The K.F. Stone Weekly

Publico Damnari!

 

Audio Link to "Publico Damnari!"

 

According to nearly a dozen reputable national polls conducted over the past month, an overwhelming majority of the American public favors stricter, tighter gun laws.  In its review of nine recent polls -- including those run by Gallup, Pew Research, CNN/Time, CBS/New York Times and Fox News (!) -- Constitution Daily found an average of 88% of the public favoring universal background checks. Moreover by an average of 57%, people favored a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, while 56% of those polled approved of a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. In other findings:

• About 50% of the people questioned by the three most conservative polling organizations, were concerned that gun-control legislation would take weapons away from them, or believed protection from gun violence was a lesser concern than protecting their Second Amendment rights.
• In addition to background checks, another idea that has widespread support is devoting more funds and attention to mental health issues. An average of 83% of people surveyed in four polls favored increased attention to mental health programs.
• Of the 12 ideas that appeared across the grouping of all nine polls, the least popular was arming teachers and school officials with guns. It only had a support rate of 41%.

Despite these findings, Congress -- which in a recent Think Progress poll was found to be held in far lower esteem than Genghis Kahn, used car salesmen, lice and the band Nickleback (formally known as "The Village Idiots") -- Congress has yet to do much more than
cower before Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association. (This just in: on today's "Meet the Press," LaPierre declared that background checks were based on "a dishonest premise," and said that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- an advocate of stricter gun control who has given millions of dollars toward tighter regulation through Mayors Against Illegal Guns -- has an "insane" approach to gun control. Bloomberg supports universal background checks, as well as a ban on assault weapons and an upgraded gun-tracking system -- all measures the NRA opposes.) 

Despite LaPierre's rhetoric and his group's deep pockets, the NRA is increasingly being shown for what it truly it is: a blustering band of paper tigers whose roar is far more chimeric than concrete.  Need proof?  In the 2012 election, the NRA spent more than $18 million, making contributions to 140 incumbents (111 Republicans and 29 Democrats); 95% of those dollars were spent on races in which their preferred candidate lost -- this according to data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation. Moreover the NRA spent more than $100,000 in seven Senate races in 2012. On Election Day, their preferred candidate lost in six of those races, often by healthy margins. In three of those states (Florida, Missouri and Maine, their candidates lost by more than 10 points.  Similarly, of the 26 members of the House of Representatives who lost on Election Day, 18 were endorsed by the NRA.

Despite the NRA's dismal track record, nearly every Congressional Republican -- and a sizeable number of Democrats as well -- are loathe to support any gun control measure with teeth, such as reinstating the assault weapons ban, severely limiting the number of rounds in a magazine or taxing the daylights out of bullets. (Do check out this fascinating interactive website to see where your senators and representative stand on gun control and what "grade" they have received from the NRA) 

While it is undoubtedly true that no new law or set of laws will ever put an end to gun violence in America, to do nothing -- or next to nothing -- is not only irresponsible; it is a frontal assault on the will of the people.   Publica locutus est -- the public has spoken.  We want Congress to enact significant gun reform legislation.  And what is their response? Publico damnari! -- "The public be damned!" This attitude, of course, extends well beyond the issue of what Congress is going to do -- or not do -- about guns and ammo.  The detached arrogance of publico damnari! -- again, meaning "The public be damned" -- is both overwhelming and omnipresent.  It is largely nourished by truckloads of cash provided by corporations and a handful of mostly right-wing billionaires who owe everything to Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia (RATS) and Kennedy for their decision in the Citizen's United case.  It will be recalled in this decision -- which, back in October 2010 I wrote was "Worse Than Dred Scott," the court declared that corporations had the same constitutional rights as people, and that individuals could contribute unlimited sums of money just so long as it wasn't to a specific candidate.  At the time, I noted that, ". . . in giving corporations and anonymous 'civic-minded' mega-billionaires the legal right to deluge the political system with dollars, they have hastened the transition of America from a capitalist to a corporatist state." In that essay, I also wondered aloud if, "there is any power on earth that might one day lead to the nullification of Citizens United?" The answer to that question is "perhaps."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Florida Representative Ted Deutch have introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.  To date, 11 states and more than 300 cities and towns have passed resolutions calling for the ruling to be overturned. In announcing his proposed constitutional amendment, Senator Sanders noted:

What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United is to tell billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson, 'You own and control Wall Street. You own and control coal companies. You own and control oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we're going to give you the opportunity to own and control the United States government.’ That is the essence of what Citizens United is all about. That is why this disastrous decision must be reversed."

Indeed.

If passed by Congress and then ratified by three-quarters of the states (a big "IF"), the Sanders/Deutch proposal, "The Democracy is For People Amendment," would, as Senator Sanders explains, " . . . effectively prevent corporations from bankrolling election campaigns. Congress and states would have specific authority to regulate campaign finances by, for example, limiting donations, requiring disclosure of donors or creating public-financing systems for campaigns."  Much of the publico damnari! attitude is made possible by the fear that unless one toes the line -- as set by the richest of the rich and the craziest of the crazy -- they will be voted out of office.  This attitude undergirds far more than the current gun debate; it is the launching pad for most of the critical issues facing Congress -- from immigration and taxes to global warming, healthcare and the deficit.  I for one believe that The Democracy is For People Amendment, Quixotic though it may be, is terribly important.  For unless and until we can drive big, big, big money out of the political system, publico damnari! will continue being the politician's favorite cheer. 

For anyone interested in The Democracy is For People Amendment, please visit the Public Citizen website.  Together, we can change publico damnari! -- "The public be damned" -- to super omnia volutatem populi -- "Above all, the will of the people . . ."

ולכל הקוראים היהודים שלי את מיטב איחולים לפסח כשר ושמח

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

Riddle Me a Riddle

 

Audio Link to Riddle Me a Riddle



Riddle me a riddle:

When is a filibuster not a filibuster?

For the answer, keep on reading . . .

Filibuster: a highly-charged three-syllable word that inevitably conjures up an image of a sweaty James Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington if you're a movie lover or a memory of Strom Thurmond, Al D'Amato, Wayne Morse or William Proxmire if you're a political geek.  Once upon a time, a filibuster was as rare as a Chicago Cubs world championship.  And according to "the rules," the bloviating senator (filibusters cannot take place in the House) had to remain on his feet, speaking continuously on any subject of his choice, without benefit of food, drink or time-out for a mad dash to the men's room.  Back in the day, filibusters were so extraordinarily rare that the mere hint of one sent a shock-wave through the Halls of Congress; everyone, from the lowliest page to the senior-most committee chair dropped in so as to become an eyewitness to history. Back in the day, one  would not engage in a filibuster as a matter of partisan caprice; frequently  one held the floor because they truly believed a core constitutional matter was at stake.  Back in August of 1956, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond held the floor for a record 24 hours, 18 minutes, filibustering against the Civil Rights Act.  (It was eventually enacted, despite a "tag-team" filibuster in which a group of Southern Democrats held the floor between March 26 and June 19, the day the bill final passed.)

Then too, senators  have been known to filibuster for, shall we say, slightly less than principled reasons.  Back in 1986 New York Senator Aphonse D'Amato held the floor for 23 hours and 30 minutes to stall debate on an important military bill.  He was reportedly incensed  about an amendment that would have cut off funding for a jet training plane built by a company headquartered in his state. 

