The official poverty rate for the United States in 2010 was 15.1 percent. There were 46.2 million individuals who were poor, defined as a family of four living on an income of under $23,050.  Much has been written about the “invisible poor,” and both major political parties have contributed considerably to this perspective.  So much rhetoric is directed toward the middle class.  We talk about lowering taxes for the middle class; about providing jobs for the middle class; about having affordable housing for the middle class; about educational opportunities for the middle class; about having reasonably priced and skilled health care for the middle class.  One listens to this and it doesn’t sound so bad to be middle class; in fact it sounds downright good.

Much has also been written about the fixation of those people in the United States who are not wealthy but who aspire to be rich.  Occasionally, this happens, because we are a society in which dreams of greater success certainly can come true.  Our political conventions are full of “rags to riches” stories, and even if a tiny handful of them are actually true, the fact remains that there are those who are poor or of modest means who achieve affluence, usually through access to quality education, hard work, and frequently, some well-deserved luck.

One thing that those who are poor and those who are in the middle class have in common is a dream that lightning could strike any day, and they will join the ranks of the very rich.  This is the “tomorrow I’ll win the lottery” syndrome.  Yes, that’s true, if you believe that odds that are millions to one are a good bet.  Enough people believe that this is going to happen that they let this dream trump what is in their economic self-interest and agree to support the Republican ideas of lowering taxes for the very wealthy, and establishing a socialistic-like welfare state for ….. the very wealthy, like Mitt Romney or Donald Trump.

The masses are often numbed to reality and play right into the hands of  wealthy Republicans.  While poor people may hold this dream even more firmly than those in the middle class, the rhetoric of  Republicans, and often Democrats, is directed to those in the middle class. because they are more likely to vote, particularly in an era of increasing voter suppression.

This leads to one of the most remarkable, yet simple, statements by former President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, September 5, 2012.  Clinton said,

“We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think ‘we’re all in this together’ is a better philosophy than ‘you’re on your own.’”

President Clinton took the realistic point of view that it is reasonable for poor people to aspire to rise to the middle class where they can have adequate access to health, education, housing, and a suitable quality of life.  This is a vast improvement for a family of four living on $23,000 a year, or an individual living on $10,000.  By setting a realistic goal for those who are poor, Clinton gives hope that life can improve without waiting for the nearly impossibly happening of winning the lottery.  He educates those who are poor and those who are in the middle class to learn that what is in their self-interest are economic policies that directly help them, rather than unlikely fantasies about becoming as wealthy as Romney.  Access to health care at affordable prices, quality public education, Pell Grants for college, accessible and reasonably priced mortgages, food that is affordable and safe, and perhaps most importantl, jobs that pay decent wages and have the permanence that those of a generation or two ago had is just fine.

President Clinton went on to say,

“It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.”

Reviews of Clinton’s speech have noted how accurate his facts were, in particular contrast to many speakers at the Republican National Convention, including Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan.  But Clinton not only got his facts right; he got his concepts right.

Clinton knows what American life is like.  He grew up poor in Hope, Arkansas.  With a salary in the mid-$30,000s, his life was middle class even as governor of Arkansas.  Once president, he became well-off, and as a former president he has become both quite wealthy and also extremely charitable.

His path to wealth involved taking advantage of fair and reasonable opportunities that were available to him, including good public schooling, scholarship aid to Georgetown University and Yale Law School.  He worked extremely hard and had a clear sense of direction.  He did not spend idle hours dreaming of stashing his money away in the Cayman Islands or banks in the Swiss Alps.  He voted in both his own interest as well as those of the many poor and middle income individuals and families in Arkansas and elsewhere.

Republicans succeed in large part because they hoodwink many individuals into voting against their self-interest (as described particularly well in Thomas Frank’s book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”)  This is one of America’s greatest tragedies.  As a very wise person said following the speech, Bill Clinton ought to be “Secretary of Explaining Things.”  If he was, we’d be a much wiser country and improvements in the quality of life for those who need it most would improve exponentially.  Since that’s not possible, perhaps it’s time for President Obama to make Bill Clinton a full-time member of the team with the more realistic title of: community organizer.

The post Clinton remembers poor as well as middle class appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A common stereotype about Ivy League universities as well as other high prestige ones is that the students are arrogant, even snobby. That can make it difficult to establish “cross-university” friendships and working relationships.

