.”

Here are a few more things that Gingrich failed to mention:

--Under George W. Bush, the eligibility for SNAP was widened considerably so more families and individuals could be covered; Obama simply followed that trend
--According to Politifact.com, “the number rose in seven out of the eight years of Bush’s presidency -- most of which were years not considered recessionary. All told, the number of recipients rose by a cumulative 63 percent during Bush’s eight-year presidency.”
--More red states utilize food stamps, so apparently a large number of Republican Governors don’t act on the ideology that such “welfare” should be discontinued. “So far, few elected officials have objected to the program’s growth,” says NYTimes.com

What Newt fails to acknowledge, above all, is that the downturn of the economy under George W. Bush is what brought us to the brink of an economic depression (through policies and ideology that Newt supports).  The failures of the Bush years -- lack of regulation of wall street and large corporations; the tax breaks given to the rich without corresponding funding; the failure to understand that banks were over-leveraged; the housing bubble - created by unregulated lending practices - that burst and created millions of foreclosures; the unnecessary war of personal revenge in Iraq that cost us not only young lives but young limbs and young psyches; the attack upon the middle class and workers as more and more jobs and industries moved abroad without a whimper of protest from the Bush administration; the massive layoffs and the failure to create jobs; the lack of attention to our infrastructure and our environment; the failure to break our addiction to foreign oil -- all of these and more created the situation in which we now find ourselves.  And the preposterous assertion that this economic downturn is Obama’s fault because he had to spend more to work us out of it, is perhaps the biggest bamboozle of them all.

Yes, President Obama has strongly utilized the SNAP program to provide qualifying, low-income Americans with vouchers to buy groceries--and more power to him!  Again, according to PolitiFact.com:  “Obviously, the rise in food stamps is a direct consequence of the serious recession that began in December 2007 -- more than a year before Obama took office.  The experts we spoke to, conservative and liberal, agree that Obama inherited a serious economic situation.”

Gingrich makes it sound as though all recipients of food stamps are “on the take” and cheating the federal government.  In contrast, the most recent Department of Agriculture report on the general characteristics of the SNAP program's beneficiaries paints an entirely different picture of recipients.  In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010:

•47% of beneficiaries were children under age 18.
•8% were age 60 or older.
•41% lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called "working poor." 
•The average household received a monthly benefit of  just $287.
•36% were White (non-Hispanic), 22% were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10% were Hispanic.

In the first three years of the Obama administration, the food stamp program has been used to address certain needs and concerns that have arisen because of the deep recession, as we learn from a comprehensive article on the NYTimes.com website:
 
--Obama's stimulus act made it easier for childless, jobless adults to qualify for the program and increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013
--Food stamps have become a lifeline for the millions of long-term unemployed. More than 20% of those unemployed for more than six months received benefits, according to Congress' Joint Economic Committee
--The range of people struggling with basic needs includes single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave their pantries bare.
--Growth has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust. There are about 50 small counties and a dozen sizable ones where the rolls have doubled in the last two years. In another 205 counties, they have risen by at least two-thirds. These places with soaring rolls include populous Riverside County, Calif., most of greater Phoenix and Las Vegas, a ring of affluent Atlanta suburbs, and a 150-mile stretch of southwest Florida from Bradenton to the Everglades.
--The program’s growing reach can be seen in a corner of southwestern Ohio where red state politics reign and blue-collar workers have often called food stamps a sign of laziness. But unemployment has soared, and food stamp use in a six-county area outside Cincinnati has risen more than 50 percent.
--In Indiana, Elkhart County makes the majority of the nation’s recreational vehicles. Sales have fallen more than half during the recession, and nearly 30 percent of the county’s children are receiving food stamps.
--This is the first recession in which a majority of the poor in metropolitan areas live in the suburbs, giving food stamps new prominence there. Use has grown by half or more in dozens of suburban counties from Boston to Seattle, including such bulwarks of modern conservatism as California’s Orange County, where the rolls are up more than 50 percent.
--Most enlisted military personnel E-5 and below qualify for some kind of government assistance, i.e. food stamps, subsidized daycare.  “Poverty among military families is a greatly under-reported story,” said Barbara Ehrenreich, New York Times columnist… Last year, Ehrenreich reported that according to her sources, some 25,000 families of service members were eligible for Food Stamps.

Stacy Dean of the Centre for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a think-tank, argues that the rapid growth of food stamps in recent years is a sign that they are working as intended, responding promptly to hard economic times. In contrast, she points out, block-grant programs (favored by Gingrich and his colleagues) grow much more slowly when times are tough, since funding for them does not increase in line with demand. Food-stamp participation rose by 45% between December 2007 and December 2009, CBPP calculates, while the number of families receiving cash grants under TANF, a block-grant scheme, rose by just 13%.

Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend to spend them immediately. When Moody’s Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less.

As usual, Newt Gingrich uses half-truths and bloated rhetoric to sound intelligent, but as is so often true, he misses the mark.  In contrast, President Obama has taken action to protect and expand an important program so that millions of people could be helped.  What, after all, is Newt Gingrich (and his clown gang) proposing: that food stamps should be drastically reduced or simply eliminated?  He doesn’t really tell us exactly what he would do as President.  But you can bet your bottom dollar (and a lot of people have reached that precarious level) that he would not protect or expand this program even though millions of hungry people of all ages, races, and conditions in life are depending on it to get through a day, a week or a month. 

Job Creators vs. Lost Creators

I’m concerned this week on two fronts that are most often seen separately, although they are inexorably intertwined by an interdependence and mutual responsibility engendered by the nature of our democratic society. 

One, is the rhetorical keystone used by the radical right-wing Republicans that attempts to equate being rich with being a “job creator.”  It’s so patently misleading as to fall easily into the category of bamboozling.  This isn’t the first time Republicans have used this ruse to mislead the public. 

An article from September 2011 on Salon.com recalls that Republicans have been using it for years (even decades) to push a vision of capitalism in which those who most benefit from the system are most essential to its continued success.  As long ago as 1991, a Republican conservative, who just happens to be running currently for the Republican nomination for President, Newt Gingrich, characterized  Democratic opposition to a cut in the capital gains tax as evidence that liberals “hate job creators; they’re envious of job creators.  They want to punish job creators” and then he added that they “believe in class warfare.”  Sound familiar?

Even more revealing is the debate over the 1993 Clinton budget plan, which aimed to cut the deficit by raising the top income tax rate.  Republicans fought this tooth and nail, but ended up losing on a tie-breaking vote by Vice-President Al Gore in the Senate.  Of course, one of their leaders at the time, Phil Gramm, made it plain that this was very unlikely to promote investment and job creation.  In fact, he invoked pretty much the whole world as believing it could not succeed.  Hindsight lets us see that higher taxes on the “job creators” did not create an obstacle to economic growth.  In fact, what resulted was economic growth for 116 consecutive months, the deficit cut by $290 billion, and a path established toward a balanced budget.  