Between 1919 and 1970 there were never more than 7 filibusters in any two-year congressional session.  By 1987-88, the number of filibusters had exploded to 54; in 1995-96 there were 82. Since Barack Obama became president, the number of filibusters has averaged more than 140 per session. (Click on graph below to get a larger view):

There are only two ways to bring a filibuster to an end: either the senator (or team) voluntarily ends the  verbal harangue, or the body passes a motion of cloture.  This latter technique was first adopted back in 1917 at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, and it was first use two years later when the Senate invoked it in order to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles.  Between 1919 and 1975, a successful cloture motion required two-thirds of the Senate.  Today, it requires three-fifths, or, in cases where all 100 senators are present and voting, 60 votes.  Today, it takes but one senator placing a "hold" on a bill, an amendment or a presidential nomination, to effectively begin a filibuster. And, unlike in the days of Jimmy Stewart and Strom Thurmond, the filibustering solon, far from having to remain standing and speaking, isn't even required to be in the same time zone.

Which brings us back to our original riddle, namely: "When is a filibuster not a filibuster?

Whenever Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham say it ain't . . . as in the case of President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense, former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.  As readers of this blog know, not a single Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of Hagel's nomination.  Publicly, Senators Graham, McCain and many of their colleagues told Fox News that the reason for the committee vote -- and "non-filibuster filibuster" on the Senate floor was due to two reasons:

1. A need to know more about Hagel's financial dealings. (Senate Republicans are demanding five years' worth of Hagel's records where for everyone else -- including former Senator John Kerry) it is merely two, and
2. A need to know more about the September 11 massacre in Benghazi, Libya, where U.S. Ambassador Chris Smith and several other American diplomats were murdered by terrorists. (Never mind that Hagel was a private citizen at the time of the murders and that as members of Armed Services they are privy to more classified knowledge than the former Nebraska Senator.) 

Of course, this double-barreled rationale is sheer twaddle.  Their opposition to Hagel -- and that "non-filibuster filibuster" against him are based on a couple of other purely partisan reasons:

First, that as a senator, Chuck Hagel -- a man who then-candidate John McCain said he would be "proud to have" as his Secretary of State -- was a strident voice against the war in Iraq.  On more than one occasion, Hagel accused then President George W. and his Bush Administration of telling lies about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to get us into Iraq.   Moreover, Hagel, a much-decorated Vietnam enlistee, (like Secretary of State John Kerry who himself is a much-decorated Vietnam enlistee) is far less bellicose, far more cautious about going to war, then virtually all of his former Republican colleagues -- which they view as a mortal sin.  And if this were not enough, Hagel had the temerity to campaign in 2010 for a Democratic Senate candidate (former Admiral Joe Sestak) in Pennsylvania and to support former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey -- a Democrat -- against the eventual winner, Republican Deb Fisher.  I certainly recognize that there are people who oppose the Hegal nomination for other reasons -- such as past statements he has made about Israel, Iran and gays.  And there are certainly people around the country who firmly believe that he is anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and anti-gay.  And yet, Hagel has received the endorsement of virtually every Jewish Democrat on Capitol Hill.

McCain, who from all appearances seems to be losing it, is trying to have it both ways.  On the one hand, he told Fox News that Hagel was "anti his own party and people. People don't forget that. You can disagree, but if you're disagreeable, people don't forget that." And yet, when Texas Senator Ted Cruz (whose senate tenure can be measured in the tens of hours) took a page out of the Joseph McCarthy playbook and accused Hagel of being chummy with both Iran and North Korea, McCain came to the Nebraskan's defense -- "No one should impugn the character of Senator Hagel . . ." 

Second, Senate Republican's "non-filibuster filibuster" against the Hagel nomination is just one more way they have of showing their ultimate disdain for all things Barack Obama.  Indeed, blocking the president's Defense nominee -- especially at a time when America is still engaged in a war and is facing global challenges in Iraq, Syria and North Africa -- shows as much willful partisan disdain as putting the nation's economy in peril for the sake of mollifying the anti-tax-cut-spending-shrink-government crowd on their right.  It is yet another case of politics over patriotism, plain and simple. 

(It should be noted that last week, the right-wing Breitbart News ran a specious three-paragraph report which breathlessly claimed that "Sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called “Friends of Hamas.” It should be duly noted that despite exhaustive inquiries by many intrepid researchers, nobody has been able to find a group called "Friends of Hamas."  Indeed, these guys will do and say anything to torpedo Hagel.)

If ever there was a time to amend the Senate rules and once more make filibusters a rare exception rather than the rule that time would be now.  Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Tom Udall (D-NM) have proposed going back to the so-called "Talking Filibuster" -- the kind that Strom Thurmond and Jimmy Stewart participated in.  Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said as recently as three weeks ago, “I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold. With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn’t and shouldn’t be like the House.” What's in the back of Harry Reid's mind is the thought that should the day come when Democrats become the Senate minority, they -- like the Republicans today -- will need that 60-vote supermajority to keep objectionable legislation -- or nominations -- from becoming reality. 

That could be, although no one knows for sure.  What is certain is that the nation faces crucial challenges which must be addressed, must be dealt with TODAY, not tomorrow or next year.  In many areas of political endeavor that which is enacted today may not pay dividends until next year or the year after or indeed, the decade after that.  Universal preschool education and increased spending on technology are  two prime examples.  In the case of revamping the manner in which the Senate does business, to hell with the future; our need is now.  If we are to face our challenges head-on, the 60-vote super majority must go.  The "talking filibuster" must be restored. 

Contact your senators.  Tell them they must support the Merkley/Udall bill. 

And that's no riddle.

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

 

If Not Now, When?

 

Audio Link to "If Not Now, When?"

 

The horrific mass-murder of twenty little boys and girls and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut has once again thrown the nation -- if not much of the planet -- into a state of agonized disbelief. Once again, we are forced to confront an act of unrelenting evil; a moral transgression which shocks us into demanding answers for questions we cannot even properly frame. Pundits and preachers, politicians and psychologists are all attempting to explain the inexplicable; to try and make a germ of sense out of the grossly senseless.  We are like onlookers creeping past a multi-car pileup; despite being shocked, dazed and disgusted, we cannot divert our eyes; we are drawn to the carnage as moths to a lethal lamp.

Once again, we find ourselves in the midst of a frenzied, multi-faceted deliberation.  We want to know everything about the young man who, armed with his mother's weapons, was responsible for all the death -- as if understanding what made him tick will prevent a future act of carnage.  Sorry to say, but it won't. Forensic psychologists, like seismologists -- the folks who study earthquakes -- cannot predict what will be; they can only seek to analyze or explain what has already occurred.  Inevitably, a major part of the deliberation is political; what restrictions or safeguards can the system impose so as to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people?  Already we are hearing calls for the re-imposition of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (which ended its 10-year run in September 2004); the banning of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and severely cutting back on the kinds of public places where people are permitted to carry weapons.  Predictably, such proposals -- and at the moment that's all they are . . . proposals -- are drawing rhetorical fire from the National Rifle Association whose mantra continues to be "Guns don't kill people . . . people kill people." For years, the powerful pro-gun lobby has employed a combination of cajolery, campaign cash and slippery-slope argumentation to keep Congress in check. "Any law regulating firearms," they have long argued, "goes against the 2nd Amendment. It is but a short step from limiting large capacity magazines to the confiscation of all guns."  (Interestingly, the NRA shut down its Facebook page shortly after news of the Newtown massacre hit the airwaves.  They have 30 days to restore it or face losing all their stored data . . .)

