QUESTIONS TO PONDER

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

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

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

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

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

But, back to the questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

How long will it take?

WHAT DO PROGRESSIVES WANT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10)    Progressive groups need to unite
   

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

http://agenda.progressivesunited.org

A MORAL CRISIS, PERHAPS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Challenge to Progressives

It is perhaps premature to speak of a new Party, although it is more than tempting, to
say the least, to want to attack the existing parties who have delivered the middle and working classes into a huge abyss.  Paying down the debt by cutting programs that basically benefit the middle class, the working class, and those least able to help themselves, is leading us down a path that has historically under-cut the health and growth of a number of countries.  A resulting oligarchy or plutocracy is not a sustainable form of government -- look at the Middle East for verification.  The oppressed rights of the majority come bubbling to the surface, as they did somewhat in the Tea Party movement in this country, except that the bamboozled of that movement chose the wrong target and actually strengthened the hand of their plutocratic (rich) oppressors rather than
throwing them out!

As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson try to make clear in their classic work, Winner-Take-all Politics, the main work needed right now is reform of the political and economical system, not the winning of elections.  To do that, progressive reformers will have to take a long-term view, and will have to relentlessly pursue, in the face of a formidable opposition, an agreed-upon set of principles.  Teddy Roosevelt was right when he said, “the supreme political task of our day…is to drive the special interests out of our public life.”  As Hacker and Pierson conclude: “reformers of a century ago shared the conviction held by the Founders that democracy was the rule of the many, not the all-powerful one or the fortunate few.  It will have to be so again.”

It is clearer than ever, right now, that the forces of the few are attempting to undermine the rights, entitlements, programs, policies and structures that bolster the middle and working classes.  One cannot ignore the fact that Republican radicals in states such as Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, and elsewhere -- and in the Congress -- are hard at work giving special breaks and concessions to the rich and powerful while destroying collective bargaining rights, targeting  budget cuts from programs that benefit the poor and middle class, working to undermine public education, targeting the voting rights of young people, attempting to change the definitions of rape, to destroy the right of a woman to choose, and to promote fear by targeting the President’s background, the Muslim community, and immigration of “illegals.”   

At the same time, by failing to address the overwhelming need for jobs, public education reform, alternative energy programs, the housing crisis, the reigning in of Wall Street and big corporations, as well as the need for tax code reform, these forces are eroding our democratic institutions and programs at a much more rapid pace than we have ever experienced.
The system is working against the 98% of us who are under an arbitrary $250,000 of annual income.  If a majority of Progressive organizations fail to work together on this, we can soon be on the outside looking in watching the oligarchy operate to prevent any of us from making any difference in the commonweal.

So, I issue a challenge to groups like: 
MoveOn.org, Public Citizen, AARP, NAACP, ACLU, NOW, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, Participatory Politics Foundation, Green Party, PIRG, the Working Families Party, Democracy for America, People for the American Way, Progressive Policy Institute, Common Cause, Center for the Study of Responsive Law, America Coming Together, Americans for Democratic Action, Center for Public Integrity, Citizens for Tax Justice, Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting, Mother Jones, The Progressive, AFL-CIO, SEIU,  ACORN  -- and on and on and on (see www.sourcewatch.org for a much more comprehensive list). 

It is my considered opinion that Progressive forces must work on several levels at the same time with the following priorities:

1)    concentrate their primary efforts on reforming the system: structural, systemic reform must be at the top of everyone’s list!
2)    assign secondary priority to their long-cherished policy and program priorities (like the environment, alternative energy, and even human rights);
3)    give third place to establishing a Progressive Party (or Green Party, or Peoples’ Party, or whatever), and winning elections (although this becomes a higher priority if a win in an election somewhere would actually advance the primary effort).

I have suggested that the first step in this battle of reforming the structure is to seek constitutional amendments (see most recent blog).  While the outcome of this action may not be seen for a decade or two, it is imperative to start the process NOW.  Had Common Cause, at its founding some 30 years ago, sought constitutional amendments for it’s main concerns -- electoral reform and lobbying reform -- we might not have the situation quite like it is today in those two areas.  I do not mean to take anything away from their accomplishments over the years, but I do mean to challenge their strategy: the pursuit of short-term goals without equal emphasis on long-term changes that would fundamentally re-structure our political and economic systems.

Further, I have proposed that a neglected branch of Government -- the People --  must be given priority.   It is time to make provision for this important branch of government to have an equal say in this process, particularly since the average citizen has much more education and political experience and involvement than at any other time in our history.  In fact, many citizens have more ability, life experience, and education than do some of those who claim to be our representatives.
Citizens must be EVERYWHERE their tax dollars are being spent.  Every government-supported or contracted entity must have ordinary citizens involved in their operations in some way: as advisors, as auditors, as members of boards, commissions, committees, etc.    The time has come for this “representative democracy” to expand its representation so that ordinary citizens are advocating for other citizens at every level of  government.