As the comedian, Jon Stewart, has pointed out, “Republicans are no longer allowed to say that people are rich.  You have to refer to them as ‘job creators’.”  However, it is harder and harder to figure out who the job creators among the rich truly are.  All Americans spend, save, invest money in varying ways and varying degrees.  What distinguishes the rich as job creators from everyone else?  As a group, they have more money but probably don’t create any more jobs than all the other 99% of us. 

The success of capitalism, or “free-enterprise,” is dependent on a complex system of work and exchange that depends on the “assistance and cooperation of many thousands” of people, as Adam Smith once said.  In such a society, no single group can be meaningfully singled out as the “job creators.”  It takes a society of managers, supervisors, workers, and consumers in the stores and broader marketplace, to create jobs and to keep on creating them.  The current rhetoric about “job creators” seems to elevate a group of people whose only outstanding trait is their shared tax bracket.

Finally, it has to be said that the 1% in this country - basically the millionaires and billionaires - are not necessarily employers.  They are essentially investors; they are the moneyed making money off their money.  Those who are CEOs or Executives are not necessarily in total charge of hiring whenever they feel the need to do so.  They may be the heads of corporations, but they are constrained by their investors and their boards, and moreover, by the appeal of their products or services.  Expansion is not necessarily in their hands.  So, the so-called job creators have to answer to others with money who may decide that expansion is not feasible, especially within the United States.

We also hear from Republicans (and many Democrats) that small businesses are the engine of job growth and economic growth in this country.  While there are lots of small businesses, there are not a lot of jobs in businesses with 20 or fewer employees.  Numbers suggest there are about 6 million businesses with paid employees.  Ninety percent of these are small businesses defined as having 20 or fewer employees. (Another definition of small businesses having 500 employees or less is nonsensical).  However, that 90% of firms only makes up 20% of all jobs.  So, this so-called engine of the economy can only be characterized as a very small engine!  Looked at another way, while small businesses may create a lot of jobs, they also destroy a lot of jobs.  If we only count small business successes, then we can say they do a lot of hiring.  But small businesses often fail, and that produces a lot of lost jobs and lost wages.  Finally, what is so often not taken into account is that many of these small businesses are made up of just one person, or a few persons: the barber, the dry cleaner, lawyers, doctors, the hairdresser, etc.  And, these businesses are not innovative or expansive.  They are interested in the day-to-day operation of a small enterprise, delivering a service or product to their customers.  Thus, most small businesses don’t even contemplate being the engines of economic growth or of jobs.

One very important reason why this rhetoric about the rich as “job creators” and small businesses as the engine of growth bothers me is because of something that came to my attention on television news the other night.  The story was about a young high school student who has a chance to participate in a prestigious national science competition because of her research and scientific involvement.  This young woman - Samantha - is also homeless.  She lives in a shelter with her mother, and does not have all the advantages of wealth or position.  The story brought home to me the interconnectedness of our society, and the danger of rhetoric that divides us into groups that must, or must not, have our undivided attention.

Right now, the middle class, those living below a defined poverty level (almost 50% of us), the homeless, the disabled and the aged, and many others, are being stereotyped and addressed as though they are not an essential part of the commonwealth of persons that makes up our whole nation.  They are being seen as dregs, as drains, as groups pulling us down from being a productive economy and government.  They are the groups being targeted as having too much government support, as being responsible for programs that cost too much, as being responsible for moving us toward a “welfare state”, like the socialistic countries of Europe.   Where is the understanding that we live within a contractual society that must support each other - the rich and the poor and those in-between-- because everyone must have a chance to contribute for the good and the advancement of all.  The divisive rhetoric of the radical Right is destructive of a social contract theory of government and society that has been in effect since the founding of our country.

Although someone has now come forward and offered a home to Samantha and her family, we are continuing to damage our democracy when we neglect the potential of all people, no matter to which grouping of society they may belong.   Here is a very brief list of some successful people of this country who either started out in poverty or in unusual circumstances that were far from privileged:

Oprah Winfrey who went from being a young girl clothed in potato sacks (literally) to the richest and most powerful female media mogul in the world;  worth around $2.9 billion in 2009.

J.K. Rowling went from being on the dole to starting a $15 billion industry. The author of the Harry Potter books series was estimated to be worth $843.92 million U.S. dollars as of 2008.

David Geffen is responsible for signing Crosby, Stills and Nash, Bob Dylan and Nirvana, starting Geffen Records and was a founding member of DreamWorks studio.  He grew up poor in Brooklyn, living in a one-bedroom apartment with his family and sleeping on the couch.  At 67, renowned art collector and philanthropist Geffen is worth an estimated $4.6 billion.

Starbucks Chairman and CEO Howard Schultz is the man known for transforming the Seattle coffee chain into a global empire.  Schultz grew up in the Canarsie Projects of Brooklyn where he lived in a cramped two-bedroom unit in an apartment building that housed about 150 families. He recalls how embarrassed he was when he found out that the sleep-away camp he went to as a kid one summer was "a subsidized program for underprivileged kids". 

John Paul Dejoria’s hair care company John Paul Mitchell Systems began as a $700 startup from loans.  He started his first job at the age of nine when Dejoria, his mom, and his brother would wake up at 4 a.m. everyday to fold and deliver newspapers.  When his mom could not support him anymore, he was sent to a foster home. He was homeless twice before making his fortune, working jobs from being a janitor to driving a tow truck.

The Xerox CEO,  Ursula M. Burns, grew up on New York City's Lower East Side "when it was really bad, when the gangs were there and the drug addicts were there," she told the NY Times.  Her mother ran an at-home daycare center taking care of other children and also ironed shirts for people in order to allow her daughter to afford to go to Catholic school. Burns is the first African-American woman to oversee a Fortune 500 company.

My point?  
We are not only on the wrong track with this divisive rhetoric.  By buying into this rhetoric, and by defending a government structure that fails to deliver on freedom and justice and support for all the citizens of this wonderful country, we are heading for destruction of our social contract, and thus of our democracy, our economy, our principles, and of our way of life. .  Let us pay attention to all our job creators, and to all the creators who may be lost to us if we fail to recognize the potential of people at all levels of our society.   It is long past time to expand our vision of what we can do and what we should do and what we need to do to support, involve, and nurture our citizenry.  A narrow vision of that task - centered on the 1% of the richest among us - does not bode well for our future.

Real Reform of Washington

Congressman Richard Hanna (R-NY 24th) has again sent his constituents a colorful (and expensive) flyer that makes claims far beyond reality.  Entitled, “Reforming Washington to Work for You”,  this piece of propaganda makes the absurd claim that Mr. Hanna has been “focused on reforming government to make it more responsive and responsible.”