The president, acting in the dual capacity as "Conscience of the Nation"  and "Mourner-in-Chief" has made it clear that once and for all, he is going to do something about gun violence.  Precisely what, remains to be seen.  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, made the rounds of the Sunday news shows demanding that the president act to reduce gun violence in America: "If this moment passes into memory without action from Washington, it will be a stain upon our nation of protecting the innocent, including our children." Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin promised that they would introduce and pass new Federal Assault Weapons Ban legislation within days. At the same time, former Arkansas Governor and GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee suggested that the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary was somehow tied to the lack of religious expression in public school: "We’ve escorted [God] right out of our culture and marched him off the public square," Huckabee said, "And then we express our surprise that a culture without him actually reflects what it has become.”   

All of this dialogue and deliberation is good -- and utterly predictable.  As a nation we have gone through the process after each mass killing.  We begin in earnest, resolve to do something to stem gun violence and then let the issue fade from view . . . until the next time.  Well, this is the next time, and this time it involves little children.  The question is whether this time the massacre has been so heinous, so horrifying that finally, finally, we will do more than engage in debate and deliberation? My gut instinct tells me the answer is "Yes, finally we will try and do something meaningful to stem the tide of gun violence in America."

Legislation, whether on a national, state or local level, can only go so far.  Let's face it; no matter what we do, there are still more than 300 million guns, pistols, rifles, shot-guns, assault weapons, bazookas, rocket launchers, etc. in the hands of the American people.  Most of these people are honest, law-abiding and reasonably sane.  And despite what the NRA would have us believe, a clear majority of these gun owners are in favor of banning assault-style weapons and performing background checks on anyone wishing to purchase a weapon. Are you listening NRA?  Do you even care?

It seems to me that any meaningful change in America's gun culture will require at least a generation -- if not two.  We are a violent, largely desensitized society.  We watch movies and play computer games in which murder, mayhem, destruction, dismemberment and death are what pass for entertainment. We are glued to media which pays far more attention to the names, backgrounds and "issues" of mass murderers than Nobel Prize Winners.  We lack the patience to demand anything more than simple black-and-white solutions to highly complex problems.

I really don't know what if any legislative fixes are on the horizon.  Personally, I would like to see us consider a system like they have in Switzerland, where every adult male is legally required to possess a gun, but then places severe restrictions on ammunition. Then too, if it were in my power, I would mandate that the media never, ever publish the name, image or specific identifying information about anyone involved in mass killings.  Many mass murderers, loners buoyed or plagued by whatever demons they may possess, wish to "go out in a blaze of glory," thereby making their names known to the entire world.  Letting it be known that we will never again permit names or likenesses of these people to appear in print may stop a few in the future. (It is in consonance with this suggestion that I have not named the Newtown executioner . . .)

Can anything be done to stop these mass killings?  No one knows for sure.  However, one thing is certain: to merely debate or deliberate won't save a single life.  

Time is of the essence.  We've got to get to work.

If not now, when? 

 ©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Dealing With Dysfunction

   It takes precious little experience, insight or intellect to recognize that the American political system is somewhere between dysfunctional and broken. Capitol hill is awash in cash and cowardice.  Steely partisanship stands athwart principle to such an extent that the nation's most pressing and systemic problems -- jobs, the economy, education and gross inequality to name but four -- are all being held hostage.  Tens of dozens of crucial positions in both the executive and judicial branches of government remain vacant because one party thinks it more important to deny the president of the opposing party a "victory" than to do what is right. Where once the filibuster was a rare and theatrically exhausting exercise in political brinksmanship, today, it is as commonplace as sushi in San Francisco.  Once upon a time, when a senator or representative cosponsored a piece of legislation they could be counted on to support and vote for that legislation.  Believe it or not, this is no longer a given.  Today, cosponsors frequently conspire to kill their own creations.  Why? For fear that said bill's passage might gain the president some political credit.

   Nowadays, just about the only solution one party offers -- after blaming every ill from aging to zero population growth on the other party -- is to vote the culprits and miscreants out of the White House and off of Capitol Hill.  As a result of such political puerility nothing gets done; Congress's popularity is lower than the Dead Sea; an entire nation suffers.

   Without question, the utter dysfunctionality of the American political system did not begin with the election of Barack Obama -- or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton for that matter.  It has been building for more than a generation.   In an important new work, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism veteran congressional scholars Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann point back to 1978, the year Republican Newt Gingrich was first elected to Congress. At the time of his election, Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for 44 of the past 48 years -- and would continue to do so for the next 16.  Gingrich's strategy to overcome his party's historic minority status, as noted by Ornstein and Mann was, for the time, utterly unique: ". . . so intensify public hatred of Congress that voters would buy into the notion of the need for sweeping change and throw the majority bums out.  His method? To unite his Republicans in refusing to cooperate with Democrats in committee and on the floor, while publicly attacking them as a permanent majority presiding over and benefiting from a thoroughly corrupt institution."

    Gingrich's strategy eventually paid off; by 1994, he was Speaker of the House.  With the election of 2010, his method had become akin to divine law: Where once "compromise" and "bipartisanship" for the sake of the greater good were a politician's or legislator's stock-in-trade, today those concepts languish on the political "disabled list."  Taking their place in the starting lineup are such tactics as "opposing," "obstructing" "discrediting" and "nullifying." 

  To be certain, both Republicans and Democrats stridently accuse each another of being the real obstructionists and discrediting nullifiers. "It's because of those socialistic ultra-left, deficit-loving Democrats that we're in such abysmal fiscal shape," Republicans cry.  "Our economic crisis is the fault all of those plutocratic, intransigent right-wing, tax-avoiding Republicans," their Democratic counterparts respond.   And how does the American public respond?  By saying "A pox on both your houses." This attitude is born out by the lastest Politico/GWU/Battleground Poll; Congress's approval rating is a mere 13%.

   Should it be any surprise then that fewer and fewer people of quality are running for office? I mean, what truly sane man or woman would devote a year -- or two or four or more -- to raising vast sums of money in order to run for a position that will require them to spend the lion's share of their time raising even more money for the right to keep the other side from getting anything done and making them look bad in the process?

  Scholars Ornstein and Mann, neither of whom is particularly partisan, conclude that far more of the dysfunction can be laid at the feet of one party than the other:

   ". . . However awkward it may be for the traditional press and nonpartisan analysts to acknowledge, one of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier -- ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

   Over the past several years, Republicans have become so obsessed with not offending or going against the will of those on their far-right that they have been transformed from that flank's leader to its creature.  So much so that were he alive in 2012, Ronald Reagan would never be able to capture his party's nomination; he would undoubtedly be called a RINO -- a "Republican in Name Only."  It is unsettling to the max when one realises that today, the most moderate Republican in either house of Congress (likely Maine's outgoing Senator Olympia Snowe) is still to the right of that institution's most conservative Democrat (likely Pennsylvania Representative Jason Altmire). 