This concept could not have been clearer four years ago as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton finished up their battle for the Democratic nomination for president. Consider the colleges and universities that the Obamas and Clintons attended:

Barack Obama attended Occidental, Columbia, Harvard Law, and taught law at University of Chicago

Michelle Obama attended Princeton

Bill Clinton attended Georgetown, Yale Law and taught law at University of Arkansas

Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley, and Yale Law

Attending outstanding and prestigious universities is not an exclusive bailiwick of Democrats. George W. Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School. Some might question what he learned there, but that’s a subject for another day. I’d love to hear Dan Rather report on that one.

George H.W. Bush attended Yale a generation before his son and did well. He was also an excellent first baseman and major league prospect and at age 90 might do better than the current occupant of that position for the Los Angeles Angels.

Most people would say that the two Obamas and the two Clintons were far more intelligent than the Bushes. However, in 2008 when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were competing for the highest office in the land, what normally would be a bond among intelligent people with similar perspectives turned into a battle of insults.

Bill Clinton said on the Charlie Rose Show that then-Senator Obama wasn’t ready to handle the duties of the Oval Office. He pointed out that Obama had served in the Senate for only one year prior to announcing his candidacy for president. In debates, Hillary Clinton sometimes echoed ideas of her husband and Obama said that he didn’t know which Clinton he was running against.

In a debate prior to the New Hampshire Primary, Obama was asked if he liked Hillary Clinton. In a moment of clear weakness and perhaps fatigue, he said, “she’s nice enough.” This clearly hurt him and combined with increase authenticity by Hillary Clinton, she went on to surprise most and win the Granite State.

Perhaps the greatest bitterness was directed towards Obama from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe. This extended beyond the time that Obama had secured enough delegates to secure a majority of delegates for the Denver convention.

However, it was shortly thereafter that maturity prevailed. Hillary Clinton gave a gracious concession speech. Bill Clinton acknowledged that he had said some ill-advised words and fully endorsed Barack Obama. Obama was thankful and warm towards both Clintons. A rumor began that he would nominate Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, but it was given little credence, particularly since she had a plum job as a U.S. Senator from the state of New York.

However, Barack Obama respected her international acumen; her firmness; and here ability to negotiate. He nominated her to be Secretary of State and she was confirmed by her colleagues in the Senate. Bill Clinton was most grateful; he truly wanted Hillary to advance up the ladder and perhaps one day become president (still an option for 2016).

Bill Clinton has become a close advisor to Barack Obama and they have developed a friendship that includes frequent rounds of golf.

What is important is that these intelligent Democrats chose to put past grievance aside and not only become friends, but to be working partners. Michelle Obama is part of this equation as well, in large part because she is her husband’s number one advisor. Of the four, she may be the most forgiving and forward looking.

The Bushes went to outstanding universities and at least one is highly educated. George H.W. Bush, who lost to Clinton in 1992, has joined with Clinton in humanitarian efforts including responding to the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004. If only his son had listened to him about how to handle Saddam Hussein, we would have a much safer world now and many Iraqis and Americans would not have died in vain.

What’s key is that unlike the father and son, the foursome of the two Clintons and the two Obamas have developed a relationship characterized by soliciting advice and active listening. To reference Rick Santorum, none of the four is a “snob” for having attended outstanding colleges. As frequently is the case, there’s much that Republicans can learn from Democrats. But that requires listening.

The post The Clintons and the Obamas: Being smart and learning humility appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There is a war going on in this country and it’s not the war between Democrats and Republicans. It’s a war between progressives—those who represent the interests of the poor and middle classes, people like Elizabeth Warren, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and progressive activists—and Democrats and Republicans who feed at the corporate trough (most Democrats and all Republicans).

Corporate Democrats—like Rep. Steve Israel, Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)—consistently support corporate candidates over progressive candidates.  Israel and the DCCC are busy throwing money and resources at reactionary Blue Dog candidates who often vote with Republicans—including Mike McIntyre (NC), Tim Holden (PA), John Barrow (GA), Jim Matheson (UT) Ben Chandler (KY), Nick Lampson (TX), Clark Hall (AR). Rob Wallace (OK), and Leonard Bembry (FL). When they are not doing that they are recruiting Republicans to run as Democrats.