To back up this claim, he points to several pieces of legislation that he has either sponsored, co-sponsored, or voted to support:
--sponsored legislation that would put a “time-out” on rules and regulations
--voted to support a “balanced budget amendment”
-- voted to cut Congress’ budget by 5%
--offered an amendment that would ban Members of Congress from leasing luxury vehicles
--introduced a bipartisan “AGREE Act” which combines the best jobs ideas from Republicans and Democrats
--cosponsored the Congressional Budget Accountability Act that requires leftover dollars in congressional budgets be used for deficit reduction

Mr. Hanna desperately wants us to believe that these measures constitute reform of Washington.  They do not.  They simply nibble around the edges of what is being passed-off as reform by a regressive Republican majority in the House and a recalcitrant minority in the Senate.  Putting a time-out on regulation and rule-making, for instance, does nothing more than leave the playing field wide-open for those business entities that want to earn profits in an unfettered environment, and end up cheating consumers like you and me.  Look at what big banks are trying to do with outrageous new fees; or what Verizon wanted to do by charging you a fee to pay your bill by phone or online.  Anyone remember the Netflix debacle?

A balanced budget amendment is not reform.  It is a power-grab meant to limit the Executive’s ability to propose federal solutions to national problems and a way to put a cap on spending, especially for government programs that assist the poor and workers and the middle class.  It limits the power of the Presidency without a corresponding check on Congress.  If we need a Balanced Budget Amendment to limit the spending that the  President can propose, then we also must have a Line Item Veto Amendment to give the President some control over the penchant of Congress to pass unneeded spending within large essential appropriation bills.  It also limits the federal government from taking necessary measures to address an ugly recession or an emergency situation.  Moreover, it serves as a crutch for the Congress to lean on.  Instead of making difficult decisions like raising more revenue through a fair tax system, and cutting out all the loopholes in that system, they would get to hide from that particular responsibility. 

Real reform is what President Obama is trying to bring about with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (C.F.P.B.) that will regulate mortgage brokers, lenders and servicers, as well as payday lenders, credit card companies, private student loan providers, and all banks with assets over $10 billion.  This is a rulemaking and enforcement authority that has been consolidated out of 12 different federal agencies and placed in a semi-independent bureau that targets the very groups that happen to be large donor patrons for the Republican Party.  Congressional Republicans (including Rep. Hanna) tried to undercut the bureau at every opportunity.  Let me count the ways:

--trashed Elizabeth Warren in hearings when they thought she would end up being nominated as head of the agency.
--tried to replace the C.F.P.B.’s single director with a five-member bipartisan commission
--attempted to lower the number of votes required for the newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council to overturn any CFPB rule.
--proposed legislation to prevent the Bureau from functioning without a Senate-confirmed director in place; and then proceeded to hold up, oppose, and delay the approval of Obama’s appointee (until the President made a recess appointment)
--in addition, its budget is capped; it is subject to GAO oversight, and is required to report regularly to Congress -- all compromises with Republicans in order to get it passed as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Real reform of Washington will be accomplished when politicians like Mr. Hanna stand up for consumer protection, public financing of elections, ending of all PACs that benefit no one but special interests;  re-districting drawn by non-partisan citizen commissions in every state; restricting amounts that can be spent for primaries or general elections for all offices; setting standards for political advertisements in all media and restricting the length of time allowed for campaigning; enhancing voter registration, not curtailing it with pseudo reforms like picture IDs.

Real reform of Washington will be accomplished when representatives and senators vote to amend our constitution in a thoughtful and balanced way:  by establishing term limits for congressional and judicial office-holders; outlawing any and all gifts or contributions (broadly defined) to office-seekers or office-holders;  severely limiting the ability of office-holders, and their family and staff members, from any involvement with consulting or lobbying firms while they hold, and after they leave, office; not only calling for a balanced budget but for a line-item veto; and, ending any ability to establish earmarks and tax loopholes that benefit a limited constituency.

Finally, real reform of Congress will involve the transparency of the budget of every congressional office; reduction in the number of committees and sub-committees (they all cost money); the demolition of all political offices within the leadership of the House and Senate;  the elimination of irrelevant or special privilege offices like chaplains or in-house medical clinicians; the elimination of all special privileges not available to most ordinary citizens (like leased limousines and special drivers; and corporate jet transport by big business interests); no more exemptions or exceptions for members of the legislative branch -- all laws passed must apply equally to them as to ordinary citizens; legal restrictions on the use of insider information to feather their own nests in the stock market, land development or 3rd party aggrandizement.

Although this is just a starting point, it is a much more substantive plan than that presented by Mr. Hanna, or by most of our representatives who fear real governmental reform and the threat it augurs for their positions, their power, and their crony capitalism.  Nibbling at the edges like Mr. Hanna wants to do will not solve our issues with a dysfunctional Congress, nor will it change the way Washington functions.  Real reform must aim at the very core of our governmental processes.  I challenge Mr. Hanna, and his colleagues, to make such in-depth reform of  our federal government a top priority and the imperative for our times.

Throw Them All Out

We have been given information lately by the media that insider trading and crony capitalism are among the influences corrupting our political process and the governing of our nation.  Recent reports on 60 Minutes (CBS) and MSNBC make it quite clear that members of Congress are “on the take”, so to speak, but seem to be getting away with it, perhaps because Congress itself determines what is legal and what may be termed illegal. 

Recently, I finished reading a book that tackles this topic.  Peter Schweizer in Throw Them All Out makes it plain that, from President to Congress to the Judiciary, all are guilty of playing fast and loose with the ethics of the situation, let alone with laws that may inform the issue, however slightly.  My purpose this week is to impart some of the main points of the book, by way of encouraging you to read it and to consider again, as we enter the New Year of 2012, that  reform is imperative in our times.

It is instructive to look at the sub-title of the book: “How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals and Cronyism that would send the rest of us to Prison.”  Schweizer presents us with the legal restrictions imposed upon most sectors of our capitalistic system for dealing with these particular actions:

1)     Insider trading laws are on the books.  If a board member or employee within a large corporation dumped all his shares right before an announcement of bad news and a plunge in the company’s stock price, it would at least warrant a look by the SEC. (Remember the prison term served by Martha Stewart for insider trading?).  But when a Congressman does the same thing, he or she gets a free pass.
2)    Conflict-of-interest statutes exist.  Often legislators receive big financial favors from specific companies, and then through legislation they sponsor or push, they work to help those firms instead of recusing themselves from the legislative process.  No problem, because conflict-of-interest statutes don’t apply to them.  An executive persuading a large corporation to spend money on an initiative that he would personally profit from, would raise substantial legal questions.
3)    Enriching oneself by mixing real estate investments with taxpayer money would certainly be actionable at the municipal level.  Congressional “ethics” committees have deemed it “ethical” for Congress persons to do so.  A favorite trick in Congress is to earmark a mass transit project that is in close proximity to their (or their family’s or friends‘) real estate holdings to increase the value of those properties.
4)    If a government grant somehow is designated as “serving the public interest”, it can become part of a larger project and escape scrutiny.  The game of funneling taxpayer money to friends or favored 3rd parties, has exploded to astonishing levels in recent years.  Try that in the private sector with corporate money and you could wind up facing criminal charges for misuse of corporate assets.  Interesting then that it becomes legal and even acceptable if it’s taxpayer money.

It doesn’t take long to realize that the Congress, which makes the laws for everyone else’s business transactions, exempts itself from those laws, or refuses to apply common practices, such as recusal, to themselves.