There are several strategies (in no particular order) that ought to be considered by a Coalition of all Progressive organizations in changing our system and in moving toward a new Party structure:

1)    Work to establish a Consumer Protection Department within the cabinet.  Advocacy for the middle class and the poor must be a Coalition priority, because the continuing warfare against the middle class means the destruction of our government and of our society.
2)    Establish a Coalition “watchdog” group  to reveal the inner workings of  lobbyists and other interest groups (Chamber of Commerce, for example) who favor the rich; expose the results of  congressional “drift” (inaction) that favors the rich when no opposition is forthcoming;  mount subtle attacks on the rich and powerful by revealing ownerships, extravagances, eccentricities, debauchery, etc.;
mount attacks on rich corporations as well to reveal: price-gouging, environmental destruction; power-plays, exorbitant profits and how they affect consumers; lack of charitable giving; effects on ordinary people, etc.
3)    there must be a serious attempt to either establish a Progressive medium with its own Progressive commentators and reporters to rival FOX News; or there must be a concerted effort to push sympathetic media outlets toward investigating and reporting on current lobbying efforts to distort the system, on unfair funding of elections, and on the co-opting of our political entities by the oligarchs to their own ends; 
4)    Progressive “think tanks” (such as: Progressive Policy Institute; Center for the Study of Responsive Law; The Liberal Institute) must join together in efforts to offer their best ideas for strategies, policies, programs needed to “take back our government” from the oligarchy that is now in control;
5)    Every time Congress makes concessions or gives incentives to the rich, Progressives should propose specific cuts in Congress’s own budget; emphasize their waste of taxpayer funds; go after executive & judiciary secondarily;
6)    To fight fire with fire, a lobbying firm dedicated to Progressive principles should be hired to lobby for our cause
7)    Co-opt the rich (individuals and corporations) wherever possible but not if principles would be compromised; emphasize money for party-building;  get pro-liberal PACs on board
8)    Make inroads by getting select people appointed to insider government positions; find sympathetic career workers in government; use both to re-write rules and regulations to favor Progressive principles;
9)    Weaken both major parties by turning their cherished positions into detriments: Republicans’ tax cuts for the rich; Democrats’ failure to reform healthcare to a one-payer system, for example.
10)    Concentrate on winning one primary campaign for national office (upset one Blue-dog Democrat)
11)    Target one big issue:  government structure overhaul in order to cut waste and duplication of services (must be couched in this way to appeal to a broad consensus of voters).
12)    Target specific groups to gain advocates and voters: independents, the poor; minority populations; working class; middle class suburbanites; women; young people in grade schools, high schools and colleges, parents of 3-year-olds, etc.

And, a few more ideas, in no particular order:
13)    pay-as-you-go rules enforced
14)    address payroll taxes
15)    hearings held; litigation against finance abusers on Wall St., etc.
16)    give the SEC subpoena power
17)    get rid of “carried interest” provision in tax law

This Coalition; this Progressive Movement, must have a clear and consistent message: favor the middle & working classes; support and involve the poor; challenge the rich; consolidate and restructure government (thereby reducing the deficit);  fair but strict regulation of business; protect middle class incentives (like college grants & loans) and  entitlements; consumer protection; increase citizen participation and representation in government; favor collective bargaining rights.

The time to get started is now.  There are apparently hundreds of liberal and progressive organizations out there, all working on their own agendas and ignoring the fact that a Coalition or a new Party is the most effective way to attack the powers that have taken over our democratic institutions.  Who will step forward to lead this long-term effort?  How many will be willing to work on a focused agenda that may mean subsuming their own pet projects?  We cannot delay; we cannot equivocate; we cannot afford to drift along with the rising tide of oligarchy.  The time is now.  In the words of a great Progressive of another era, Teddy Roosevelt, we find the message for our time as well:

“We are standing for the great fundamental rights upon which all successful free government must be based.  We are standing for elementary decency in politics.  We are fighting for honesty against naked robbery.  It is not a partisan issue; it is more than a political issue; it is a great moral issue.  If we condone political theft, if we do not resent the kinds of wrong and injustice that injuriously affect the whole nation, not merely our democratic form of government but our civilization itself cannot endure.”
_______________***__________________

More Thoughts on a New Party Platform

I have suggested some very basic components for a new Party platform.  Before we discuss strategies for actually making this Movement into a reality, I want to add a few ideas that might also be included in this Progressive Party platform, although these – along with what I have already proposed – are not definitive.  They are given as initiators of discussion, not as principles set in stone.

We must return to the idea of sunset dates on all programs, contracts, loans etc. that are strictly enforced (unlike the temporary tax breaks for the rich which were not allowed to expire in 2010) except perhaps in times of emergency.  There are literally hundreds of programs, commissions, offices, jobs, contracts, etc. that were set-up to be temporary that have, instead, gone on and on, draining money that could be spent elsewhere to greater effect.  Take agricultural subsidies, insurance, loan programs, and government fertilizer production, or some DoD weapons research and production, as  examples!

All government programs must be required to meet goals and targets: must be RESULTS-ORIENTED.  All tax-payer money must be tied to accomplishments: every governmental entity, and those quasi-public agencies that receive governmental funds, must be made to set an annual goal plan tying action steps and outcomes to the use of funds.  Goal plan accomplishments should serve as a vehicle for audit, budgeting, and cut-backs, in other words, for accountability.

Education is primary:  even defense must take second place to education.  A new national Purpose for Education must be defined and then local school districts must decide how to meet that Purpose.  Otherwise, we cannot expect improvement in our educational standards. 
    The means of funding education must change.  There must, for example,  be an assessment against the properties of corporate entities (by making them equivalent to individual citizens as to political speech rights, the Supreme Court has also made them responsible as citizen equivalents for what happens outside of elections; ergo, they are equally responsible for supporting education).

Innovation and entrepreneurship must be encouraged, such as: 
    --The use of  national guard and DoD to solve internal problems and to meet needs of society thereby protecting the country;
    --Bartering amongst citizens to trade services especially among the poor is worth some consideration
    --All citizens must do some form of national service; all must give back to support the poor and the vulnerable of our society; including the poor themselves, and even prisoners

--We must encourage more R&D in all sectors.  Gov. investment in innovation and entrepreneurial pursuits is crucial.