Progressives shut out of the political arena

Progressives who try to compete against corporate Democrats or Republicans are often shut out of the running by lack of money, lack of backing by the DCCC or the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), or they are shunned when they refuse to go along with the “slash and burn” politics typical of both parties. In 2010, Russ Feingold, the veteran progressive Democrat from Wisconsin, lost his senate seat to Republican Ron Johnson. Feingold was outspent by Johnson, and he also refused help from the DSCC who wanted to run negative campaign ads against his opponent. Feingold ran a principled , progressive campaign and lost.

In 2010, progressive candidate Arthur Lieber ran against Tea Party incumbent Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and lost. Lieber ran a low-budget, self-funded campaign in Missouri’s Second District. Because the district was heavily Republican, his chances were not good. But what was most striking was the complete lack of interest in his campaign by the Democratic Party of Missouri or the DCCC in Washington. Because Lieber was not an establishment Democrat, the Party and the media ignored him. Instead of working to defeat Akin, for years, the Democratic Party had written off the district. Lieber ran in the Second because no Democrat filed to run, and he felt strongly that voters needed a choice. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, couldn’t have cared less.

Corporate Democrats: A high wire balancing act

Among the top 10 contributors to Sen. Patty Murray, (Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC)) are Boeing, Microsoft and Weyerhaeuser. Among the top 10 for Rep. Wasserman Schultz, (Democratic National Committee Chairwoman), are Boeing, Microsoft and American Crystal Sugar. Corporations give campaign funds to Democrats and Republicans because, in return, they expect policies and legislation that benefit their bottom line. Unlike Republicans, Democrats are expected to vote for the interests of working families and they campaign on the promise to do so. Yet, when Boeing or Weyerhaeuser want something, Murray and Wasserman Schultz have to deliver, because if they don’t, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser will take their money and support elsewhere.

That is the essence of the game in Washington, the balancing act of serving donors while trying to serve constituents. Often, their needs are in conflict. It’s not that Wasserman Schultz and Murray are not interested in their constituents. They both have a good voting record on a lot of issues. The problem is that they are both working within a corrupt political system. They work hard to play the game well and they resent progressives who not only don’t want to play the game, but who want to end the game. For corporate Democrats, playing the game well has additional rewards, including future lucrative jobs in the private sector.

DCCC refuses to take on Ryan, Cantor or Boehner

Down With Tyranny! reports that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) uses high profile Republican villains like Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and John Boehner to raise money yet they make little or no effort to defeat them in their home districts.  For example, Boehner has a 28% approval rating in Ohio, but the DCCC has no intention of taking him on. Boehner, who is raising piles of money for his reelection, will end up giving the money, which may reach upwards of $25,000,000, to other Republican candidates to use against Democrats around the country.

Again, according to Down With Tyranny! for the twelve years he has been in office, DC Democrats have never once seriously challenged Paul Ryan in Wisconsin. This year Ryan has a serious opponent, progressive candidate Rob Zerban, but the DCCC has yet to cut him a check. The DCCC fills its coffers by attacking Ryan in national press releases and attack ads, but refuses to take him on locally in Wisconsin. Why? Ryan gets his cash and power from the same corporate donors who fund establishment Democrats. Obviously, for DC Democrats, taking on certain high profile Republicans is off limits, perhaps because their shared donors have an investment in them staying in office.

A corporate Democrat and Republican meet in a bar . . .

Actually, it wasn’t at a bar, it was backstage at a Fiscal Summit held by the Pete Peterson Foundation in 2011. Bill Clinton and Paul Ryan were both scheduled to speak. Pete Peterson is a billionaire who wants to balance the budget by destroying Social Security and Medicare. The transcript of the conversation, recorded without their knowledge, is about Social Security and Medicare.

Clinton: “I’m glad we won this race in New York, but I hope Democrats don’t use it as an excuse to do nothing.”

Ryan: “My guess is it’s gonna sink into paralysis, is what’s gonna happen. And you know the math. I mean, it’s just—we knew we were putting ourselves out there. But you gotta start this. You gotta get out there. You gotta get this thing moving.”

Clinton told Ryan to call him if he ever wanted to talk about the issue, Ryan said he would, and the two parted.

So, there you have a high profile corporate Democrat, former president Bill Clinton, and Republican Paul Ryan agreeing that Social Security and Medicare are on the table. Which is why you can’t ever trust a corporate Democrat.

So, the moral of the story is this: Vote for Democrats, and work to get them elected, but do so with your eyes open. Vote for them because the alternative is too dangerous. Educate yourself about the level of corruption in the system and keep Democrats feet to the fire. Finally, keep up the good fight for progressive policies and candidates.