So, let’s take a brief look now at some rather glaring examples of questionable practices by our politicians.

    When six senators on July 27, 2009, announced that they were going to eliminate the “public option” from their version of the health care reform bill, the share prices of three major insurance companies surged by between 8% and 10% the next day.  If one knew ahead of time that this event was happening, that piece of information could turn out to be highly profitable in stock trading.  A former Democratic nominee for President happened to be part of that group, and was serving as a member of the Health Subcommittee of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.  His buying and selling of health care stocks during the health care debate is very interesting.  When the legislation was working its way through the House and Senate, the Kerry's began buying stock in Teva Pharmaceuticals.  In 2010, after the passage of the bill, the Kerry's sold some of their shares in Teva and reaped tens of thousands in capital gains (all reported on his disclosure forms).  He wasn’t the only congressional trader in pharmaceuticals, nor was this the only time that some congressmen and senators had gotten richer by using inside information regarding health care. 

    Congressman John Tanner of Tennessee, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, Congresswoman Melissa Bean of Illinois, Congressman Vern Buchanan of Florida, and even John Boehner of Ohio bought shares in Teva or numerous other pharmaceutical or health insurance companies, and some invested in real estate groups specializing in health-related properties, all while health care legislation was being considered.  Elected in 2009, an already rich freshman Congressman, Jared Polis of Colorado, gained seats on two powerful committees  that were central to the crafting and passage of the health care bill.  While he was praising the benefits of health care overhaul, he was buying up millions of dollars worth of a private company called BridgeHealth International which offers medical tourism: providing less expensive medical procedures in other countries.  Guess what?  Polis bet right -- medical tourism expanded rapidly as many Americans reacted negatively to the new law and sought alternatives in other countries.

    Timing is everything, and some made money by knowing when to dump shares in certain companies while buying others.  It happened in 2003 when a new entitlement for Medicare Prescription Drugs was created and debated.  Read the book for more details.  Let’s take an example of dumping shares when inside information indicates that something drastic is about to happen.  On September 16, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke met with congressional leaders who had been led to think that the financial crisis was just a disruption with limited effect upon the economy.  What they were told at this September 16th meeting made it plain that the general perception was wrong.  Paulson also told lawmakers in this meeting that the federal government was going to bail out the insurance giant AIG and that the markets were in deep trouble.  The very next day, Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia dumped his shares in ninety different companies.  It was his most active trading day of the year.  While Moran did not profit much from these trades, he avoided large losses that the general public would face within a week.  And, Moran was just one of at least ten Senators who traded stocks or mutual funds that very day related to the financial industry.  A month later, the stock market had dropped over 22%.  Preventing a catastrophic loss can be just as important as making a big gain, and having inside information in your possession, like those who attended that closed-door meeting had, puts you in a position to act that is denied to all those who weren’t privileged to be there.

    Schweizer makes an important point for all to consider at this point: “Members of the Congress are privy to all sorts of inside information about pending government actions.  Some of it comes from their actual actions -- that is, passing legislation.  Some of it comes as a result of their position of power.  Legislators are told things by regulators or bureaucrats in private because they ask about them.  (In addition) very frank and detailed conversations often take place behind closed doors.  The most valuable information is revealed in private meetings, phone calls, and correspondence.  If members of Congress buy and trade stock based on that information, or if they pass that information along to a campaign contributor or their own financial advisers, they are not considered to be guilty of any wrongdoing…(because) they write their own rules.”

    However, using inside information for trading in stocks is not the only dirty little secret being kept by members of the Congress.  This Permanent Political Class, as Schweizer terms them, has become quite sophisticated in enriching themselves by mixing real estate investments with taxpayer money, and these are easier to camouflage than are stock transactions.  He tells the story of how a former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was able to increase the value of his land in a rural area to his own enrichment (which we do not have time to re-tell).  Suffice to say that members of Congress have used legislative earmarks to enhance the value of their own real estate holdings in several ways:  by extending a light rail mass transit line to near their property, by expanding an airport, or by cleaning up a nearby shoreline.  Federal funds have been used to build roads, beautify land, and upgrade neighborhoods near commercial and residential real estate owned by legislators, substantially increasing property values and the net worth of these elected officials.

There is just too much of importance in Schweizer’s book to bring to you in one Blog.  I recommend the book to your perusal, as it will clearly open your eyes to the bamboozling of the public in which all too many members of the Congress are actively involved.  May you have a healthy and prosperous New Year.  Many members of Congress expect to use their political position, and insider information, to make sure that their  New Year is very prosperous -- for them!!  Remember, reform is imperative for our times.  Resolve to VOTE ONLY for REFORMERS!

REFORM IS IMPERATIVE

The time has come to make reform the imperative for our times.  We can no longer function as a government without in-depth reform of our mode of operation.  We can no longer function as a capitalist system without fundamental changes to how business is done.  We can no longer function as a representative democracy without changes to our foundational document: the Constitution.  We can no longer function as the world’s leading nation and Super Power without making changes in our attitude toward other nations and without a commitment to peaceful means of solving problems with others.  In short, we cannot continue the status quo; we must move beyond it; we must progress and not regress; we must reform our institutions and our organizations.   And, we must start with the people we elect to political office and other leadership positions.

The time has come when we must demand a reform plan from every candidate running for any office or leadership position.  It is no longer enough to be a Republican or Democrat, a Conservative or Liberal, a Tea Partier or a Progressive.  We must elect Reformers.  Without a commitment to fundamental change, we cannot move forward as a nation.  The problem, of course, is that there is a breakdown of agreement around which we can coalesce.  Nonetheless, we must attempt to put forth the fundamentals of a reform plan so that debate and discussion may begin.  Here are some basics I offer for your consideration.

1)    We must get private sector money out of politics.  Money in politics is not free speech; it is coercive speech.  Money in politics does not promote freedom; it’s purpose is to defeat and restrict. Third parties, like rich individuals and large corporations, have agendas that they want to impose on others, and money is their way to get politicians to do their bidding.  Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC has made this issue his own, and his effort to seek a constitutional amendment to “get money out of politics” is worthy of praise and our commitment.
    A)    reverse Citizens United decision with a constitutional amendment
    B)    get money out of elections by an amendment calling for limited individual contributions to government, along with the use of a small percent of tax dollars to be put in an Elections Account overseen by an independent Board, including ordinary citizens who are not office holders. Allow only public funding from that Account with limits for every office as to what can be spent for a campaign
    C)    outlaw PACs and all 3rd party advertisements, letters and brochures; enact a Truth in Advertising bill for political campaigns
    D)    limit campaigns for office: primaries to be held on the same date countrywide just as general elections are held on a national day of voting.  Campaigning for office must be limited to a certain number of months - say 6 - before primary day and before election day.