  Despite the extraordinary ideological chasm between the two parties, Americans themselves have never been all that extreme; we have a long and -- for the most part -- successful history of sticking to what one wag called "the sensible center."  So where are all the centrists in 2012?  Have they moved to the fringes; have they all morphed into left-winged socialists and right-wing flat-taxers?  According to Ornstein and Mann, the answer is no; those occupying the sensible center are have become so cynical and turned off to what now passes for politics as usual, that they simply stay the hell away from the polls on election day.  When a large majority of the American people favor higher taxes for the extremely wealthy and Republicans say "absolutely, categorically no"; when poll after poll shows that most Americans place job creation ahead of deficit reduction yet Republicans say "If you don't cut spending we'll destroy America's credit rating"; when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet then hear that the Republicans' plan for creating prosperity begins with catering to the wealthy and ends with cutting entitlements for the poor -- is it any wonder that so many opt out of participating?

   So how do we deal with the dysfunction we call a political system? In truth, I do not know.  I wish I had a simple, sure-fire answer to what ails us.  What I do know is that throughout our history as a nation, no problem was ever solved, no issue ever addressed, no wrong ever righted without the people standing firm.  It is our function to stand up against dysfunction.   

    The critic/essayist George Jean Nathan once wrote that "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." 

    How true it is . . . how true it is.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Amendment 8: Beware of Creeps Bearing Gifts

    Nearly 3,200 years ago (1184 B.C.E., to be precise) the Greeks found themselves about to enter the second decade of a fruitless war against the city of Troy.  Fans of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Brad Pitt will recall that the Greeks had laid siege to Troy after Paris had spirited away Helen, the wife of the Spartan king Menelaus. Try as they may, the Greeks simply couldn't deal Troy that final punishing blow.  Year after year, the war dragged on -- sort of like the U.S. in Afghanistan. Finally, Odysseus, the Greek's go-to guy, hit upon a brilliant stratagem which he believed would permit his troops to enter the city and bring the war to a close: a huge, hollow wooden horse containing a select force Odysseus' best soldiers.  Wheeling the gigantic horse to the gates of Troy, the Greeks then pretended to sail away. Thinking that Odysseus and his troops had given up, the Trojans pulled the horse into the city as a victory trophy.  Wrong! That night, the soldiers emerged from their equine sanctuary and threw open the gates of the city for the rest of their comrades.  The rest is history; the Greeks quickly overtook Troy, thus ending the war.  In the Aenid, Virgil sums up the story thus:  timeo Danaos et dona ferentis -- namely "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts."

   And ever since, the term "Trojan Horse" has been a metaphor for any trick or stratagem that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or space.Like the folks of ancient Troy, we, the citizens of Florida have a Trojan Horse parked outside the gates of our once "securely protected bastion" 

Amendment 8

  For those in the dark, this Trojan Horse, which will be on the ballot this November 6, is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.  Its backers and supporters swear on a stack of Bibles that its passage is essential for the preservation of religious freedom here in the Sunshine State.  In matter of truth, it is a Trojan Horse, designed to do precisely the opposite.  Far from being a measure to preserve religious freedom, Amendment 8 is intended to enshrine state government funding of religious schools and organizations.  Its secondary purpose is to further weaken public schools by diverting more and more money to charter school -- read "religious school" -- vouchers.

     On the surface, the amendment's wording seems to be fairly straightforward:

   Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding, or other support, except as required by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

  If passed, Amendment 8 would amend Article III Section I of the Florida State Constitution to read:

There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace, or safety. No individual or entity may be discriminated against or barred from receiving funding on the basis of religious identity or belief. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

   As benign as the wording may seem at first blush, it is, in truth, as dangerous as the Trojan Horse at the gates of Troy.  

   How so?

   According to Americans United For Separation of Church and State, The goal of Amendment 8 is to allow taxpayer money to flow to religious schools and houses of worship. Passage of the Amendment would strip the religious freedom protections currently enshrined in the Florida Constitution, thus allowing for direct funding of religious organizations that provide faith-based social services and opening the door to taxpayer funded vouchers for religious schools.

   This is not to say that the State of Florida has not heretofore funded faith-based organizations.  It certainly has. Florida has partnered with religiously affiliated organizations -- Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, Lutheran Social Services -- to perform social service programs.  This is in keeping with a 2004 state court decision, Bush v. Holmes, which acknowledged that the state may fund nonprofit organizations that are affiliated with a religious order or organization. But, the current Constitution places safeguards on the partnership to guard religious organizations from government intrusion and to protect taxpayers from paying for or being subjected to government-funded proselytization. The proposed amendment would tear down the safeguards.

   Proponents of Amendment 8 claim that as currently written, the no-aid provisions of the Florida Constitution (as incorporated in 1885 and reenacted in 1968) reflect a late 19th-century bias against Catholics. This is both inaccurate and incredibly simplistic.  And, as Grandma Ann would have said, "You're really full of canal water!"  The no-aid provision in the Florida Constitution (as well as that of 37 other states) was based on the so-called "Blaine Amendment," an 1875 proposal which would deny federal aid to religious schools.  Although the amendment failed on a federal level, it was adopted by three-quarters of the states.  And while it is true that there was some Catholic animus behind the measure's failure in 1875, it did not emanate from James G. Blaine, the measure's eponym: he was the son of a Catholic mother. 

   The most dangerous aspect of Amendment 8 is that in providing aid for faith-based schools -- largely in the form of vouchers -- it will further gut public education.  In 1999 Florida became the first state to establish a statewide voucher system.  In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the program violated the state constitution. Nonetheless, charter schools -- which receive public funding but are not subject to the same standards as public schools -- continue to be sold as the answer to a failing public system. As has been shown in state after state and in school district after school district, the more money taken out of public schools in the form of private- and charter-school vouchers, the worse it is for students.  Numerous studies have shown that charter school students do not "out perform" public school students on standardized tests.

   The voucher system, which passage of Amendment 8 would no doubt enhance, is part-and-parcel of the "privatize-privative-privatize" philosophy of so  many contemporary politicians.  

   In brief, Amendment 8 has as much to do with religious freedom as Odysseus' Trojan Horse had to do with surrender.

   May the citizens of Florida learn the lesson that the citizens of Troy learned nearly 3,200 year ago: Beware of creeps -- which rhymes with Greeks -- who come bearing gifts.

    AMENDMENT 8 MUST BE DEFEATED!

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

The Sky is Not Falling -- The Horizon is Rising

  This past Thursday (April 19, 2012), House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference -- an event that rarely rates more than a line or two in either the New York or Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, or even the San Francisco Chronicle. At one point during the press session -- which focused mainly on taxes, the so-called "Buffett Rule," and the Secret Service scandal in Columbia -- The former House Speaker made reference to Senate Bill 2219, the DISCLOSE Act.  This act, introduced by Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in the senate and Representative Chris Van Hollen in the House would " . . . amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities."  In speaking of the Whitehouse/Van Hollen proposal (which has 40 cosponsors in the Senate and more than 100 in the House), the former Speaker said:

On another subject, but related, yesterday House Administration Democrats held a forum on the need to create a new politics free of special interest money. I call it a forum because we were not allowed to call it a hearing because the Republicans will not allow a hearing on DISCLOSE. They did not allow the camera system of the room to be used to transmit the proceedings from the forum to the rest of the world. We think that this is about transparency, DISCLOSE. Stand by your ads. If you are so proud of what you are doing with your effective political action, then let the world know who is paying for this ad; not by the end of the year, or the end of the month, but by the end of the ad, in real time. We have to do it as candidates. They should have to do it as contributors.