Tax reform -- every tax loophole that favors the rich must be excised;  reasonable rates and fair incentives for all levels of income are preferable.  

Consumer protection has to be a major priority, along with confrontation of Wall St., Big Business, banking practices, etc.

Military intervention must not be the primary response to foreign relations-gone-bad, to threats, to provocations.  We have fallen into a black hole, from which there is little hope of escape, by supporting a strategy of preemptory aggression against countries who harbor terrorists.  It has resulted in a fiasco: militarily, diplomatically, and economically.  We must reject that concept and return to the concepts of war as a last resort; of Peace Corps missions in other countries; of foreign aid that builds people power, not plutocrat or dictatorship power; of foreign aid that is tied to agreed-upon measurable outcomes and not to manipulation.

Briefly, we must also list:
--Alternative energy sources must be our quest;  
--Incarceration reform is a necessity: we can no longer simply punish.  Every incarcerated person must be involved in education and community service in some way; perhaps, as part of their sentences.
--We must work with universities and technical and professional schools, and business & labor leaders to determine what we must do to train and prepare  the work force for the future. Re-training is an on-going need; schools have to do more “adult education”!  Labor Unions must change primary focus: from wages and benefits to training, re-training, acquiring of skills, world competition.   

This is not a definitive “platform”, nor an exhaustive list of priorities.  It is merely a starting point for consideration of what a new Party might do.  Without a real challenge to the current political parties, our hope for reform and re-vitalization of our government is a feeble hope. 

Time to enlist in the on-going struggle for democracy.

A New Party?

A NEW PARTY?

The two current political parties -- Republican and Democrat -- have allowed themselves to become part of a system that seduces them into supporting special privilege, access, and power to people who can afford to “pay to play”.  Neither party is able to break this cycle.  In fact, the use of foreign funds for election campaigns, of lobbyist funds for junkets and parties, of PAC funds to win close electoral races, of inside information that enables some to prosper, and of a revolving door that sets some up with cushy jobs after their terms are over -- all of these maneuverings have negatively affected our system of government.  It stinks, and everyone knows it, but they are unable - or unwilling - to do anything about it.  The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, allowing corporate entities to overwhelm our elections process with third party ads, has essentially put a stamp of approval on this destruction of our democracy. 

Unless something drastic is done, we will never see a change in this mess.  Something drastic must be the advent of either a new political party, or a coordinated Movement, that will harness some of the upset and anger of the Tea Party movement and merge it with the outrage of the Union Protests in Wisconsin.  Can it be done?  Who knows, but it’s worth a try.

What might be the platform of such a party?  I offer the following elements as a starting point:

1)    Amendments to the Constitution:  in order to change the basic structure of our system
--Term Limits for Congress and the Courts
--Balanced Budget,  line-item veto, and 2/3s vote for raising taxes
--Disallow all corporate entities from contributing to campaigns; only small contributions and fed. Funds allowed; maximums imposed on every race and on individual contribution amounts
--No more earmarks
--Disallow funds as emoluments or gifts from lobbyists to legislators 
--5-year restriction on former government employee lobbying or consultation
--Disallow congressional rules that require other than majority vote on legislation or procedures
--Congress may not exempt itself from laws it legislates
--Ordinary citizens shall be involved in auditing and oversight of all governmental entities
--Add petition by the people as a way to have Congress call a constitutional convention. 
--Involve ordinary citizens in non-political commissions to re-structure districts based on population.

2)    The primary focus of this new Party must be on the branch of Government most neglected by our system: the People of The United States in whose name the Constitution was established in the first place, and about whose rights the first Ten Amendments clearly speak.  Amendment X particularly speaks of the people as having powers not already delegated to other governmental entities. Amendment XIV extends the people’s power in that no State may abridge the privileges or immunity of citizens; may not deprive any person of life, liberty or property and demands due process and equal protection be available to all citizens.  Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI protect the right of citizens to vote.

    Although the constitution refers to the people in the context of governmental branches, it does not set forth a specific check that they have as an entity on the other branches.  For that reason, constitutional amendments are necessary to allow citizens to serve inside all areas of government.  Once that is done, legislation can be used to define and expand the role of citizen advocates/representatives.

    This new party must not allow the government of the people, by the people, for the people to perish.  Therefore, this Party must advocate for the right of citizens to be on the inside of governing.  They must be EVERYWHERE their tax dollars are being spent.  Every government-supported or contracted entity must have ordinary citizens involved in their operations in some way: as advisors, as auditors, as members of boards, commissions, committees, etc.    The time has come for this “representative democracy” to expand its representation so that ordinary citizens are advocating for other citizens at every level of  government.
    Thus, the name of this new Party ought to be something like:  “The Peoples’ Party” or “Citizens’ Party.”

3)    This new party must concentrate its efforts on attacking the current locus of power and corruption that is capturing our lawmakers, dismantling governmental protections for ordinary people, and taking over the management of our government entities through their use of corrupt monetary power.   The right wing radicals have unfortunately thrown a veil over this center of power, and blamed government rather than the barons of Wall Street, Multi-national corporations, and financial entities, for the scary economy that we find at present.  They are wrong-headed and their bamboozling of the people is contemptible. 

    Let’s be clear:   since about 1980, there has been a Plan afoot to make the rich richer; to take over political power so that this could happen.  It started quietly in 1980, when the administration of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush “began a massive decades-long transfer of national wealth to the rich.” (Roger Hodge, The Mendacity of Hope ).  It is incredible that right-wing Republicans have tried to convince us that government has engineered a massive transfer of wealth to middle and poorer classes through programs that address human needs, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Health Care Reform. As with too much of the rhetoric of the far right, this is hogwash.  The flow of wealth is entirely toward the rich.