2)   We must get coercive money out of the Congress.  We must undo the use of money  to influence legislation and special favors.
    A)    We need a constitutional amendment to forbid congressmen and senators from accepting any gift, emolument, in-kind contribution, monetary contribution, loan, grant, trip, or enticement of any kind while in office.  Anyone offering, or receiving, such gifts shall be fined, jailed or impeached.
    B)    We also need a constitutional amendment to forbid congressional members (executive and judicial branch members and staff as well) and staff or family members from associating in any way with a corporate law firm, consulting firm, lobbying group or party-affiliated think tank or corporate board while in office and until 12 years have passed since they last held federal office.  Did you realize that, according to Peter Schweizer in Throw Them All Out, just two years ago one-third of the United States Senate members had family members who were registered lobbyists or were working for lobbying firms?
    C)  By law, put restrictions on lobbying by all groups: it must be reported, recorded and published whenever any type of contact is made with a member of Congress, member of the White House staff, or a member of the judiciary.  Failure to do so must result in prosecution and disbarment from public office.
    D)  Apply the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to Congress
   
3)    We must disallow any special privileges and exemptions for the Congress.
    A)    All laws passed must apply to Congress as they do to others; no exceptions.
    B)    Congress must learn to live without special privileges, such as taxpayer-subsidized surgery provided by army and navy surgeons and on-site clinics run by navy physicians; junkets, limousines, chaplains, chauffeurs, and private jets provided by 3rd parties can go as well.  
    But, most of all, there is absolutely no reason why Congresspersons should be excluded from standards and laws concerning insider trading, conflict of interest, nepotism and cronyism.  Likewise, whistle-blowers deserve protection from reprisal if they report financial corruption within our governmental bodies.  Here are the initiatives, in brief, that Peter Schweizer in Throw Them All Out suggests:

    1.  Create a legal code that makes trading on nonpublic information illegal both for those who offer it and those who trade on it.
    2.  Members of Congress should disclose all transactions above $5,000 within two days, including price and number of shares, to be placed in an online database.
    3.  Members of Congress should not be allowed to trade stock in companies that are overseen by their committees.
    4.  Apply whistleblower laws to Congress, since there are already such laws that apply to federal workers and corporate employees.
    5.  Disallow “sweetheart” IPOs; members of Congress should not be allowed to participate.
    6.  Review, revise and enforce existing conflict-of-interest laws.  Require abstaining from voting when a conflict may exist, or appear to exist.  Place assets in mutual funds rather than individual stocks.  Extend such laws and requirements to senior White House officials and political appointees.
    7.  Earmarks in which a member of Congress will receive a direct, or indirect, (through a third party) financial benefit should not be allowed.
    8.  Family members of legislators (or of executive branch senior members and members of the judiciary) should not be allowed to become lobbyists or “consultants”.
    9.  Campaign contributions should be forbidden when Congress is in session.
    10. The Federal government needs to get out of the business of offering grants and taxpayer-backed loans to friends of legislators, of appointees or of senior officials.

4)   We must have term limits for all federal and state political offices.  We cannot survive a system of office-holding that prevents our government institutions from renewing themselves.  We cannot survive professional politicians who get rich off inside information and lucrative deals that only they can access.  Elsewhere on this BLOG, I have proposed a three-year term for Congressmen with a limit of 12 years (4 terms) overall, plus the same limit of twelve years for a Senator (2 terms of 6 years each).  It is absolutely ridiculous that we apply a two-term limit to the Presidency without a corresponding application to legislators.  Such a one-sided approach promotes an imbalance in our system.

5)   Blind trusts for public officials must be just that.  No more appointment of family, friends, business associates, colleagues, acolytes or cronies as trustees of blind trusts.  Rules of the Senate must be changed to require detailed annual disclosure of assets in a blind trust (which is not a requirement currently). 

That’s enough for now, even though it is just a beginning and not meant to be definitive.  But let me ask you:  when have you heard any such talk from a political candidate?  How many candidates can even present the elements of a reform plan?  They don’t think that way.  But it’s time they did, and, what’s more, it’s past time that we required such a plan of every one of them! 

Let me end by quoting some thoughts from Schweizer’s book:

“The problem with Washington isn’t gridlock.  It isn’t that things aren’t getting done.  The problem is the corruption of the public spirit.  The Permanent Political Class has no sense of urgency to change because, for them, business is good.”

“We need to break the cycle of crony capitalism, land deals, and insider trading.  And we can do it simply by applying the rules that the politicians expect the rest of us to abide by.”

“The rule of law, and the notion that no one is above the law, is fundamental to a healthy democracy.  If we accept crony capitalism with a shrug and an eye roll, we might as well accept a world of bribery and out-and-out vote buying.  Crony capitalism has a corrosive effect on our politics, our economy, and our character.  And we don’t have to accept it.  Let’s be clear: we need to stop coddling these people.”

“What we face is a system that is compromised by the perception that U.S. public policy is a marketable commodity.  It’s time to fix it.  Let’s relegate the Government Rich to the ashbin of history.”

Reform is the imperative for our times.  Are YOU ready and willing to demand a reform plan from every candidate for office, at all levels?

A Flight of Fantasy

I invite you to go with me on a flight of Fantasy.  It seems to me that such a flight should be unnecessary, but it is a necessity if we are to see where we ought to be!

What If:

-- Congress were to become a smaller, more compact group of men & women dedicated to probing and reforming our system of making laws;

-- Congress could be an organization dedicated to resolving the national problems of consequence that have major effects on our lives and that relate only to its constitutionally-invested powers under the Constitution;

-- Congress were to approach law-making as a problem-solving endeavor and hired as many staffers for their problem-solving skills as they now hire for constituent services and political advice and advantage;

-- Congress held hearings to gather information and data on actual problems people face rather than using hearings to advance a political agenda;

-- Congress used polling techniques to gather information and data on actual problems rather than on where they stand politically;

-- Congress surveyed their constituents for real opinions on national problems rather than sending out faux surveys that offer only certain “politically correct” options for them to choose;

--  Congressmen and Senators actually went out among their ordinary constituents and gathered information from them directly; or sat down with groups of ordinary working persons to solicit their views and their concerns;

--Congress revamped its own rules to enable it to move legislation in a planned, efficient and effective process toward a vote up or down on every bill;

-- Congress over-turned all rules that are aimed at restricting, delaying or preventing actual debate and consideration of pieces of legislation: no more filibuster; no more voice votes or roll calls (electronic voting is all that is needed in this modern age); no more amendments unrelated to the bill under consideration; no more “earmarks”; no more “tabling” of  controversial bills; no more delay of consideration; no more scheduling of legislation by political leaders:  all legislation to be scheduled for consideration within a fixed time from when it emerges from Committee or when it is co-sponsored by 25% of the members of either House;

-- Congress had no more political positions in the leadership of the House or Senate, but replaced them with political advisers in the Office of the Speaker and the Office of President Pro Tempore of the Senate;

-- Congress was required to indicate on every piece of legislation, not only its constitutional basis, but the findings of fact on which it is based, and a statement of a specific national problem it is meant to address;

--  Every Congressperson and Senator was mandated to have a “Citizen Advisory Council”, none of whose members could be making over $100,000 per year, none of whose members could be contributors in any way to the legislator’s coffers, none of whom could be currently holding any elective or appointive governmental office; and, what if each legislator was mandated to consult that Council as to the efficacy of every piece of legislation that he or she proposed;

-- Congress was required to give up all its privileges, like health care to which ordinary citizens do not have access, or chaplains that have no business having a permanent office covered under the congressional budget, or chauffeurs and limousines, or rides on corporate jets, or congressional junkets with no other purpose than a paid vacation.