   We have a clear agenda in this regard. DISCLOSE, reform the system, reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to let secret, unlimited huge amounts of money flow into campaigns. I think one of the presenters yesterday said it was – that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that indeed is not an exaggeration. Our founders had an idea. It was called democracy. [They] said the elections are determined by the people, the voice, and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. The Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our founders' vision, and we want to reverse it.

   As noted above, Pelosi's comments went unreported by the nation's major media outlets.  Nonetheless, her 280-word comment was picked up by chatterboxes at Fox, who then proceeded to dice, slice and skewer.  So far as they -- and virtually all of their colleagues in the conservative media -- were concerned, Pelosi's support of the DISCLOSE Act was and is nothing short of a declaration of war on both the First Amendment and the United States of America.  "How dare Nancy Pelosi stand there and blatantly admit that she and her fellow Democrats are going to amend Constitution in order to overturn a Supreme Court decision?" the likes of Sean Hannaty, Dana Perino and Bob Beckel asked in mock abhorrence -- as if they haven't at one time or another pushed for overturning of the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.   (These amendments, in order, guaranteed "Due Process," gave Congress the legal right to collect income taxes and permitted the direct election of U.S. Senators.)

   Call it an act of collective, selective amnesia.  When the right seeks to repeal the entire 20th century, it is an act of sheer patriotism -- a strengthening of liberty's beneficent embrace.  When Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues call for the repeal Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission  it is a sure sign that the sky is falling and a reborn Soviet Union is on the brink of swallowing America whole.

   Truth to tell, the SCOTUS Citizens United decision -- which declared that corporations, like people are guaranteed the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" --  has made it likely that America will one day be swallowed whole . . . but not by Communists, by Corporatists.  As a result of Citizens United, the wealthiest Americans can dump hundreds of millions of anonymous dollars into committees that will then back those office holders or candidates who will do their bidding -- regardless of how reckless or retrogressive their wishes may be. (See my October 29, 2010 article "Worse Than Dred Scott," which was published a few days after the Supreme Court's decision.)

   As a result of Citizens United, the will of the people has been replaced by "Gold's Law" -- namely, "He (or she) that's got the gold will make the law." 

   Don't believe that the will of the people is being buried?  A bit of anecdotal evidence:

• According to an ABCNEWS/Washington Post Poll, 57% of the American public say abortion should be legal "in all or most cases," and 54% continue to support the court's 1973 Roe v Wade decision.  And yet, legislatures in nearly every state have enacted draconian anti-abortion measures up to ans including a recently passed Arizona law which states that life begins two weeks BEFORE CONCEPTION.
• The Gallup Poll reports that for the first time in its tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe ". . . same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid with the same rights as traditional marriages."  And yet, both Congress and a majority of state legislatures are pushing for a "Defense of Marriage Act," which would declare that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
• According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, a whopping 65% of those polled are in favor of an overhaul of the U.S. health care system.  Of that 65%, nearly one-in-four did not believe that so-called "Obama Care" went far enough. And yet, everywhere one looks or listens, there are demands for a repeal of the president's "socialist" program.
• A recent CBS/New York Times poll reveals that 56% say they oppose cutting the pay or benefits of (largely unionized) public employees to reduce state budget deficits, and 60% percent oppose eliminating some collective bargaining rights for public employee unions, while just one in three Americans supports that idea.  Despite this, several state legislatures have voted to curb union rights, claiming that in large measure, the nation's economic doldrums are caused by unions.
• A poll conducted by Hart Research Associates found that nearly 8 ouf ot every ten voters (79%) support passage of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the
  Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. This figure includes 42% who would definitely support it. Just 21% are opposed. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. 
  

   And yet, there are those who are warning that the sky is falling.

   Well, I'm here to tell you that the sky is not falling; rather, the horizon is rising.  We are beginning to see the largely ignored majority band together and make their/our voices and desires heard.  Just ask Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is spending nearly every waking hour trying to keep from being recalled.  Just ask the folks of ALEC (see my July 30, 2011 article) who are underwriting so many of these issues; within the past two weeks, they have lost the financial backing of Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and MacDonalds.  Lastly, ask state legislators in Hawaii, Vermont, New Mexico and shortly Montana, as well as members of city councils across the country, who have all passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. 

   Finally, people are saying "Enough's enough! America is a nation built on the will of the people, not the wealth of the plutocrats."  For those interested in adding their voice to the "Overturn Citizens United" campaign, check out Free Speech For People.

  Let the Foxifiers warn that the sky is falling.  It will keep them too busy to realize that for the rest of us, the horizon is rising . . .

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Trash Talk?

 

 

The other day, while going through boxes and boxes of pre-computer era files, I came across a cache of essays, sermons and stories written back in the 1970s and 80s.  One particular piece -- a Rosh Hashanah sermon I delivered nearly 25 years ago -- brought back a lot of memories.  Entitled "C.A.N.D.O.," the sermon dealt in general terms with what is called tikkun olam -- the Jewish imperative to "repair the world" -- and specifically, with a campaign to replace non-recyclable Styrofoam coffee cups with ceramic mugs.     

   In rereading the sermon, my mind wandered back to research and legwork that went into it.  About a month before the High Holidays that year, it came to my attention that our 1500-member congregation used upwards of 50,000 non-recyclable Styrofoam cups per year. 

  After finding this out, I did a little math, and was shocked to discover that if you stacked 50,000 cups one inside the other, the resulting tube would be slightly more than 2 1/2 miles long.  And we were but one organization in a small town!  I couldn't begin to imagine how many millions of non-biodegradable cups were being put into our local landfill -- colorfully called "Mt. Trashmore" -- to sit and fester for the next 10,000 years.  And what about the hundreds of thousands of other towns, cities, organizations, businesses and households across the country that were similarly using and then quickly burying Styrofoam cups in landfills from Bangor to Burbank?  My mind reeled at the thought. 

   And so, flashing on an idea, I started making calls and quickly fleshed out a campaign to be called C.A.N.D.O -- "Citizens Against Non-biodegradable Disposable Objects."  The idea behind it was three-fold:

1. To raise consciousness about how much mindless damage we were doing to the environment;
   
2. To empower people to do something simple -- yet hopefully effective -- about it;
3. To raise enough money to start a pilot project whereby C.A.N.D.O. would offer to replace a group's or business's Styrofoam cups with ceramic mugs free-of-charge.

    Within a few days, I had raised enough money to purchase about a thousand ceramic mugs, spoke to students at several elementary- and middle-schools and got our mayor to agree to replace all city hall Styrofoam cups with our mugs. He agreed that using washable mugs was not only environmentally responsible; in the long-run it would be more cost-effective than purchasing all those non-biodegradable cups.

   Out of these early efforts came a sermon -- then disaster.  A handful of the congregation's most visible elders pronounced themselves "aghast" that I, a young rabbi, would "speak about trash on the holiest day of the year." (In truth, I was not sermonizing on 'trash,' and Rosh Hashanah is not the holiest day of the year.  As noted above, I was really speaking on the imperative to repair and heal the world.) And so, I was muzzled. As an employee, I had two choices: to defy the elders and risk losing my job, or to obey.  I was young.  I was cowed.  C.A.N.D.O.  was packed away for another day . . .