The post Progressives vs. Republicans and Democrats appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the few conservative ideas that has sufficient appeal for progressives to embrace is that you can’t solve problems just by throwing money at them. The parting of the waters comes when conservatives can’t accept the value of money in meeting the most basic of economic needs such as unemployment insurance or infrastructure safety.

Perhaps because I’ve spent most of my life in education, I am somewhat skeptical of the idea that, by providing more money for schools, we will have a more educated populace. Look at the chart below. I saw it first in former President Bill Clinton’s book, Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy.

High school graduation rates

No data is provided for Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Netherlands, and the Russian Federation.

Source: Education at a Glance 2010: OECD indicators. www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010

President Clinton’s logic is premised on the principle that a smart government will result in a strong economy. This is based on the assumption that smart government comes from good schools. We know whether or not we have good schools based on certain measurements. One of those is the high-school graduation rate. Public opinion is with him; we’re constantly told how important it is for students to stay in school.

It should be no surprise that, as indicated in the chart above, Germany has outstanding schools and perhaps the world’s healthiest economy. Education is valued and an astonishing 99.5% of students complete high school. However, the validity of the theory comes to a screeching halt with the country that has the third highest percentage of high school graduates, Greece. The birthplace of modern democracy has a graduation rate of 96.2%, clearly the envy of virtually every other country in the world.

The problem is that the high-school  graduation rate does not guarantee as  strong an economy as President Clinton suggests. The twenty-seven nation European Union is struggling to reverse its current economic downturn. We frequently hear of a doomsday scenario in which the European economy collapses due to more debt than it can service. This scares economists, investors, and other so-called financial experts in Europe. On bad days, the fear leaps over the Atlantic, while Americans are asleep, after which they wake up to a bearish stock market. The momentum crosses the Pacific and flummoxes the Asian markets. It may continue the next day in Europe, or due to some unexpected or inexplicable reason, the trend stops and then is reversed.

Key to Europe’s economic problems is debt,  and in no country is it more of a problem than Greece. The public debt of Greece is $436 billion; 143% of its Gross Domestic Product. The interest on Greece’s long-term debt is 18%. No other EU country has a rate over 12%. Debt is not Greece’s only problem. In 2010, its GDP dropped 4.5%; a figure that represents a growth rate slower than 210 other countries.

A big contributor to Greece’s public debt is the failure of individuals and corporations to pay the taxes they owe. This raises an obvious question: if the citizens of Greece have the third highest high school graduation rate of any country, then why are they not smart enough to know to pay their taxes?

All that the 96.2% graduation rate tells us is that almost all high school students completed the secondary schooling. It doesn’t tell us anything about what the students knew, about what they learned while in school, or about what was lacking in their education.

Far be it for me to disagree with President Clinton about the importance of a strong educational system to ensure smart government and,  in turn,  a strong economy. It’s just that a high school graduation rate is arbitrary and potentially misleading. Think about college graduation rates from Division 1 NCAA schools. Coaches like to brag when their roster has a high graduation rate. What does that mean? It means that a relatively high percentage of students playing sports graduate from college. It doesn’t mean anything about what they learned, or what they didn’t learn. It doesn’t tell us anything about what courses they took. It doesn’t tell us whether professors inflated their grades because they were athletes.

If Greece, or any other country, is to have a strong economy, it needs a workforce that is skilled and committed to working hard and working smart. We all know that there are students who graduate from high school without being very skilled and without working either hard or smartly. Graduation rates or test scores will not tell you if someone can help a country increase its Gross Domestic Product in a way that improves the quality of life (i.e. fighting poverty rather than fighting discretionary wars). It will not tell you if citizens have the strength of character and commitment to the general good to willingly pay taxes, to support programs that promote the general welfare, and to provide necessary oversight and caution to ensure quality control.

We live in a world in which we can try to quantify virtually anything and everything. It would serve us well to remember the old adage, “There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” When it comes to using statistics, it might be helpful to remember the words of advice from Sgt. Phil Esterhaus of Hill Street Blues, when he dismissed his officers to take to the streets, “Let’s be careful out there.” Even Bill Clinton has reason to believe that.