--  Congress was prevented from using inside information to purchase stocks, land, or aid from 3rd parties that enhances their personal wealth or the wealth of any group to which they belong or in which they have any vested interest;

--Congress had to obey every law that it passed, with no exemptions and no exceptions.

We could probably go on and on in this vein, but let us make the main point:  Congress has reached its nadir (at least we hope it has!).  It is concretized; it is institutionalized; it is dysfunctional; it is politicized; it is organized around money and politics rather than the welfare of the people.  Some pundits claim that a number running for Congress now are doing it for the financial gain they can access rather than to serve the electorate.
It doesn’t even seem to understand its own place in the scheme of things which was just recently made so very evident by blaming the President for not being more involved with the Super Committee.  When we had politicians like Byrd & Kennedy & Dirksen & Tip O’Neill & Joe Martin & Mike Mansfield & Styles Bridges & Robert Taft & others too numerous to mention, they understood and coveted the unique role of Congress and would not have expected the President to step into the middle of a committee’s process.  Those Congressional members who themselves berated the President for not being involved, or who led others to think he should be involved, are either ill-informed, or just plain ignorant.

In other words, coming to a landing-point from our fantasy flight, it is time to recognize that Congress is not going to change on its own; it has reached a point where radical reform is necessary to rescue our legislative system and its progenitor, the Congress.  Above all, we can not reasonably expect the Congress to act differently, or to reform itself without pressure, because the tipping point has been reached:  this institution, like most institutions, has set its goals, its processes, its actions in concrete where there is no hope for substantive change.  It is time for us to either reform the Congress or to allow it to become totally irrelevant to the needs of our representative democracy.

A word of caution.  The Occupy Wall Street movement is just the first of substantive indications that there could be a revolutionary, not reformative, movement afoot to say that there must be another way of giving citizens their say, coming to consensus, and deciding on measures that benefit the commonweal.  Ignoring that revolutionary strain of dissent, or trying to shut it down, is no guarantee that it won’t flourish in other forms. 

Reform or revolution?  It is a question built into not only our democratic system, but into all evolving institutions and entities that attempt to deal with the governing or organizing of human beings.  I believe that both are often necessary, but I lean toward reform.  I want to see constitutional amendments that will change our institutions for the better.  I want to see reformers, instead of Tea Party-type destroyers, elected.  I want to see congressional and electoral districts drawn by citizens, not politicians or millionaires.  I want to see private money gotten out of elections and governing.  I want to see ordinary citizens used on all levels of government, in both advisory and official positions, to evaluate, oversee, and recommend changes where necessary in any and all of our governmental entities.

A re-birth of government of the people, by the people and for the people is not a flight of fantasy; it is a mission, a goal, an objective that every generation of citizens of this Republic must take on as their own.

Even More Obama Accomplishments

Recently, we have looked in some detail at two of the largest of President Obama’s accomplishments, at least from the point of view of how much derision of them has come from Republicans.   The “failed stimulus” and “Obamacare” are GOP-manufactured epithets for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.  In both cases, time has shined the light of truth on what both Acts have brought to pass, to the extent that the Congressional Budget Office has taken another look and has concluded that neither Act can be said to be a failure.  They have said that the ARRA engendered actual stimulus of a nose-diving economy and the saving or creation of 5-35 million jobs.  Likewise, they cautioned Congress that repeal of the PPACA would bring about some rather dire consequences, not only for individuals and families, but for the economy and businesses.  Such positive support from the CBO has prompted certain Republicans in Congress to deride their methods, and for one particular GOP presidential candidate (Gingrich) to call for their demise.

This week, let us take a look at some more accomplishments of note that have come forth from this President’s efforts but that may have faded from your radar over time:

1)   The Rescue of the U.S. auto industry.  Against all the rants of those who said we should not save the auto industry but let the market decide, the President acted to put incentive money into the industry and to restructure the corporations before bailing them out.      In January 2009, the government used $24.9 billion of the $700 billion bailout fund to bail out two of the Big 3.  

    The purpose of the loans was to provide operating cash for GM and Chrysler, and to keep making auto loans available for car buyers. Ford Credit planned to use funds from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF),a government program for auto, student and other consumer loans.  In return, the companies promised to fast-track development of energy-efficient vehicles, and consolidate operations. GM and Ford agreed to streamline the number of brands they produced. They also won agreements from the UAW union. The three CEO's agreed to work for $1 a year and sell their corporate jets.  Ford made more money in the first six months of this year than in the previous five years combined. G.M. is profitable and preparing for one of the biggest public stock offerings in American history. Even Chrysler, the automaker thought least likely to survive the recession, is hiring new workers. 
    (useconomy.about.com)

    Let us not forget that he also propelled a “cash for clunkers” program into a successful program of car purchases and, at the same time, an environmental clean-up project, as the emphasis was on aged cars without up-dated emissions controls.  Another double-win program was his provision of attractive tax write-offs for those who bought hybrid vehicles.

2)    Made education a priority.  Most importantly, through a program named Race to the Top, the President spurred reforms by providing states with monetary incentives to make positive changes to their education systems.  Race to the Top prompted 48 states to adopt common standards for K-12.  He also put emphasis and money behind new ideas like charter schools, funded early learning programs, funded new school construction, funded greater broadband access to K-12 schools, made college more accessible and affordable through significant increases in scholarships and funding, and even allowed eligible students to refinance their student loans. 

3)   Brought the War in Iraq to an end.  Obama has reduced troops in Iraq from a high of 170,000 to about 7,000 (according to CBS News) with the goal of bringing the rest home for the holidays with any remaining troops focused on training Iraqi forces.  Moreover, he has not only brought troops home, but done it responsibly giving Iraq a reasonable chance of becoming a stable democratic state in the Middle East.  This overlooks the savings that will result from this bold action, except that no one knows exactly what that will be at this time.  Ostensibly, billions being spent in Iraq each month will be available to some extent for domestic needs in the near future.

4)   Financial Industry reform.  Involved in passage of the most sweeping financial industry reform since the Great Depression (Dodd-Frank bill).  Although some cite only its inadequacies, the legislation addresses industry issues that helped create the current recession; provides a system to allow the government to break apart large financial institutions that threaten the economy; creates a council of federal regulators to coordinate detection of risks to the financial system; subjects a wider range of financial companies to government oversight; creates a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to protect citizens from unscrupulous practices; reins in banks’ ability to trade in risky financial instruments such as credit derivatives.  Republicans can’t stand these reforms and threaten repeal.  They are also holding up the approval of the President’s choice to run the BCFP.

5)    Foreign Policy reform.  The President visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any other president in his first six months in office; and has continued to repair badly damaged relationships with foreign powers across the globe.  He has worked with other nations to fight Global Warming and Nuclear expansion.  Closed “secret detention” facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.  Shifted focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and changed the military command in Afghanistan, putting emphasis on reducing terrorism, development of infrastructure, providing aid, diplomacy, and good government practices, as well as limiting aerial bombing.  Ended previous policy on torture and emphasized compliance with Geneva Convention standards.  Responded with compassion and leadership to the earthquake in Haiti and nuclear mishap in Japan.   Instituted a new policy on visits to Cuba.  Renewed loan guarantees for Israel.  Sent envoys to the Middle East and other areas that had been neglected; re-engaged in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy; improved relations with Russia, signing an updated START Treaty with that country.

    At the same time, he aggressively supported reform movements in several Mid-east countries, put together a coalition to assist with the ouster of Kaddafi in Libya; approved the mission by Navy Seals to find and eliminate Osama bin Laden, as well as other leaders of Al-Qaida, thus weakening the leadership and effectiveness of that terrorist group.

Before we conclude, let us briefly list several other accomplishments in very brief form:

• Made the environment a national priority and a primary source for job creation; ended previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions; energy plants must prepare to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
• Appointed the first Latina to the Supreme Court
• Authorized construction and opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
• Began process of reforming and restructuring the military, including new procurement policies, new technology, cyber units and operation, better body armor, ended policy of no-bid defense contracts
• Closed offshore tax havens
• Ended previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for lower drug prices; federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
• Ended tax benefits for corporations who outsource American jobs; new policy supports in-sourcing: incentives to bring jobs back to America
• New consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practices
• Support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
• Established a National Performance Officer charged with making federal operations more efficient
• Provided the VA with more than 1.4 billion to improve services to veterans; improved housing for military personnel; brought about improvements to Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals; increased pay and benefits for military personnel
• Increased opportunities for national service through AmeriCorps and national youth service program
• Increased infrastructure spending for roads, bridges, power plants, etc.
• Provided tax credits to first time home buyers to help revitalize U.S. housing market
• Limited salaries of White House Aides and limited them from working as lobbyists after their White House tenure
• New federal funding for science and research labs
• Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful practices and spending
• Missile defense program cut by 1.4 billion in 2010
• Legislation to help homeowners refinance mortgages
• Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act to give equal pay for equal work
• Modernized the food safety system to better prevent food-born illness
• Increased housing for low-income seniors
• National Alzheimer’s Project Act established project within HHS along with an Advisory Council on Alzheimer’s research, care and services
• Provided tax cuts (payroll tax cuts) for 95% of America’s working individuals and families (Republicans are fighting against extension right now)

And the list goes on and on….  Check out http://3chicspolitico.com,  www.bspen.com, www.slate.com if you want more.  Each of these has been helpful in compiling my own listing.  A suitable conclusion is provided by  H/T of Newmericans on Politico:

“The list of his accomplishments (is) staggering for any U.S. president -- particularly when you compare him against our more recent US presidents.  In less than 2 years, Obama has done what most had said was politically impossible and absolutely essential for us to maintain a competitive economy in the future (universal Health Care), tackled highly challenging and comprehensive economic reforms (Financial Industry reform), and stabilized a very troubling economy.  Even if he did not achieve any more legislative accomplishments during the remainder of his tenure, Obama will have had one of the most productive terms of any president in the history of our country.”

“The Truth will set you free” -- to re-elect President Obama!  He has a record of accomplishment and leadership that cannot be matched by any of the Republican  candidates.  To continue to address a broad perspective of needs, the President needs a cooperative Congress, meaning that returning a Republican Congress will surely undermine our recovery and the future of the middle class.

Another Important Obama Accomplishment

Last week, we took a look at the ARRA (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) which has been characterized as “the failed stimulus bill.”  It has not been a failure at all, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  In fact, it has resulted in millions (between 5-25 million) of jobs both saved and created in the public and private sectors.  It is one of the many positive things that the President has done, or taken leadership to see accomplished, in his three years in office.  In fact, according to several writers and pundits, President Obama accomplished more in his first two years than any other President in history.  Republicans will keep trying to characterize his tenure as an abject failure, but their rhetoric is nothing but lies and distortions that cannot be backed up by facts (which they tend to ignore in any political “debate”).

This week, let us take a closer look at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which Republicans and conservatives try hard to characterize as a failure, and as “government controlled”, and even as “socialism,” derisively referring to it as “Obamacare.”  As a matter of fact, it is less of a government-controlled system then is their own health care insurance, which is entirely organized, managed, and overseen by the OPM (Office of Personnel Management).  To go a step further, the extra health care benefits available to members of Congress includes clinical care on-site operated by naval personnel, and they have access to taxpayer-subsidized surgical/hospital care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC, and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had heart surgery there in 2003). 

So let’s say, first, that the PPACA legislation does not contain a public option; that, under its provisions, the government does not provide services, nor does it control from where you get your health insurance.  You are free under this Act to continue choosing from a number of private insurance companies for your coverage.  The Act does have a provision for state-based Health Exchanges through which individuals and small businesses with up to 100 employees, could purchase qualified coverage, but these Exchanges can be administered by either a state agency or a non-profit organization; presumably, the states can make that choice.  States can also opt in 2017 to set up Regional Exchanges or allow other state Exchanges to operate within a given state.  In addition, the OPM will contract with private insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange.  Going a step further, the Act allows for the creation of non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in all 50 states and DC to offer qualified health plans. 

Are there some requirements in the Act that would involve government implementation and management?  Of course; but that doesn’t make it “socialism” or “government-run.”  There is a federal requirement that everyone be covered, backed up by certain penalties for those who fail to comply.  That is controversial, and will be addressed by the Supreme Court.  Some lesser courts have supported its constitutionality and others have not.  Other restrictions are placed on what can be offered by insurers and what cannot be included.  But, in my opinion, this is no different than many pieces of  legislation that require certain actions, programs, restrictions and innovations that result in changes in administration or management in the public and/or private sector.  One example:  the ADA - the Americans with Disabilities Act.  If the Court rules that the federal government cannot require all people to purchase health insurance then surely logic would say that government cannot require compliance with adaptive measures for all public and private facilities and programs.  In my opinion, it is ridiculous to say that the federal government cannot require certain actions on the part of all citizens when it clearly benefits all, or a major portion of, the citizenry.  We shall see…

Second, let’s take a closer look at the PPACA, and see what it has actually done for consumers in a positive way:

- allows adult children up to age 26 to be on their parents’ healthcare insurance; has already extended insurance coverage to 2.3 million young adults under age 26
- prohibits insurers from citing pre-existing conditions for denial of coverage;
- provides portability between employers;
- expands Medicaid to certain eligible citizens under age 65;
- extends funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program through 2015;
- provides for a tax credit for eligible small employers (under 25 employees with annual average wages less than $50,000) that purchase health insurance for employees;
- establishes a national, voluntary,  insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports (CLASS)
- prohibits lifetime limits on coverage

Here are some more positives that will occur in the near future:

- will provide refundable and advance premium credits to eligible individuals and families to purchase insurance plans through the State Exchanges
- will require Exchanges to maintain a call center for customer service, and to use a single form for application that can be filed in person, by mail or online;
- will create a temporary insurance program for employers providing health insurance coverage to retirees over age 55 but not eligible for Medicare
- will create an essential health benefits package which is the minimum that must be offered by all health care plans;
- will establish a temporary national high-risk pool to provide coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions along with subsidized premiums;

And administratively, there are these helpful provisions:

- establish a process for reviewing increases in health plan premiums and require justifications for increases; provide grants to states to support these efforts
- adopt standards for financial and administrative transactions to promote simplification of administration, thus saving money
- impose same insurance market regulations in all markets and exchanges
- establish the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund to implement health reform policies
- permit states to create a Basic Health Plan for uninsured individuals in lieu of premium subsidies
- simplify health insurance administration by adopting a single set of operating rules; non-compliance will bring a penalty
- establishes a Council, a Fund, and a grant program to spur prevention, wellness and public health programs
- will require skilled nursing facilities to disclose information regarding ownership, accountability requirements, and expenditures and will publish results on a website so Medicare enrollees can compare facilities
- improve workforce training and development, much of which is focused on graduate medical training, nurse training and retention, and increasing both through scholarships and loans
- impose additional requirements on non-profit hospitals to conduct a community needs assessment every three years and adopt an implementation plan to meet identified needs

And finally, here are some consumer-based reforms that will improve health care insurance and health care delivery:

- will expand Medicaid coverage to all non-Medicare eligible individuals under age 65
- require qualified health plans in Exchanges to meet marketing requirements and will require reporting of information in certain areas of operation, including enrollee rights
- require all new policies offered through, and outside of, Exchanges to comply with one of four benefit categories
- develop internet site to help people identify coverage options
- develop standards for insurers in providing information on coverage and benefits
- establish an office of health insurance consumer assistance or an ombudsman program to serve as an advocate for people with private coverage
- establish an independent Payment Advisory Board to submit legislative proposals with recommendations to reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending when spending exceeds a certain target rate, and to slow the growth in national health expenditures
- improve care coordination for enrollees with both Medicare and Medicaid
- create an Independence at Home demonstration project to provide high-need Medicare beneficiaries with primary care services at home
- improve access to community care by increasing funding for community health centers, and for the National Health Service Corps, plus support for school-based health centers

This brief summary does not even include all the reforms to Medicare and Medicaid contained in this Act simply because we have discussed those elsewhere.  So, in essence, I have just skimmed what I presume are some of the more important reforms in the Act. 

What can we say, then, to the radical Republicans in Congress, and running for President, who want to repeal this entire piece of important legislation?  I suppose, first of all, we could say, “Do you even know what is in the Act?”  Second, we might ask, “Do you care at all for what ordinary people would give up or lose by your ill-advised action?”  Third, we might point to a letter from the CBO, dated  May 26, 2011, and written to Congressman Henry Waxman, ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, in which there is some discussion of the consequences of repealing this legislation, or more precisely, of permanently preventing the use of appropriated funds to implement the Act.  Here are some of the CBO points for your consideration:

1)  would result in a significant loss of revenues, particularly from certain fees and taxes that would be collected by the IRS: e.g. 40% excise tax on insurance plans above certain thresholds for persons with incomes above 250k, and certain insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry fees
2)  would significantly alter the effects of many provisions of the ACT, including changes to Medicare and Medicaid; the establishment of health care exchanges, tax credits, and cost-sharing subsidies designed to increase the number of Americans with health insurance
3)  would reduce the number of people with health insurance coverage compared with what would occur if the health care laws are fully implemented
4)  could prevent CMS from modifying Medicare payment rates on an annual basis; preclude CMS from engaging in the rate-setting process and signing contracts with private insurers that offer Medicare Advantage and Part D (prescription drug) plans; the possible result - no Medicare Advantage plans and no more Part D plans for Medicare beneficiaries!
5)  preclude the Secretary of HHS from implementing recommendations of the Independent Payment Advisory Board aimed at limiting Medicare costs
6)  prevent federal government from setting up insurance exchanges if states chose not to
7)  prevent CMS from assessing and collecting its share of higher rebates from pharmaceutical companies for drugs dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries
8)  payment to doctors would be affected because the calculation of annual rates by CMS would be affected and rates would remain at current levels, and Medicare spending would increase in 2012 and 2013
9)  mandated demonstrations and pilot projects designed to improve efficiency and quality of care would increase spending in some cases
10) in the absence of mandates for insurance coverage, the number of families and individuals covered would be lower than under current law
11) grants to states for setting up exchanges and subsidies for cost sharing would not be available, putting states in a further bind as to health care support
12) CMS would probably be prevented from providing assistance and guidance to states as to their Medicaid and CHIP programs
13) provisions to reduce waste fraud and abuse would be undercut, as would provisions to improve quality of care to enrollees

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is not the failure that many conservative Republicans would have you believe.  There are many, many provisions that will not only reform our health insurance provisions, but that will go a long way toward reforming our health care delivery system into one in which quality is primary and preventive care and wellness are of the utmost  importance.  Those who want to destroy the most important health care legislation since establishment of Medicare under Lyndon Johnson, are simply deluded.  It is time to praise this major accomplishment of the Obama administration, and to seek to implement those positive aspects that are pending between now and 2019.  “Obamacares” is an apt title for this major piece of effective legislation.

As with most of the programs (and agencies) that the Republicans want to cripple or destroy, there are real people -- millions of them -- who are in need of the assistance and subsidies which such programs provide.  It is not just a matter of how many positions can be cut, how much money we can save, how big the deficit is.  For every number, there is a face, a life, a story and a person being threatened with the loss of something that for them constitutes a net of safety and assurance. 

Congressmen and presidential candidates who spew the kind of venom that tells “hippies” of OWS to get a job; that says that poor kids need to learn a work ethic and to hell with child labor laws; or who despises union workers and especially government union workers (and takes their collective bargaining rights away).  They want to send “illegals” back to where they came without opportunity for citizenship or for their children‘s education.  They want to deny quality health care insurance help to seniors and children and persons with disabilities.  These same people want, above all, to maintain and support the excesses and power of the richest among us.  It’s past time that we call them out, and ask:  do you even know the people about whom you speak; the people you threaten with a torn safety net (denying help even with home repairs or heating subsidies or food stamps)?  Do you ever meet with them one-on-one or in small groups to discuss their concerns?  Do you care to become acquainted with them and their life stories?  I hope the coalitions they are forming across this country begin to occupy your neighborhoods, and your offices, and even your properties.  The time is coming when you will have to begin to respect the needs of the middle class and the working poor and those who have little or nothing, including a home. 

President Obama has shown by his accomplishments that people matter.  He is our best hope for greater accomplishments in health care and further advances in the welfare of the 99% who do not have a million dollars or more to insulate themselves from real life problems, exigencies and difficulties.  It is past time to laud him for his targeted actions and his many attempts to make our lives and our nation better than the mess left behind by a certain Texas cowboy.  More next time…