   Fast forward a quarter century.  We have a far, far bigger problem -- one that barely existed in 1987: bottled water.  It is a far, far bigger problem for two reasons: first, the water is an unbelievable rip-off; second, the bottles are a lethal menace to both environment and economy. 

 

 

    First, a few facts:

 

• Last year, Americans spent more than $15 billion on some 50 billion bottles of water, which works out to 167 single-use bottles for every person in the country.
• One billion dollars worth of plastic water bottles goes into landfills and litter each year.
• 30 billion plastic water bottles are thrown away every year. Plastic can take up to a thousand years to disintegrate and make up a big deposit of plastic toxic waste in both the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean.
• Making bottles of water out of plastic takes more than 1.5 million barrels of oil, every year. That much oil could fuel 100,000 American cars for a year.
  
• 66 million water bottles will go into the garbage or litter today.
• Aquafina (Pepsi) and Dasani (Coke) sell 24% of all US bottled water. Yet, both are merely treated municipal tap water, resold to the public at a premium mark-up.
• San Francisco's tap water comes from Yosemite National Park and is so pure the EPA does not require it to be filtered. A bottled of Evian water at $1.35 could be refilled with San Francisco tap water once a day for over ten years before the cost would total $1.35.
• If tap water cost the same as the cheapest bottled, monthly water bills would come to $9,000.
• At nearly $4.00 a gallon, gasoline costs 3.1 cents an ounce; at an average of 10 cents an ounce, bottled water goes for nearly $13.00 a gallon.

   So what is to be done?  Is there a new C.A.N.D.O. project on the horizon? You had better believe it.  There are a number of rather simple cost-effective, environmentally responsible things we all can do:

• Sign the pledge to "Take Back the Tap."
• Buy a stainless steel or glass thermos and use it.
• If you don't like the taste -- or worry about the quality -- of your local tap water, purchase an inexpensive carbon filter; it will greatly improve the taste at a fraction of the cost.
• Encourage your school, place of employment, house of worship, gym -- wherever people gather -- install simple "hydration stations" -- drinking fountains with an extra spigot to make filling a reusable bottle quicker and easier.
• Purchase a water bottle with its own reusable filtration system -- about $10.00.
• Familiarize yourself with the facts.

   One  of the frustrating -- indeed dangerous -- aspects of modern life is how easily immediacy and acquiescence can trump both individual responsibility and collective conscience.  Frequently, it seems that all society demands of us is that we be consumers, rather than creators; that we entrust power to the titans, whether or not they have our best interests in mind. We have not been placed on this earth to be its egocentric, despoiling masters but rather its sensitive nurturing stewards.  Together -- as a community and as individuals -- there is much we C.A.N.D.O. to re-empower ourselves.  Starting with something as wholly basic as the water we drink is a good first step.

   And that, is not trash talk . . .

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Where Has All the Propofol Gone?

Propofol -- one of the drugs that led to Michael Jackson's untimely death -- is a short-acting, intravenously administered hypnotic agent. Known in some circles as "Milk of Amnesia," its uses include the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia, sedation for mechanically-ventilated patients, and procedural sedation. Propofol -- and its generic equivalents -- has been widely and successfully administered in hospital operating rooms around the world for nearly 30 years. And, as of June 4, 2010, Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Israeli-based firm that was the major supplier of Propofol, no longer manufactures it. Today, it is almost impossible to find.

Where has all the Propofol gone?

And while we're at it, where has all the Doxil, Adderall, Mitomycin, Morphine Sulphate, Avalide, Ondansetron, Succinylcholine, Dextrose, B-12 and more than 200 other important meds gone? Shockingly, between 2006 and 2010, drug shortages increased by more than 200% according to a Government Accountability Office Report released late last month. Many of the drugs declared "MIA" are critical chemotherapeutics; intravenously infused medicaments and "cocktails" that can often mean the difference between remission and metastasis -- between life and death. Some of the shorted meds -- though far less exotic -- are just as critical to the health and well-being of patients in need: things as basic as injectable cobalamin (vitamin B-12) and Tylenol 1 (the 325 mg version). Although a lack of injectable B-12 might not seem as critical as a dearth of Propofol or Doxil (a chemotherapeutic drug used in the treatment of breast cancer), it can be for the patient in need; severe B-12 deficiency can lead to irreversible damage, especially to the brain and nervous system. I know; I'm supposed to receive a weekly injection . . .

When and if a supply of these drugs can be located, it is at a cost; there are reports of drugs which distributors sold just two years ago for $25.00 per dose, now going for as much as $1,200 per dose on the "Grey Market." And this phenomenon is not confined to certain states or regions; it's happening all over the United States. Large, well-heeled establishments like the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic and Vanderbilt University Medical Center at least have the possibility of purchasing critical medications -- at monstrously inflated prices -- because they have both the ability and the resources to order in great quantity. But one should keep in mind that there are just as many -- if not more -- patients whose lives depend on receiving chemotherapeutic drug protocols who live in small towns and are served by small hospitals that don't buy in quantity and thus cannot afford to pay hyper-inflated prices. Sometimes, when a drug that a patient tolerates well can't be readily located, the physician will prescribe an alternative -- which frequently the patient cannot tolerate. With some medical conditions, an interruption in treatment of a month, even a week, can be disastrous . . . even deadly.

The question is not only "Where has all the Propofol gone?" but "What has led to its scarcity?"

It all depends on who you ask, what ones starting point might be . . . even what axe they may be grinding. Make no mistake about it: the scarcity of pharmaceuticals is an issue and a problem for both Democrats and Republicans, ultra-conservatives and ultra-progressives. Anyone, regardless of his or her political philosophy, can contract cancer or Crohn's Disease, require surgery or suffer from a thousand-and-one life-threatening ailments. And yet, when it comes to analyzing the current situation, politics and point of view do count for something.

At base, market forces have a lot to do with the scarcity of drugs. The prices we pay for pharmaceuticals in the United States are far higher than those paid by the citizens of any other country in the world. In large measure this is why the pharmaceutical industry has for years been the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S. According to the annual Forbes 500 survey, the American pharmaceutical industry tops the list of all industries with a return of 17% on investment. And although the cost of manufacturing a new drug is relatively low, the cost of inventing and then patenting a new drug is relatively high. Drug manufacturers have always claimed that the high cost of pharmaceuticals is due to this latter issue. Then too, a hefty part of the price for bringing a new drug to market can be found in advertising costs; ever notice all those commercials urging us -- the patient -- to tell our physician that we want them to prescribe drug "x" or "y" for condition "a" or "b?" Silly me; I thought it worked the other way around; that the doctor did the suggesting and prescribing to me, and not I to her . . .

Many, many pharmaceutical giants have seen their patents lapse and other companies manufacture, then market, generic versions of their creations. Generally speaking, when a drug goes off patent and becomes generic, the price drops precipitously; the companies making them are in the business of gaining as much market share as possible. This is a no-brainer. But then, the generic manufacturers cry, the price remains both low and flat; profits are minimal -- too minimual, many say, to warrent continued manufacturing of generic "a" or "b." Some place blame on the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act (H.R. 1) which Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law on December 8, 2003. This act limits Medicare payment for physician-administered drugs to the average sales price plus a 6% administrative fee, which manufacturers claim has limited profit margins and thus their ability to maintain and upgrade their facilities. And despite the fact that H.R. 1 provides for an analysis of average sales prices twice a year, it still means that the profit to be made on these generics is going to rise at a pretty slow pace. Many companies have concluded that if drug "a" or "b" can't bring in more than 6% profit above cost, they simply will discontinue its manufacture.