    Consider points made by Bill Moyers in an article titled: “The Rule of the Rich”:
    A)--between 2001 and 2008, about 40,000 US manufacturing plants have closed, and six million factory jobs have disappeared over the past 12 years, representing more than one in three manufacturing jobs.  The free market at work?  No, wage repression at work!
    B)--since 1980, while the economy continued to grow for most of that time, the average income for 90% of all Americans increased by just $303 in 28 years.  A small percentage at the top level -- maybe 2% -- benefited handsomely, and continue to do so in hard economic times.
    C)--that fraction at the top earns more than the bottom 120 million Americans; by 2007, the wealthiest 10% were taking in 50% of the national income;
    D)--while sales fall, and lay-offs continue, profits in big corporations are rising, and there is a profit accumulation that is obscene in many cases.  As the chief economist at Bank of America told the NY Times: “There’s no question that there is an income shift going on in the economy.  Companies are squeezing their labor costs to build profits.”
    E)--an article in a recent Wall Street Journal described how the super-rich earn their fortunes: with overseas labor, selling to overseas consumers, and managing financial transactions that have little to do with the rest of America.
    F)--the rich have formed their own financial culture increasingly separated from the fate of the rest of us.  Little wonder “that so many of them are hostile to paying more taxes to support the (ever-crumbling) infrastructure and the social programs that help the majority of American people.”
    G)--all of this is the outcome of thirty years of policy decisions about tax law, industry and trade, and military spending; policy decisions  paid for by the 1-2% who used their vastly increased wealth to assure that government -- under Republicans and Democrats alike -- did their bidding.
    H)--the ratification of this plan came in Jan. 2010 when the Supreme Court in Citizens United ruled that corporations are equivalent to “persons” who have the right to speak out during elections by using their wealth to purchase political ads.  Our government and our elections have been bought off by a Plutocracy, which is the rule of the rich; political power controlled by the wealthy: the privileged few who make sure that the rich get richer and that the government helps them in that Plan and Mission (could also be described as an Oligarchy).

    This newly proposed party of the People (or Coalition of Progressives) must never be taken in by the Plutocrats.  Power and privilege never give up anything without a struggle, and a People’s Party must be willing to enjoin that struggle.  More thoughts next time…

Assault on the Middle Class: TAX LOOPHOLES

I spoke in an earlier Blog about the important legislative initiatives that President Obama should take to frame the debate with Republicans and Tea Party members.  Unfortunately, the President has allowed the debate about cutting government spending to be framed by those who have already railroaded him into extending tax cuts for the richest 1-2%, and who now want to debate how much should be cut from the modest 12% of discretionary funding in the federal budget, and from entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that most affect the middle class and the poor. 

It appears that the President has chosen not to frame the debate in a direction that would call attention to the favoritism shown by Congress to the rich and powerful.  This is totally regrettable.  In my opinion, he should be relentless in pointing out that two wars in the Middle East favor private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater who have taken advantage of those conflicts to reap millions, if not billions, of dollars in contractual profits.  He should be concentrating on the fact that rich corporations, banks, and brokerage firms have stolen money from the American taxpayer, and that no one has gone to jail or even been charged with crimes against the people (where’s his Justice Department?) -- talk about waste, fraud and abuse…!  He could also be talking more about how rich corporations are holding their massive profits hostage, not wanting to spend for jobs and new equipment because their profits have soared.  Is the President “dithering” while the middle classes are being consumed in the inferno created by the right-wing radicals? 

There is no greater fraud and waste in government than the loopholes and incentives built into the U.S. Tax Code.  It is time to examine some of them, and to demand that they be excised or modified to give everyone a fair shake, and to prevent the ability of a privileged few from escaping the full payment of their tax obligations.  What an opportune time -- TAX TIME -- to frame the debate differently, and to point a finger where it belongs.

According to an article on FiscalTimes.com, the USA has one of the top corporate tax rates in the world: 35%.  However, the actual amount in corporate taxes that the government collects (“the effective tax rate”) is lower than those of Germany, Canada, Japan and China, among others.  Those loopholes will cost the U.S. government an estimated $628.6 billion over the next five years, according to a 2010 report from the Tax Foundation.  Here’s what that Fiscal Times article says are some of the major loopholes for corporations to quietly wriggle through while the rest of us make up the lost tax revenue:

1)    Inventory Property Sales
    Foreign income of American companies is taxed in the country in which it is generated, and the U.S. gives a tax credit for that amount in order to avoid double taxation. Some companies have accumulated a glut of such tax credits (the “inventory”), and in order to use them up, they artificially boost foreign income through a “title passage rule” that allows companies to allocate 50 percent of income from U.S. production sold in another country as income generated by that foreign country (the “property sales”).

2)    Graduated Corporate Income
    This policy places the first $50,000 of a corporation’s profit at a 15 percent tax rate, with higher profit levels garnering higher tax rates, until it tops out at 35 percent for taxable corporate income exceeding $335,000. The result is that an owner of a small corporation pays only 15 percent in taxes on the first $50,000 of profit, leaving more left over potentially for reinvestment and growth. So what do larger corporations do?  Of course: they divide up their company into smaller entities that can qualify for this tax break!

3)    Research and Experimentation Tax Credit
    Intended to spur research and development within companies, in its simplest form this break allows for a 20 percent tax credit for “qualified research expenses.” There are more complex applications, as well. Detractors complain that it is paying corporations to do research they would have done anyway.

4)    Deferred Taxes for Financial Firms on Certain Income Earned Overseas
    Because most financial firms conduct their foreign operations as branches rather than as subsidiaries, as most companies in other industries do, they do not benefit from the tax breaks afforded to foreign subsidiaries. To compensate, this loophole enables financial firms to treat income from their foreign branches as if they were subsidiaries, along with all of the attendant tax benefits.

5)   Alcohol Fuel Credit
    This is a tax credit for the production of alcohol-based fuel, most commonly ethanol, which is made from corn. The credit ranges from $0.39 to $0.60 per gallon. In theory, the credit is meant to encourage alternative forms of energy to imported oil. It is largely responsible for propping up the price of corn, and is extremely popular in corn-producing states like Iowa and Illinois, primarily benefiting food and agricultural conglomerates in these areas. 

6)    Accelerated Depreciation of Machinery and Equipment
    This one allows companies (airlines & manufacturers using large equipment) to deduct for all of the depreciation of a piece of equipment at once (as opposed to over the, say, 20 years it actually takes the item to depreciate). This is the equivalent of the U.S. government giving the company an up-front, interest-free loan. Congress recently made this expenditure temporarily even larger for 2011, to encourage investment in equipment.

7)    Deduction for Domestic Manufacturing
    This loophole enables a tax deduction for manufacturing activities conducted by American companies within the United States. It covers conventional manufacturers, but also extends to industries like software development and film production. The intent is to keep manufacturing from being outsourced.

8)    Deferral of Income from Controlled Foreign Corporations
    Multinational companies can defer paying U.S. income taxes until they transfer overseas profits back to the United States, under this law. In practice, many companies leave much of their profits overseas indefinitely, thus paying only the tax in the relevant foreign country, which is likely far lower than the U.S. rate, and avoiding U.S. taxes permanently. The list of corporations enlisting this loophole is seemingly endless, and the estimated 5-yr Cost to Government is $172.1 billion.

The article goes on to assert:
America's corporate tax rate is 35 percent.  But 115 companies on the S&P 500 pay less than 20 percent in taxes, according to a study by the Capital IQ and The New York Times. That's not even counting 37 companies like Citigroup and AIG that received more in tax credits than they paid.  All this thanks to loopholes in the immensely complicated tax code.
Business Insider tracked down the data from Capital IQ (2005-2009 aggregate data) to identify some of the large corporations that pay less than 5 percent in taxes:

#15 Boeing Co. (BA)
Pre-tax income: $17,587 million
Taxes paid: $796 million
Tax rate: 4.46%

#14 Amazon.com (AMZN)
Pre-tax income: $3,512 million
Taxes paid: $152 million
Tax rate: 4.33%

#13 Broadcom Corp. (BRCM)
Pre-tax income: $1,228 million
Taxes paid: $41 million
Tax rate: 3.32%

#12 Host Hotels & Resorts Inc. (HST)
Pre-tax income: $1,116 million
Taxes paid: $34 million
Tax rate: 3.05%

#11 NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG)
Pre-tax income: $5,343 million
Taxes paid: $154 million
Tax rate: 2.88%

#10 TECO Energy, Inc. (TE)
Pre-tax income: $1,620 million
Taxes paid: $37 million
Tax rate: 2.31%

#9 Allegheny Energy Inc. (AYE)
Pre-tax income: $2,538 million
Taxes paid: $58 million
Tax rate: 2.28%

#8 NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA)
Pre-tax income: $1,817 million
Taxes paid: $41 million
Tax rate: 2.24%

#7 Xcel Energy (XEL)
Pre-tax income: $4,334 million
Taxes paid: $77 million
Tax rate: 1.78%

#6 NextEra Energy, Inc. (XEL)
Pre-tax income: $8,572 million
Taxes paid: $149 million
Tax rate: 1.74%

#5 Plum Creek Timber Co. Inc. (PCL)
Pre-tax income: $1,355 million
Taxes paid: $22 million
Tax rate: 1.62%

#4 Western Digital Corp. (WDC)
Pre-tax income: $2,507 million
Taxes paid: $40 million
Tax rate: 1.6%

#3 HCP, Inc. (HCP)
Pre-tax income: $614 million
Taxes paid: $9 million
Tax rate: 1.42%

#2 Carnival Corporation (CCL)
Pre-tax income: $11,250 million
Taxes paid: $126 million
Tax rate: 1.12%

#1 Range Resource Corporation (RRC)
Pre-tax income: $1,228 million
Taxes paid: $7 million
Tax rate: 0.53%

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that these corporate entities must be treated as individual citizens in terms of (political) free speech rights, isn’t it incumbent upon them to act in a responsible manner in terms of paying their taxes like other individual citizens?  It’s time to “call them out”, and to demand that they all pay a minimum tax of at least 20-25% on their profits!  And, to prevent them from passing that extra burden on to the consumer, there must be stringent laws with huge penalties (like 33% of profits) to prevent that from happening!  Because they are able to reduce their tax burdens to less than 5%, they force upon the rest of us the extra burden of paying for their less-than-fair share.  That’s right middle-class America -- YOU are paying not only inflated rates for their services and products, but for most of their tax burden in order for YOUR government to operate. 

YOU are being thoroughly bamboozled by these corporate entities mainly because you not only allow them to avoid paying their taxes, but because you allow them and their cronies (lobbyists, law firms, congress people, and media) to convince you that our fiscal problems mainly result from entitlements and social programs that benefit the middle classes and the disadvantaged.  YOU are paying for their neglect, their cronyism, their  profits and their robbery from the public purse.  Their stealthy stealing is  immensely increasing your personal and governmental debts. 

It is time to stand up against the rich corporations that neglect their public duty; we just can’t afford to take it anymore!

FOREIGN AID PRINCIPLES and PRIORITIES

Let us come back to foreign aid.  Ron Paul may be right in one respect about foreign aid: it does deserve our criticism, but not our abandonment!  After all, abandonment of foreign aid would be an undue restriction placed on the constitutional powers granted to the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy: to make Treaties, to appoint ambassadors, to receive ambassadors and other public Ministers.  Taking away that executive power would only serve to enhance the power of Congress in the realm of foreign policy; and we don’t need a contentious Congress trying to decide by Committee deliberation, where, and for what reason, to place a particular piece of foreign aid.

As I said two blogs ago: “We desperately need a new set of priorities for how foreign aid is to be utilized, a well-defined set of goals and objectives, and a system of measurable outcomes that can be evaluated to ensure that our money is being used to enrich others around the globe rather than to exploit them. 

If we’re going to have a set of new priorities, we first have to define our principles on which to base those priorities.  I suggest the following as a beginning for discussion:

1)    Foreign aid shall be distributed primarily to enhance the human rights, dignity, freedom, and well-being (health, education, social services, income, etc.) of individuals and communities throughout the world;
2)    Foreign aid shall not be given to any dictatorial regime that restricts the rights and freedoms of its people, unless:
    a)  measurable actions toward the granting of those freedoms and rights are set forth in a written Plan of Action 
    b)  the benchmarks or measures are met on an annual or 2- year timetable  
    c)  those action steps or outcomes are evaluated every year, or two years, by a group drawn from the UN, the World Court, the Red Cross/Red Crescent, global Human Rights groups, and the US Congress.
    d)  current and future aid shall be based on the report and recommendations of the Evaluating Commission; except that no aid  shall be continued or granted if the country is found to be less than 75% in compliance with its Agreement/Plan.
    e)  in the case of the up-to 25% of actions found to be out of compliance, a new agreement shall incorporate new targets and steps toward compliance, in order to receive continued funding; however, further non-compliance after the first two years shall result in a comparable percentage of aid reduction.
3)    In no case shall U.S. foreign aid be used to enhance the military might of another nation unless:
    a)  that nation is assisting the U.S. in a declared war against a mutual foe;
    b)  such aid will enable that nation to defend itself against outside aggression or internal terrorism; 
    c)  such aid will be used in a mutually defined effort to defeat the forces of terrorism.
    However, all such exceptional military aid as defined here shall be allocated according to specific measurable written guidelines contained within an annual or two-year Agreement which shall be evaluated by representatives of global organizations dedicated to the promotion of peace and prosperity for all nations.  The non-compliance rate found in such evaluation shall result in an immediate comparable percentage reduction in aid.  
    Any use of U.S. military aid to suppress, oppress, or harm a country’s own populace shall be immediately terminated.
4)    No foreign aid shall be loaned, granted, allotted, or given to any country or national entity until:
    a) a signed and approved application has been submitted to the Department designating the general aims, purposes, and intended outcomes for that aid;
    b)  a detailed Agreement/Plan is submitted to the Department defining the exact, agreed-upon purposes, objectives, and measurable outcomes expected for the said aid;
    c)  an effective distribution system is approved and a strict accounting method is in place for the use of said money;
    d)  a detailed plan for evaluation of all designated outcomes is included in the Agreement/Plan 
5)    All taxpayer dollars loaned, granted, allotted, or given to a foreign country or national entity shall be reported on an annual basis to the American people  in a readily accessible and discernible format, especially through electronic means.  All new grants or allotments shall be reported on a monthly basis. All such reports will specify:
    a)  the amount(s) granted and to whom;
    b)  the purposes and reasons for the grant;
    c)  the goals and objectives defined for the recipient country;
    d)  any evaluations or recommendations received for continuation or denial;
    e)  any criticisms submitted by other countries or reputable organizations;
    f)  decisions for continued funding or denial

Other points for discussion and resolution might include:
1)    There must be a national foreign assistance strategy put in place that encompasses the principles, purposes, and objectives for our foreign aid programs.  Part of that national strategy must be the designation of one agency responsible for the coordination of all foreign assistance.  The State Department seems the most likely candidate for this so that all diplomacy and foreign aid can be coordinated, and given equal standing with defense and internal programs.  However, the idea of a separate cabinet-level Department of International Development is also worth considering.
2)    The purpose of every allocation of foreign aid must be made clear so that diplomatic (strategic) use is not confused with development objectives.
3)    Along the lines proposed by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, there should be a permanent Quadrennial Review of diplomacy, of foreign policy, and of  international development efforts carried out under our foreign aid.  The Report of this Review should be made easily accessible to all people.

I do not pretend to have all the answers on distribution of foreign aid.  Far from it.  In fact, I think the Obama Administration has done an admirable job in defining the goals and objectives (their Categories and Sectors) of current foreign assistance.  What is lacking is the strategy for using those Goals and Objectives in determining who shall receive aid, and the use of measurable outcomes, and their intense evaluation, to ensure that the purposes, goals, and objectives are actually met by every entity seeking and receiving our aid.

I do contend that those leaders, like Ron Paul, who criticize without offering detailed analysis or detailed plans for improvements or alternatives, are lacking in depth and in leadership qualities.  There are no easy answers to the dilemmas, conundrums, mistakes,  or problems created by our foreign policy or our foreign aid programs.  However, abandonment of foreign aid is a terrible idea.  Positive reform and remedies are much more difficult, and require a persistence and tenacity that seem sorely lacking in many of our current “leaders”.  Let us hope that the mere musings of a Senior Citizen are not the only result of the Egyptian “revolution” and of Ron Paul’s simplistic criticisms.

Does Egypt’s Revolution Teach us Anything About Foreign Policy?

Let us hope that the Egyptian Revolution puts us all on a path to better governing and governance!  Let us hope -- no, let us resolve -- that their victory for human rights can be our victory as well.   We Americans, from the perspective of  a very young (representative) democracy, must be willing to have an ancient civilization teach us something vital: that the very basic yearning for freedom, liberty and justice is not limited to a small group of people, but exists everywhere, in all peoples.  It is not our right, nor our responsibility, to “spread democracy”.  It is, rather, our responsibility to support the yearnings, the dreams, the aspirations of others toward democratic ideals that should guide our foreign relations and our foreign aid.

Egypt may have taught us some other very important lessons.  One, that human contact and relationships are vital to our relations with other groups.  It can probably never be determined or revealed how important was the contact between our military personnel and their counterparts in Egypt.  That contact was built on mutual ties of education, trust, goodwill, and common ground that were forged in our military schools.  We need to use the idea of common ground to forge more such relationships with other countries through education and training around common goals; and not just in the military.   The support of education and training in other cultures, the support of mutual education and training within this country; the support of person-to-person mutual learning and teaching - as through the PEACE CORPS -- is absolutely vital to our national interest and to the aspirations of others in other countries. 

Second, the propping-up of military and other kinds of dictatorships, is not a good way to use our taxpayer dollars.  The billions that Hosni Mubarak and his family accumulated for themselves out of our foreign aid, and what it could buy for them, is ludicrous.  More specifically, the use of foreign aid to dictators for the express purpose of buying our armaments and weapons for their own use is a travesty.  We are the leading purveyor of arms to other countries.  That must stop because we cannot “buy” the allegiance or the loyalty of dictatorships and expect that it will serve us in the long run.  It will, instead, put us in the bind in which the Obama Administration found itself ; namely, when a dictator is challenged by his or her own people, we have grave difficulty deciding who to support: the people, or the dictator who has served our bought interests for a number of years.  We must free ourselves from that conundrum, and change our approach to supporting dictators, once and for all.  Oh yes, and just so we don’t forget:  the American arms bought by dictators, and given to dictators, have ended up helping to oppress their people, especially when the people decide they have had enough and then rebel.  “Order” is then the key word, and order is restored by repressing the people with the tanks and guns and who knows what (tear gas canisters!) that we Americans supplied through foreign aid.

Third, this Egyptian Revolution may not succeed.  And why not?  Because there is no recognized leader amongst the people ready to lead.  Because there is a “culture” of bribery for getting things done simply because people need to enhance their dismal pay with bribes.  Because there is a forced absence of democratic institutions and practice (like a free press), of voluntarism and organizing, of alliances and coalitions -- all focused on helping neighbors; on the well-being of the community; on the rights of each and of all.  You can’t have a democracy - or democratic practices - without the attitudes and ideals that support that way of thinking and acting. 

Our foreign aid must be attuned to those needs, and must find a way to encourage people in all lands toward a democratic mind-set and a democratic approach to solving and resolving problems; indeed, a way of living.  How do we do that?  I don’t know exactly.  I can only say it has something to do with the principles of community organizing: the very strategies that have been so denigrated and attacked (remember ACORN?)  by a certain group in this country.  It is a tragedy that we ourselves have allowed the rights and aspirations of the poor, the homeless, the poorly trained and educated, even of children and the elderly, to be restricted, held down, trod upon and unfunded.  What are some of those community organization principles and programs?  Advocacy for oneself and for each other; formation of coalitions and grassroots organizations; community linkages (networking); voter training; job training; child-care provision and early intervention and education; in-home parent support and training; access to legal aid;  nutrition and adequate meals; mutual aid; home maintenance -- it goes on and on because there is always something more that one can do for oneself and for/with the community.

Let us come back to foreign aid.  Ron Paul may be right in some respects about foreign aid: it does deserve our criticism, but not our abandonment!  After all, abandonment of foreign aid would be an undue restriction placed on the constitutional powers granted to the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy: to make Treaties, to appoint ambassadors, to receive ambassadors and other public Ministers.  And taking away that executive power would only serve to enhance the power of Congress in the realm of foreign policy:  and we don’t need a contentious Congress trying to decide by Committee deliberation, where, and for what reason, to place a particular piece of foreign aid.

With this small detour, we shall look next time at some principles and practices that might guide our foreign aid.

FOREIGN AID: Eliminate or Re-structure?

Ron Paul,  Libertarian Republican Congressman from Texas, wants to eliminate all foreign aid.  In light of the situation in Egypt, one can understand a reaction to the $1.5 billion annual request in foreign aid to Egypt (and to other Middle Eastern countries in varying amounts), but Paul’s over-reaction is typical of politicians blinded by their ideologies to the larger realities of the wide world.  Can we not count on our Congressional leadership for more thoughtful and intelligent leadership?  Probably not.  Strangely enough, this attitude harks back to the proposals of a certain staunch conservative (some called him worse), named Jesse Helms who proposed in 1995 that the Agency for International Development be replaced with a foundation that would channel foreign aid for education, health and agriculture through grants to companies and nonprofit groups.

This is not to say that Dr. Paul doesn’t make any sense.  His is not the only critic of our foreign aid policies, and of the process by which our largesse is distributed. Many independent “watch-dog” groups have said that our foreign aid:

Props up dictators and provides opportunities for them to line their own pockets;
Often does not get to the people who need it because of corruption in the distribution system;
Finds its way back to this country through contracts with U.S. corporations;
Reduces free trade by forcing recipient countries to buy U.S. goods and services;
Too often involves the financial and political interests of the current Administration;
Rewards political and military partners rather than advancing humanitarian causes ;
Is used as a political weapon for the US to make other nations do things “our way”;
Promotes aggression and war through sale of military weapons or transfer of cash that can be used to buy weapons;
Since 9/11, has been cast too frequently in terms of “contributing to the war on terrorism” as the top foreign aid priority.

Let’s first put “foreign aid” in perspective.  In FY 2009, the Bush Administration’s foreign aid request for the Department of State and USAID, equaled $39.5 billion.  Although we do not have the  Obama Administration’s budget figures for 2011, there will probably be some cuts in aid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps lowering this figure by a few billion dollars.  What is important to understand is that the total foreign affairs budget in the FY 2010 federal budget was just 1.7% of the total budget for operating the federal government (according to a Forbes article).  This percentage may be even less under the FY2011 budget being proposed by the Obama administration.  For anyone serious about reducing the deficit, it is doubtful that foreign aid is the most productive place to start. 

The United States leads all developed nations in the total amount of foreign aid given to other nations (probably because the USA is the richest nation and this figure encompasses all foreign aid, including private sector contributions!).  However, the USA is rated the 21st stingiest of 22 developed countries in terms of the percentage of governmental foreign aid given in relation to its GNP.  Denmark is actually on top in that latter category, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the USA manages just .17%.  Not only is the USA the second stingiest in proportion to its GDP, but the largest portion of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share.  

Unlike Ron Paul’s simplistic analysis, let us realize that “foreign aid” is a very complicated subject, involving different sources of aid and various reasons for the aid in the first place.  Generally, different types of foreign aid support different objectives. 

The Clinton Administration emphasized the promotion of “sustainable development” as a new post-Cold War strategy for the programs under the aegis of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), centered around six inter-related goals: broad-based economic growth; development of democratic systems; stabilization of world population and protection of human health; management of the environment; building human capacity through education & training; meeting humanitarian needs.

Early in the G.W. Bush Administration, these goals were modified around three “strategic pillars”  of 1) economic growth, agriculture & trade; 2) global health; and 3) democracy, conflict prevention, and humanitarian assistance.

Under the Obama Administration, foreign assistance is divided into 35 “sectors” under seven categories, which are: 1) Peace and Security; 2) Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance; 3) Health; 4) Education and Social Services; 5) Economic Development; 6) Environment; 7) Humanitarian Assistance.

More than $58 billion per year goes to foreign assistance through more than 20 federal agencies; roughly $38 billion of that is managed by the USAID and the State Department within the just-described categories.   However, Americans have always given beyond their taxes to support humanitarian causes throughout the world.  It is estimated that private American charitable donations equal about $250 billion each year; 75% of that coming from individuals (corporations are particularly poor philanthropists). 

And, what about that other $20 billion that doesn’t go through the State Department or USAID?   The USA also provides assistance to friends and allies to help them acquire US military equipment and training (about 23% of total US foreign aid).  Foreign Military Financing  (FMF) is a grant program that enables governments to receive US military equipment or to access equipment directly through US commercial channels (most FMF funds support the security needs of Israel and Egypt: F-16 Jet fighters, Apache attack helicopters, and other equipment, like the teargas canisters used against the peaceful demonstrators in the Fahrir Square in Cairo--made right in the good old USA).  Peacekeeping funds are also used to support voluntary non-UN operations and training, especially for the Afghan army.

The total US commitment to international health, particularly HIV/AIDs programs, is somewhat larger than that run through USAID and the State Department when budgets for domestic “non-foreign aid” agencies (like HHS and Labor) are included.  The same is true of Economic Support Fund grants, much of which target countries of importance in the war on terrorism.  ESF funds can be used as cash transfers to help stabilize economies or to service foreign debt.  Let’s not forget that a relatively small 8% of total US foreign assistance is combined with contributions from other donor nations to finance multi-lateral development projects through such international organizations like UNICEF, the UN Development Program and the World Bank.  In addition, there are programs related to foreign affairs that go through the budgets of several other federal agencies, including Agriculture, Energy, HHS, Commerce, Homeland Security, and even Interior.

Conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers demand cut-backs in spending, but because they never target specifics, their generalized cut-talk borders on irresponsibility, and on ideology-based rather than reality-based information.  Once again, a little perspective is helpful: the federal government invested $100 billion (TARP funds in 2008) in Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo in order to prop up the US financial sector, but spends half that on foreign aid. 

So what am I calling for?  Well, in my opinion, the Ron Pauls of this world are on the wrong track!  We don’t need elimination of foreign aid; we need a new way of looking at it and of providing it, because:

--We are too politically-motivated  about who receives our aid, often having to fit or adjust our own goals and objectives for political ends.
----People of other countries are driven to hate us for economic aggression, hypocrisy, and power-mongering through our aid programs.
--We think “money is power” and that commercialism trumps morality.
--We are trying to buy the loyalty, morality, commerce, style of government and fealty of other countries.
--We are perhaps the loudest self-congratulators of our own largesse; we claim goodness because we are generous.
--Our motives are often not seen as charitable but as manipulative; we are not trusted.
--We think our way is best; know little about the rest of the world, and think that our “exceptionalism” means that other countries are not “in the same league.”

These attitudes are not serving us well.  They taint our true humanitarianism and the caring attitudes of our people.  Foreign aid should be an expression of our recognition that the world is not alien; it is our larger community and we do have a basic responsibility for it’s well-being.

We desperately need a new set of priorities for how foreign aid is to be utilized, a well-defined set of goals and objectives, and a system of measurable outcomes that can be evaluated to ensure that our money is being  used to enrich others around the globe and not to exploit them. 

More on this next time.