The post Education doesn’t always lead to strong economy: Ask Greece appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s present in the rhetoric of virtually all politicians. “We need to have a work ethic; it’s not American to be lazy.” Like so much that is said by politicians, the high esteem with which they regard work has an exclusion clause in it. The rules don’t apply to them.

Actually, many politicians do work hard, just not doing their day jobs – you know, the one that we elected them to do. Texas Governor Rick Perry makes $150,000 a year, not a king’s ransom for those who do the bidding for the wealthy, but still a healthy chunk of money. It’s certainly enough money that if your state is on fire you would want to at least pretend to be in charge. You might fly in, wearing your custom hard hat for a photo op while the fire fighters are cursing you under their breath as they wait for you to leave so they can do their day (and night) jobs.

But Rick Perry was enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame as the presumptive Republican nominee for president. He discovered that his gift for gab scorched him on the campaign trail, particularly in the heat of debates. He probably wished that he was paying a little attention to the fires in his home state. But like so many of our leaders, he was AWOL when it counted. And while he was AWOL, the state treasurer was signing his paycheck.

He’s not alone in this regard. Sarah Palin was away from Juneau so much when she was governor of Alaska that she decided that her services were no longer needed. She declared her job done, resigned, and hit the high-paying lecture circuit while writing (or having ghost-written), her book Going Rogue.

It’s not just Republicans. Bill Clinton was away from the office raising money dozens of times during his two terms as president. But Barack Obama seems to be trying to outdo Clinton. Clinton was the key-noter at five fund-raisers in his first year as president; Barack Obama was the headliner twenty-three times in his first nine months.

Barack Obama was a U.S. senator for four years. During that period of time (1,461 days), he was on the job only 143 days. Part of that is due to the fact that twenty-three of the forty-eight months that he was a senator he was busy either being a presidential candidate or a president-elect. As a senator, his average salary was $165,450 per year. His presidential campaign raised over $650 million. Perhaps he could have saved the tax payers a few dollars by not accepting his salary for the days he was absent. Instead he could have taken a stipend from his campaign. The same could be said about Rick Perry now as well as other candidates who hold public office.

In fairness to the president, many of the days when he was not working as a senator, his colleagues were also away from Capitol, often dialing for dollars. In fact Congress is in session only two out of three weeks and many of the weeks when it is in session, both the days and the hours are few.

There are clearly consequences of the work schedules, or lack of work, that many of our political leaders.

1. Basic functions of government are not being fulfilled. The presidency requires an individual at the helm who is “focused like a laser” on the job to be done. Yes, time off is necessary for sanity, but shilling for money is not the kind of relaxation that re-energizes someone.

Members of Congress can only do their job if they are gathering information, synthesizing it, and evaluating it. The committee system provides opportunities for small numbers of Congresspersons to engage specialists in Q & A. If witnesses were knowledgeable and had no connection with lobbying organizations that donate to campaigns, they could be of enormous benefit to members of Congress in doing their jobs. Additionally there could be on-site inspections of national and international problems as well as the programs that are trying to address them. The trips would be serious inquiries; not old-fashioned junkets.

2. Public officials need to bring more integrity to the jobs they hold. If Congress comes back from its August vacation and then goes on vacation after two weeks, it’s a public relations disaster. Here they are talking about the great American values of responsibility and hard work, and they’re some place other than on the job. When they reconvene, it’s often to try to deal with gridlock that developed in part because they weren’t on the job when they should have been.

3. There is a “trickle-down” impact of not working. FEMA is running out of money; it needs new appropriations from Congress. These are dollars that provide shelter, food, clothing, and additional support for real people, the victims of disasters. Even if Congress eventually meets its obligation, the uncertainty of if or when they will get around to it undermines local planning and adds to the trauma of the victims.

The Brits and others do it differently. They have six-week campaigns. Elections occur in a compact period of time when voters can be focused. By virtue of being only six weeks, excessive money is not needed.

When our public officials talk about the need for oversight of the spending of public monies, there is a single institution which is geo-centered and accessible to evaluators. If Congress and the president would simply look at themselves with one purpose in mind – ensuring that we get a good day’s work out of them every work day, we could solve many of our problems. The cost would be abandoning hypocrisy. That might be asking too much, but if the public doesn’t shed light on it, we’ll continue to get less than optimal government. A simple question to ask any public official who is scrounging for dollars would be, “What would you be doing now if you were at work?

The post We need politicians to do their day jobs appeared first on Occasional Planet.