Another factor is the drug distribution system itself. Physicians face pressure from health insurers to obtain the best prices for prescription drugs through multiple distributors. However, as noted above, distributors tend to provide the best prices and most stable supply to high-volume purchasers. Then too, according to information provided by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, most of the nearly 170 prescription drugs in a shortage status as of October 2011 were offered by a single supplier or a small number (under 4) of firms.

Some claim the problem has been exacerbated by tighter Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement of drug manufacturing standards. (According to public records, over the past 2 years the FDA expedited more than 300 industry applications for new or updated manufacturing facilities. So much for the It's-the-fault-of-too-many-damned-regulatory-hoops-to-jump-through argument.) This past October, President Obama signed an executive order requiring the FDA to expedite regulatory review of drug manufacturers and investigate price gouging. At the same time, the White House announced that they would immediately begin requiring some drug manufacturers to report production interruptions to the FDA. The manufacturers that have to report to the FDA are those drug manufacturers that have no generic equivalent and are critical to maintaining life. There are currently two pieces of legislation making their way through Congress calling for advanced warning of impending drug shortages and more FDA action. But passage is both uncertain and a long way off. For now, drug distributors would appear to be in the driver's seat.

Today, a majority of the shorted meds are being manufactured overseas -- in China, South America, Eastern Europe and Israel. The FDA simply does not have the budget or the manpower to inspect these foreign manufacturing plants. As a result, there are a lot of pharmaceuticals on the market that do not meet American safety standards -- another cause of shortages.

That the country which prides itself on having "the best healthcare on the planet" should have these problems -- drugs shortages, an unscrupulous "grey market" charging sky-high prices for life-saving meds, and a fast-declining manufacturing base -- is unconscionable. That no other industrialized country suffers from a similar set of problems likely shows that we do not, in fact have "the best healthcare on the planet." To my way of thinking, many of these problems would be alleviated by going to a single-payer system; one that recognizes that although industries -- especially those that employ more lobbyists than any other on the planet -- have a constitutional right to make a reasonable profit, human beings have a God-given right to live.

If Michael Jackson's doctor could get his hands on Propofol why can't my doctor at the Cleveland Clinic?

And while we're at it, where in the hell is my B-12?

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Why Not Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street?

   As most readers of this blog are painfully aware, the vast majority of Republicans -- and virtually every newly-elected Teapartier in the 112th Congress - is a signatory of Grover Norquist's"I-will-never-ever-under-any-circumstances-even-at-the-point-of-an-AK-47-vote-for-any-tax-increase" pledge.  Likewise, most of us are also painfully aware that many members of Congress signed on to the Norquist pledge even prior to taking their official oath of office -- the one in which they swear to " . . . support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . ." 

  I don't know about you, but I think there ought to be a law against this sort of thing.  Hey, come to think of it, there is a law against this sort of thing; for  does not the Bible clearly state not once, but twice (Ex. 20:3-5 Deut. 5:7-9) that it is a massive wrong to make or bow down to any idol or false god?  To "engrave" Mr. Norquist's "no taxes, no how" commandment onto the tablet of a political career is, in my estimation, as blasphemous as worshipping at the altar of Baal.

   Over the past few days, President Obama has, like Abraham of old, taken an axe to the idols of Terach; with stiffened spine, he has unequivocally stated that in order to create jobs and begin fixing a broken economy, it will be absolutely necessary to spend money AND to raise taxes on the wealthy.  In throwing down the gauntlet and picking up the axe, the president has, for the first time in a long time, started sounding like a Democrat.  Not surprisingly, those who are committed to praying at the anti-tax "high places of wickedness" (c.f. Hosea 10:8) believe that the president has signed his political death notice; that the public shares their "no taxes" orthodoxy.

   Once wonders . . .

  Recent polling indicates that the great unwashed public is fed up with both Republicans and Democrats.  They are beginning to understand that President Obama and the Democrats are not nearly as responsible for the economic nightmare on Main Street as the speculators, manipulators and banksters of Wall Street. The public is also beginning to understand that any country that can fund wars of whim and back bailouts and tax breaks for billionaires is not broke.  As John Nichols noted in this week's The Nation, "There is money. It's just misallocated. The demand for jobs must be coupled with demands for better budgeting and new sources of revenue." 

   That's precisely what the president is talking about of late . . .

   One proposed source of new revenue is a minuscule (less than .05%) tax on Wall Street trading of stocks, derivatives, currencies, credit default swaps and futures -- the same speculative financial instruments that got us into our mess in the first place.  There is already a legislative proposal (H.R. 4191) before Congress that has collected more than 5 dozen cosponsors. Co-authored by Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin H.R. 4191, the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" was originally submitted in 2009.  It has garnered the support of economists, Wall Street investors, labor organizations and consumer groups. By one conservative estimate this transaction tax could raise a minimum of $150 billion in new revenue, thus forcing the banksters of Wall Street to pay for at least some of the devastation they caused to the folks on Main Street.  (Not surprisingly, DeFazio's bill has also drawn fire from many others, who claim that it will kill jobs by placing yet another layer of regulation on an already over-regulated financial world.)

   The DeFazio bill is written in such a way as to ensure that the tax is targeted at speculators, and "has no impact on the average investor and pension fund."  The tax will be refunded  for:

• Tax-favored retirement accounts
• 401(k)s
• Mutual funds
• Education Savings Accounts
• Health Savings Accounts, and
• The first $100,000 of transactions annually that are not already exempted.
  

   In a recent New York Times article, University of Massachusetts economics professor Nancy Folbre came out in support of the initiative: "Purchases of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments in the United States go untaxed but for a tiny fee (less than a half-cent) on stock trades that helps finance the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In Britain, by contrast," Professor Folbre wrote, ". . . a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions raises about $40 billion a year.  President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany recently announced plans to introduce a similar tax in the 27 nations of the European Community. Our current tax policies favor speculative investment in financial instruments over productive investments in human capabilities. . . "

   On September 1, thousands of members of "National Nurses United" flocked to Capitol Hill, lobbying more than 5 dozen members of Congress.  They called it the "National Day of Action to Tax Wall Street."  Representatives were urged to sign a pledge in support of the Wall Street transaction tax. Unlike the Norquist pledge -- a sweeping across-the-board anti-tax stance signed by virtually every member of the GOP -- this one was in support of a single piece of legislation whose affect would be felt not on Wall Street, but rather on Main Street. 

   Without question, jobs and unemployment are going to be the major issues of the 2012 election.  If the president and the Democrats will continue holding firm and show by both word and deed that they are fighting on behalf of Main Street, they may just pull off a major victory over Wall Street.  The "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street" bill is one weapon in their arsenal.  And whether or not it passes Congress (it will not) is actually irrelevant; it serves to underscore just who is fighting for the middle class . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

  

A Banquet of Consequences

  As with all fancy repasts, we begin with assorted hors d'oeuvres -- tasty tidbits meant to stimulate the palate and get the gastric juices flowing with gleeful anticipation:

• In the United States, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%.
• 80% of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 went to the top 1%.
• Between 1998 and 2005, two out of every three corporations in the U.S. (with combined sales of $2.5 trillion) paid no Federal income tax.
• In 2009, the wealthiest 400 Americans earned, on average $345 million apiece; their effective tax rate was a mere 16.6% -- the lowest tax rate for the super-wealthy ever recorded.
• During the eight G.W. Bush years, the 400 wealthiest Americans increased their wealth by more than $380 billion.
• During the eight G.W. Bush years, America closed down more than 42,000 factories, for a net loss of more than 5 million manufacturing jobs.  

    Our appetites hopefully whetted, we now move on to the next course:

• In 2010, the top 25 hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion in income -- an average of $1 billion per person.
• In 2009, a two-income family had less disposable after-tax income than a one-income family did thirty years ago. 
• In December 2010, Congress lowered the inheritance tax from 55% to 35%, with an exemption on the first $5 million on an individual's (or $10 million for a couple's) estate. Research shows that this tax applies only to the top three-tenths of one percent of American families, and will reduce federal revenues by about $200 billion a year. 
• As of 2010, the Social Security Trust Fund has a $2.6 trillion surplus; enough to pay out benefits for the next 27 years.
• As of March 2011, major American corporations have approximately $2 trillion cash on hand.
• In the first quarter of 2011, the five major oil corporations booked profits of $36 billion.  Nonetheless, they receive approximately $4 billion a year in federal tax subsidies. This past Thursday the CEOs of these five corporations went before a Senate committee and said that anyone who was in favor of ending these subsidies was "un-American."
• In 2010, these five oil corporations spent more than $145 million on 800 lobbyists.  (The $4 billion they will likely continue to receive in 2011 thereby represents a 2,700% return on investment.)

   And now for the main course:

• In May 2011, America is carrying a $13.8 trillion national debt, a $1.3 trillion trade deficit, and is sending $1 billion a day, 365 days a year to the Saudis for oil.
• In December 2010, Congress extended a tax cut for all Americans for an additional two years.
• As a result of the tax cut extension, a family making between $50,000 and $75,000, will save just over $2,000.  By comparison, families making between $500,000 and $1 million gets an average $25,000 tax break, and those making over $1 million a year get more than $130,000.
• Tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year will cost the treasury $42 billion in fiscal year 2012.  Compare this to $38 billion in cuts -- mostly to education, health and other social services -- enacted by Congress just one month ago.
• According to the Center for American Progress, the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will cost $120 billion over the next two years and will create or save approximately 290,000 jobs.  Doing the math, this works out to roughly $400,000 a job, although few, if any, will pay anywhere near that amount.
• Despite running on a platform calling for "jobs, jobs and more jobs" and "extreme fiscal discipline," Republicans -- on both the national and state level -- have instead used their newfound power to enact draconian cuts in social services, pensions and education, severely curb -- if not cancel -- collective bargaining rights for unions, and severely restrict to the point of impossibility abortion.  (In Florida, the "Let's Get to Work" governor and legislature responded to the state's fiscal crisis by one bill against the wearing of saggy pants which permit one's underwear to show, a second requiring all those seeking public assistance to undergo mandatory drug testing, and a third requiring women seeking an abortion to first pay for an ultrasound.  What all of this has to do with the creation of jobs or fiscal integrity is beyond me. . .)
• According to Speaker Boehner and members of the Tea Party Caucus, unless Congress agrees to trillions of dollars in budget cuts -- with virtually no increase in taxes except on women's centers that perform abortions -- they will not support an increase in the Federal Debt Ceiling.  (Please note that increasing the debt ceiling does not add a cent to the federal deficit; it merely gives the government the legal ability to meet its debt obligations.  Without an increase in the ceiling the "Full Faith and Credit" of the United States would, for the first time in its history, be called into question, which in turn would likely trigger an international fiscal crisis of epic proportions.)

    I don't know about you, but I've pretty much lost my appetite.  I think I'm going to skip desert and opt out for a postprandial brandy . . . perhaps a flask of Frapin.

   Although the cause(s) of America's "Great Recession" are rather clear -- a combination of Wall Street duplicity, untrammeled free trade leading to job exportation and putting the cost of war on the national credit card -- the road to recovery is shrouded with doubt.  One thing though, is certain: the vast American Middle Class -- the historic economic backbone of the country -- has been dealt a mortal wound.  At no time since the Gilded Age has the gap between the hyper wealthy and the rest of America been so great.  Congress -- the so-called "People's House" -- cannot and will not do anything to upset those who underwrite their political careers. 

   Historically, Democrats have had a tendency to see government playing an enhanced role at times of economic crisis; acting as both a referee and a bank of last resort.  Their understanding of economics posits that during times of economic crisis, the best investments are in people -- whether through unemployment checks, Social Security payments or public works programs that put people to work. When you invest in those who are falling behind, so this argument goes, they immediately spend their money -- on food, rent, clothing and other necessities.  In turn, these purchases help the bottom line of the grocer, the landlord and the department store who, because of increased sales, may well seek additional employees who in turn will earn money for which they too will pay taxes.  And on and on.  And although this understanding of economics does have its limits, it can work.

   Historically, Republicans have had a tendency to believe that the solution to economic hard times will come from the "haves," rather than the "have-nots."  They believe that a combination of lower taxes and fewer regulations will put more money into the hands of corporations, who, so they believe, are the ones who will ultimately create the jobs that will ultimately right the economic ship of state. For the past generation or more, this approach has been known as "trickle-down economics." It has also been shown to not work.

     The Republican mantra states "If you tax rich people and their corporations, it kills jobs."  They have a tendency to see those whom the Democrats would assist through government programs as "leeches" and "blood-suckers."  Case in point, a recent article against President Obama's economic recovery plan by a senior fellow at the Cato Institute's "Institute for Economic Growth," in which he wrote:

   Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others.  We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers. 

     Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government. Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged.” (Please note that Ayn Rand, the goddess of "Objectivism," the women who occupies a hallowed spot in the Libertarian/Tea Party Pantheon, was herself a recipient of both Social Security and Medicare.  And, for those who can quote line and verse from We the Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, please note that Ms. Rand was a dyed-in-the-wool atheist who despised religion and was fully supportive of a woman's right to choose.)

   I'm here to tell you that the rich don't create jobs; Democracy creates jobs.  Jobs are created when people walk in the door to buy whatever goods and services you have to offer.  And people cannot walk in your door unless they have money to spend.  Democracy is a shared experience; ideally we are supposed to share in both its costs and benefits; its savings and its sacrifices.  Maddeningly, those at the top -- those who already have the most and are getting even more through the actions of a government  they seem to view as their private piggy bank -- don't spend their extra millions or billions on job creation.  They spend it on second or third private jets, four or fifth vacation homes or Cayman Island tax shelters.  They don't create jobs; they export them.

   Unless and until we hold every member of Congress or state legislature to account; unless and until we make our voices heard; unless or until we proclaim that Democracy requires shared sacrifice; we, the middle class will continue to be nothing but beggars at a banquet . . . a banquet of dire consequences.  

Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers.

©2011 Kurt F. Stone  

Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers.