By October 1, 2020, anyone wanting to fly domestically, or gain legal admittance to a government facility or a nuclear power plant needs to have a Real ID (or a valid U.S. passport). Your Real ID is a form of identification that meets standards set—in response to 9/11—by the federal government and set in stone by Congress in 2005. Some states jumped right in and created Real ID’s for their citizens. If you don’t live in Missouri, this is already old news, and you’ve had your Real ID for years. Not surprisingly, ultra-conservative and slow-as-molasses Missouri was among the last of the states to get on board (as I write this, the only remaining outliers are Oklahoma, Oregon and New Jersey).

I hate to admit this, but I’m not sure I completely disagree with Missouri’s recalcitrance. The requirements for getting your Real ID can be onerous for some people and inconvenient for a lot. Those are probably not the main reasons my state legislature dragged its feet—it’s probably more about “big-gummint” intrusion into little people’s lives, and as a “librul,” I’m less worried about that, given the greater good that a big-thinking government can do. What troubles me about Real ID is its basis in xenophobia and the burden it places on people with the fewest resources.

That being said, though, it’s the law. And now that the deadline is looming—the feds are done giving out multiple extensions like those it granted to Missouri several times over—it is becoming an emergency for Missouri citizens to do what’s needed to get the new card.

So, dutiful citizen that I am, and wanting to beat the last-minute crowds that will undoubtedly show up just before the deadline, last week, I did my research, gathered my docs, and headed over to my local DMV to get compliant.

The process was far from a slam-dunk. I was pretty sure I had the proper credentials—but as I waited in line at the DMV, I began to wonder. I had a long time to worry, because when I arrived, I pulled number 25 from the dispenser and then heard them call number 4. Each transaction was taking about 15 minutes. I did the math. It was going to be a long day.

But then, as I observed the official interactions from my chair (I was lucky to get one) three feet away, I began to see a trend: The clerk was turning away more than half of the applicants because they didn’t have a complete set of the required documents. That phenomenon made the line move more quickly—and I found myself guiltily cheering for more rejections—but it was disconcerting, too. With so many people being turned away, it was becoming clear to me (increasingly nervous about my own documents) that the requirements were confusing or not well-explained, or just impossible for some people.

I brought four items, but you might need five, if you don’t have a passport:

1. My current U.S. passport. That’s my proof of identity, because it has my full name and date of birth. (There are a bunch of other things you can bring for identity, but that’s the one I had. Birth certificates count, but mine wouldn’t have worked, because, as a woman who got married in the 1960s and changed my name, my birth name doesn’t match my current name, so it’s not valid ID. A friend of mine told me about an 86-year-old woman she knows who tried to use her birth certificate as ID but was rejected for just that reason and was told she needed something with her changed name, such as her marriage certificate. Unfortunately, all she had was her Jewish marriage certificate, known as a “ketubah.” That wouldn’t work, because it’s written in Hebrew.)

If you have a name problem, you can bring a “name change” document, such as a certified marriage license (in English), a certified divorce decree, certified adoption papers, or an amended birth certificate.

2. I needed something that certified that I am in the U.S. lawfully. My passport worked for that, too, but again, there are other valid documents for that purpose.
3. Social Security Card. (The rules say it can’t be laminated. I was glad I had never gotten around to doing that.) You can also bring a W-2 Form, a 1099 form, or a current pay stub that has your name and social security number.
4. Proof of residence x2: They want two of these. I brought my Missouri voter registration card (not the notification of where you vote) and a printout of my most recent bank statement, which has my mailing address on it. This is the category that tripped up most people who got bounced from the queue ahead of me. They didn’t have two. There’s a long list of things that work, you just have to remember to bring two of them.

The process was so slow that many people left before their number came up. Some took a new number as they exited, hoping to come back later and have an advantage in the sequence. That didn’t seem to work. The young man sitting next to me had tried it, after waiting for 90 minutes earlier that day. But when he came back, his number—89—had already been called, and he had to start over. He got 26 this time—he would be right after me—and we sat together for the next 90 minutes, chatting, secretly hoping for more people ahead of us to be rejected, and commiserating about the sad state of government administration as demonstrated by where we were at that moment.

Finally, they called, “25.” I did, indeed, have the correct documentation, and my transaction took only about 10 minutes, plus a $12 fee. The beleaguered clerk, who had taken quite a bit of shit from people lacking all the required docs, was very pleasant.  Unfortunately, I had made one major miscalculation. Real ID is good for six years, but my driver’s license expires in August of this year, which means so does the Real ID that I received in the mail 10 days later. I should have waited until March (or later), when I would have been within the six-month window for renewing my license. In my quest to get ahead of the game, I got too far ahead, and now I’ll have to go through the whole thing again this summer.

The post I got my Real ID last week in Missouri. Here’s what you can learn from my experience. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The date is January 20^th, 2021, and Joe Biden is assuming the presidency. The demagogue Donald Trump has been defeated, the republic restored, and honor returned to the Oval Office. President Biden is unveiling a new legislative agenda for the 21^st century. Several prominent Republicans who remained steadfast in their opposition to Trump have signed on in a generous spirit of bipartisanship. Highlights include:

• Increased sanctions on the Russian Federation and open funding for Ukrainian separatists (including the ones who are definitely not Nazis) in their war for freedom against Russia, as well as supporting a new missile defense strategy in Eastern Europe (something forwarded by the Bush II administration).
• A new House subcommittee aimed at investigating individuals with ties to Putin’s Russia, like Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, and other subversive figures. It was, after all, these interlopers who allowed Donald Trump into the White House in the first place. Who was paying them? What were their motives?
• A congressional motion to formally praise the CIA and FBI for “defending the republic” during the Trump regime. President Biden promises to keep Gina Haspel as head of the CIA, citing her “decades of honorable service defending against foreign, communist aggression.” Haspel goes on to address Congress on the need to continue support for the Saudi-led coalition’s bombings in Yemen. She praises the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the newly-minted Islamic Republic of Turkey as “valued partners in a grand alliance for democracy and against Islamist terror in the Middle East.”
• A program similar to Simpson-Bowles aimed at greatly cutting “unsustainable” entitlements.

Finally, things will be back to normal.

If the above sounds hyperbolic, and admittedly a bit of a straw man, I concede that it is. But the concept of a “unity government” is not, necessarily. In case it wasn’t clear, the problem with the above is that it is a right-wing agenda: More law-and-order policies, more reverence for the blood-soaked intelligence community, more economic inequality, more intervention abroad. A reactionary policy slate disguised as the restoration of the republic.

In short, I worry that what many opponents of Donald Trump disagree with are not his counterproductive, war-mongering foreign policy, or his repression of civil rights at home, or his increasing reliance on shadow government by his rich friends. Rather, it is Trump himself, the crude, deeply prejudiced oaf, that angers centrist establishment types. He is “dishonoring the office”, he is “making a mockery of our government”, he is a Russian plant, or at least pro-Russian. I don’t deny any of this, except perhaps the extent to which Trump is directly taking orders from Vladimir Putin.

I do, however, question the wisdom of moderates and centrist liberals teaming up with the ostensibly anti-Trump right to stop Trump. Note, for instance, the liberal praise for Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) for using rhetorical flourishes to oppose Trump, like comparing the president to Stalin. But Flake’s past positions include voting to make the Patriot Act permanent, opposing equal rights for same-sex couples, and supporting the Iraq War. Or, take the example of Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), who appeared on The Daily Show in 2016 to advocate voting for Clinton over Trump, comparing the choice to one between being shot or poisoned. Two years later, he’s having an “interesting” dinner with Trump, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin while congratulating Trump on his Iran policy and on selecting Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.

Welcome to #TheResistance, guys.

Yet some centrists seem devoted to the idea of teaming up with anti-Trump conservatives. Eric “Game Theory” Garland, frequent defender of Obama and Hillary Clinton against their leftist critics, wrote in the middle of his legendary 127-tweet long rant about Russian influence in December 2016:

And now, it’s December 11th. Trump says he don’t need no stinkin’ intel agencies. Russia (BWAHAHAHAHAAAA) blames Ukraine! LOLOLOLOLZZZ. A lot of Republicans stare into the middle distance, except for McCain and Graham who are NOT HAVING THIS SHIT. (I salute you, gentlemen.)

Not to mention Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, who wrote a “Statement of Principles of the #CoalitionOfAllDemocraticForces”. Wittes says in his 18-tweet manifesto, penned in November of 2017 that

We have grave disagreements about social issues, about important foreign policy questions, about tax policy… #IBelieve in putting them all aside…a temporary truce on all such questions, an agreement to maintain the status quo on major areas of policy dispute while Americans of good faith collectively band together to face a national emergency.”

In other words, inequality, imperialism, and other fundamental questions of our age pale in comparison to the big issue here: Stopping Trump. Literally everything else can wait.

Let’s not forget liberals’ increasing usage of Soviet symbols, like the woman in Colorado who paid for multiple billboard advertisements depicting the letters “GOP”, but inside of the “O” is a hammer-and-sickle. “Even Republicans have emailed me to say they are outraged at this administration and don’t want to belong to this party anymore,” she told USA Today. Which Republicans? It can’t be the “only 73 percent” of party members who still support the Trump administration. And I can’t help but suspect that the use of Soviet imagery is a subtle jab at the left, another attempt to tie the nascent socialist upswing in America to foreign despotism.

There is historical precedent for centrist “unity” governments who have, by one method or another, been co-opted by reactionary forces:

• Abraham Lincoln, interestingly, did not run as a Republican in his 1864 reelection bid. The Republicans briefly renamed themselves the “National Union Party” in order to attract War Democrats, border state residents, and pro-slavery but pro-union voters. The party nominated moderate, pro-Southern Democrat Andrew Johnson as vice president. After Lincoln’s assassination, President Johnson worked tirelessly to reincorporate ex-CSA states into the Union. He clashed frequently with Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens and resisted their attempts to provide civil rights and economic relief for African-Americans during Reconstruction. The “National Union” ended up as a gateway leading from compromise candidates like Andrew Johnson to reactionary “redeemer” governments which instituted Jim Crow after 1877.
• Bill Clinton was elected as a “New Democrat” who would turn away from the disaster of Reaganomics, but infamously declared in 1996 that “the era of big government is over”. In practice this meant financial deregulation, slashing of the social safety net, the betrayal of organized labor and a reactionary crime bill that gave cops disturbing and undemocratic power over ordinary Americans. Clinton, to his credit, has kind of apologized for some of the above recently, but the damage was done: The Democratic Party had in practice functioned as Reagan-lite.
• Perhaps the worst modern example of the phenomenon is Chancellor Paul Van Hindenburg’s 1932 campaign in Weimar Germany, which had the support of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). The SPD hoped that the election of Hindenburg would create a unity government to counter the growing Nazi threat. Hindenburg won, and subsequently invited Hitler to form a government. That’s not the only reason the Nazis came to power, of course, but the miscalculation of the SPD in that political moment was a crucial moment.

If we ever get a government to the left of Trump again (and that’s an “if” of cosmic proportions), be wary of the “unity” agenda the victorious coalition may attempt to implement. It could be the same Reagan-like reactionary policies we’ve seen for forty years, but articulated by people more honorable and eloquent than Donald Trump. Getting rid of Trump but keeping his agenda isn’t worth whatever phony, transient level of “national unity” that transaction produces. To hell with your honor. I want progress.

The post Beware a National Unity Government appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In his first weeks in office, Donald Trump has been all about executive orders. He has also talked about going after Federal regulations. But, there are indications he could go much further. Trump may be a big-strokes person, but he has minions to get down in the weeds, and therein is the real danger. We have a complicated Federal system, and there are too many levers that can be pulled the wrong way and without accountability.

In a recent Washington Post article, Fred Barbash cites a remark made by Reince Priebus in a memorandum freezing any new or pending regulations. In his memo, in addition to regulations, Preibus references “guidance documents.” Barbash thinks this is a clue that the Trump administration has discovered the dark matter of government regulation.

Why dark matter? In our universe, ordinary matter, including planets, stars, gases, debris, make up less than five percent of mass-energy. Dark matter and dark energy make up the remaining 95 percent. (Complicated physics stuff, see Wikipedia.) Guidance encompasses much of what goes on in the regulatory sphere. Hence, the reference to “dark matter.”

So, what are guidance documents? Barbash explains,

The departments and agencies an administration controls issue edicts variously referred to as “guidance,” “interpretive rules” and most prominently in recent years, “Dear Colleague Letters,” a form of “significant guidance.” Unlike executive orders and regulations, these don’t pretend to have the force of law. But recipients often treat them as if they do, since to ignore them can lead to a nasty tiff with the United States government that can wind up with a threat to cut off funds or a lawsuit.

This is pretty wonky stuff, but these seemingly low-level documents can wield a lot of power – for good or evil. They come in a variety of other flavors as well: “waivers” of rules, “non-rule rules,” “subregulatory guidance.” Barbash continues with an example,

The most controversial of these guidance documents in recent years was the joint Justice Department-Department of Education “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students,” which, after its opening “Dear Colleague” salutation, informed school systems, among other things, that they “must allow transgender students access” to restrooms and lock room facilities “consistent with their gender identity.”

Described as “significant guidance” by the departments, failure to adhere to it could result in a loss of federal funding to school systems under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bar discrimination on the basis of sex. The uproar it produced made it famous and it has been at least temporarily blocked by a U.S. District Court.

Barbash explains why guidance letters are necessary,

Think of the vast regulatory apparatus of the United States government as a pyramid. At the top are laws, like the Clean Air Act, actually passed by Congress and signed by the president, the way the framers of the Constitution envisioned things.

Since the laws can’t deal with most situations that will arise as agencies try to enforce them, the agencies generate regulations to do so. Regulations are just below laws in the pyramid. But regulations have a long gestation period ranging from months to years during which the public has an opportunity to comment on them.

But regulations can’t deal with most situations that arise either, so the agencies responsible for them use such vehicles as “guidance” documents and Dear Colleague letters to deal with specific situations. Guidance requires no notice or comment period. Guidance documents have been called “non-rule rules.”

How could all this play out? Here’s a really long and scary list of targeted regulations and guidance letters put out by the conservative House Freedom Caucus. It’s entitled, “First 100 Days: Rules, Regulations and Executive Orders to Examine, Revoke, and Issue.” Most are regulations, but many are also “guidance letters.” Changes to these orders could dramatically alter the environment, LGBT rights, immigration, aid to the poor, food safety and so much more – all with the stroke of a pen by Trump or a cabinet secretary.

Here are just a few of the issues on the Freedom Caucus target list and the recommended actions:

Reverse the Obama Administration’s Directive Undermining Work Requirements in TANF. The Secretary should revoke the Obama Administration’s 2012 directive allowing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work requirements to be waived.

USCIS – Civil Immigration Enforcement: Guidance on the Use of Detainers in the Federal, State, local, and Tribal Criminal Justice Systems. Waives Obama’s actions on Amnesty (Sanctuary cities)

Rescind NEPA guidance on global warming compliance. The president should retract the Council on Environmental Quality guidance for National Environmental Policy Act reviews published in August 2016. The guidance requires all federal agencies to incorporate the global warming costs of a proposed activity in environmental reviews.

Securities and Exchange Commission: Climate Change Guidance at the SEC. Withhold funds for “The design, implementation, or administration of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change,” or any successor thereto.

We live in a very fragile democracy. There are so many ways for Trump to screw it all up. Vigilance required.

The post Going after Federal regulations: Trump discovers ‘dark matter’ appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Republican plot against American democracy is not a myth, a slogan, or a theory. It would probably make a very bad movie with an implausible story line. But it’s none of those things. It’s a contemporary Republican policy—and it’s in full operational mode.

I’m usually not a conspiracy theorist, but recent actions that are damaging the cornerstones of American democracy have me very worried. Over the past 30 years, we have witnessed—and tolerated—the slow poisoning of America’s democratic institutions, and the pace has accelerated dramatically in the 2016 election cycle. Put all of the pieces together, and you have a relentless and escalating assault on all three branches of our government, plus a significant chunk of the Bill of Rights.

Here are some elements of the plot:

Immobilizing the legislative branch of the federal government

We now know that, from day 1 one of Obama administration, Republican Congressional leaders vowed to block anything that Obama proposed—even if it was good for their constituents or for the country at-large. They have blockaded the legislative branch of government. They barely show up for work. It’s as though they’ve been on strike for eight years. Almost no legislation has worked its way through the House and Senate, as would be normally expected.

One-third of our system is at a standstill. I don’t remember hearing about that as an option in Civics 101.

Shutting down all government functions

Republicans in Congress went so far, in 2013, as to completely shut down the entire federal government for 16 days. They’ve threatened to repeat that action again and again, as a way of blackmailing the country into accepting their radical agenda regarding the federal budget, the debt ceiling, defunding Planned Parenthood, etc.  Shutting down the federal government is a beyond-belief, extreme measure. It’s an all-out assault on another third of our system—the executive branch.

This strategy isn’t new, it’s just being used more radically than ever. For decades, we’ve heard Republicans call for an end to certain regulatory agencies—such as EPA, OSHA, and the NLRB, agencies that restrict corporations from harming their workers. The total shutdown tactic is just anti-regulatory fervor taken to its illogical extreme.  And if you ever wanted proof that Republicans are trying to repeal democracy and replace it with something much less democratic, this behavior is it.

Crippling—if not destroying—the Supreme Court

And now, we have the ultimate assault on the third branch of government—the judiciary. Current tactics go far beyond the now quaint practice of slow-walking approvals of federal judges. We are now at DefCon 1—a total stonewalling of appointments to the Supreme Court. Who would ever have thought that, after the death of a Supreme Court Justice, the Senate would refuse even to hold a hearing on a nominee? Even worse, Republican leaders in the Senate now have vowed to reject anyone nominated to the US Supreme Court by a Democrat. This behavior makes you wonder if Republicans simply want to let the Supreme Court die by attrition, because they don’t like some of its recent decisions.

But Republicans are not limiting their attack to the three basic branches of our federal government. They are now engaged in a full-frontal assault on the Bill of Rights [except, of course, for the 2^nd Amendment.] Here are just a few examples:

Delegitimizing the Presidential election

The most recent example came when Presidential candidate Donald Trump made the shocking, unprecedented assertion that he would not necessarily accept the results of the 2016 Presidential election. That statement elicited gasps, even from Republicans, who immediately understood the democracy-destroying effect such a stance would have. American democracy has prided itself, for its 240-year history, on the peaceful transfer of power. When Donald Trump calls the election system “rigged,” and encourages his followers to reject the results, we are in serious trouble. Of course, Trump’s irresponsible statement did not come out of the blue. It merely represents the culmination of many years of Republican propaganda about voter fraud, which have planted seeds of doubt in the minds of many. If our election system loses the trust of the people, we have begun the descent into anarchy.

Undermining the right to vote

Republican governors and state legislators have been on a voter-suppression rampage. They are using blatantly unfair strategies, such as voter caging, to purge legitimate voters from the rolls. They are making it harder to vote, by demanding unnecessary photo IDs, restricting voting hours and reducing the number of voting locations. When the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote is limited or even denied by politically motivated actions, one of the essential pillars of American democracy begins to crumble.

By the way, it should be noted that these dangerous ideas are not new. Think back a couple of decades to the Reagan years, when budget director David Stockman voiced the “starve-the-beast” philosophy. The idea was to cut taxes, thereby so drastically reducing funding that government agencies would wither, shrink and be so small that one could “drown them in the bathtub.” The cynical corollary, as I understand it, was that when government was inadequately funded, it would become dysfunctional, making citizens see that government just doesn’t work. He and his contemporaries probably were using the term “government” to mean corporate and industrial regulations, as well as spending on the social safety net. Stockman later disavowed his own theory, but it lives on today, in a much more extreme incarnation.

The examples I’ve cited are far from an exhaustive list. I’m sure there area lot more. [For example, Donald Trump has said that we should rescind the clause in the 14^th Amendment that states that children born in the United States become American citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. How’s that for a takedown of a basic American value?]

I’m not a constitutional scholar, but even I can see that, taken together, these positions and actions add up to something very nefarious. They paint a really scary and bleak picture for the future of American democracy—if we let radical Republicans remain in control.

Vote.

The post The plot to kill American democracy: This is not a movie appeared first on Occasional Planet.

For the past 30 years, “We can’t afford it” has become the mantra of city councilmen, state legislators and even U.S. Congressional representatives.

But there is something terribly wrong with that.

What do lawmakers mean by “it?” There are many meanings. Sometimes, “it” is higher salaries for teachers. Sometimes, “it” is repairs to crumbling bridges. “It” can also refer to pay raises for the city workers who pick up our trash, clean the bathrooms in municipal buildings, and mop up after floods, windstorms and festivals. “It” also often refers to federal programs, like Medicare and Social Security, or to state-run programs like Medicaid and health care for children in indigent families.

The “we-can’t-afford-it” argument has become so ubiquitous that we have stopped questioning its validity and the reasoning behind it. The public—abetted by the media—has come to accept that there’s just not enough money, and that programs, services and benefits, of necessity, need to be slashed, because, well, that’s the way it is.

That acceptance is misguided.

In fact, we could afford all of the “its,” if we did what really needs to be done—and what anyone with an iota of sense about how government should operate knows is necessary—raise taxes in a way that would be fair [meaning, asking wealthier people to kick in their fair share].

But we don’t do that. Not only don’t we do it, we don’t even talk about it.

Why? Because, over the past 30 years, the right-wing’s anti-tax propaganda campaign has worked its way into America’s psyche. The Republican message machine has successfully convinced Americans that taxes are bad—even taxes that fund services and benefits that help people—like Social Security, police protection, fire and rescue, road repairs, and so many more. They’ve made taxes something from which we need “relief,” not something that assures the continuity of programs that people expect—and howl about when they are inadequate.

For a while, there was somewhat of a dialogue about this topic: Remember linguist George Lakoff? He fought bravely against the “tax relief” meme. But the fight seems to be over. The anti-taxers have won. Their message is so deeply embedded in today’s political discourse that they don’t even have to mention “tax relief” any more. Not in public statements. Not in media reports, either: No one actually reports on the context and the motivation behind all of this.

And so, the discussion has shifted: We simply assume that there’s no more money available. We can’t possibly expand programs or raise benefits or wages, the story goes, because there just isn’t any money for that.

But, in fact, there IS money for that. Mostly, it’s in the wallets and off-shore accounts of the wealthy people who are assiduously protected from fairer taxes by their Republican minions.

Social Security? There’s plenty of money out there. It’s just untapped, because the solution to Social Security’s purported issues—raising the ridiculously low taxation cap of $118,500—is not even being discussed anymore. The only discussion comes from the right—and what they’re talking about are things like cutting Social Security benefits, raising the eligibility age, privatizing the whole shebang, or eliminating it altogether. .

Infrastructure? There’s no money for that? Baloney. The money is there, but it might involve raising the tax on a gallon of gas. We can’t even bring that up anymore.

You get the idea. It applies across the board. The real reason that “we can’t afford that,” is not that the money doesn’t exist, it’s that we won’t contemplate what really needs to be done. The right-wing propaganda department has made it politically impossible to discuss doing these things. The anti-tax ideology has become so much a part of our national psyche that I’m not sure most people even know that they’ve internalized it. They want the programs; they need the services; they expect government to do the big things that only government can do: But they wring their hands, and sigh, and give up, because they’ve unwittingly adopted the notion that there’s no more money to be had.

Of course, the anti-taxers are not interested in “relief” for middle-class earners or poor people: They are about protecting the wealth of the wealthy. [And funneling money to the military—for which there is ALWAYS money—and, via tax breaks, to the defense contractors whose campaign contributions are mother’s milk to politicians.]

On a related note: A number of years ago, I attended a dinner honoring a healthcare executive. The keynote speaker was the chairman of the hospital corporation’s board—a well-known industrialist who made a fortune as a defense contractor. During his speech, he talked about the problems he had encountered in running a company. “The truth is,” he said, “that most managers and executives know what needs to be done. The problem is that they just don’t do it.”

The same goes for funding government programs. There’s no courage to do what reasonable people know has to be done. There’s no political will to buck the increasingly rich donor class who own the politicians. So, our elected representatives—at all levels—just go along. Not asking why—not even aware of why they don’t ask why.

And people suffer. But nobody talks about it.

The post “We can’t afford it.” The untrue, anti-tax mantra of 21st century government appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Global warming and its effect on climate change is real, and it’s frightening. While our political and corporate classes are joined at the hip and still pushing carbon fuels—and even more stupidly, fomenting coups and threatening wars over access to gas and oil—it’s time to look for real solutions. If we don’t find a way to change things fast, the powers-that-be—with their greed, fantasies of exceptionalism, dreams of world hegemony, addiction to fracking and drilling, bullying of countries that don’t submit to U.S. domination, and determination to build toxic sludge-filled pipelines—will push the Earth to her limits. If that happens, and it already is, She will fry all of us—or if we live near a coastline—drown all of us. That’s hardly a world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

In answer to this ongoing insanity, Scott and Julie Brusaw have come up with a brilliant idea that could not only save us all from extinction, but solve many other pressing problems in the process. Some have described their invention as world-changing. I second the hyperbole, because, among many other amazing benefits, their invention could end wars for access to oil and gas. Have a look at the following short video and see if you don’t agree.

The Brusaws are crowd funding for Phase II of their project. They have provided the following info at www.indiegogo.com:

• Solar Roadways has received two phases of funding from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration for research and development of a paving system that will pay for itself over its lifespan. We are about to wrap up our Phase II contract (to build a prototype parking lot) and now need to raise funding for production.
• Our glass surface has been tested for traction, load testing, and impact resistance testing in civil engineering laboratories around the country, and exceeded all requirements.
• Solar Roadways is a modular system that will modernize our aging infrastructure with an intelligent system that can become the new Smart Grid. We won the Community Award of $50,000 by getting the most votes in GE’s Ecomagination Challenge for “Powering the Grid” in 2010. We had the most votes again in their 2011 Ecomagination Challenge for “Powering the Home”.
• On August 21, 2013, Solar Roadways was selected by their peers as a Finalist in the World Technology Award For Energy, presented in association with TIME, Fortune, CNN, and Science.
• Solar Roadways was chosen by Google to be one of their Moonshots in May of 2013.
• Solar Roadways was chosen as a finalist in the IEEE Ace Awards in 2009 and 2010.
• Solar Roadways has given presentations around the country including: TEDx Sacramento, Google’s Solve for X at Google’s NYC Headquarters, NASA, Keynote Speaker for the International Parking Institute’s Conference and much more…
• Solar Roadways is tackling more than solar energy: The FHWA tasked us with addressing  the problem of stormwater. Currently, over 50% of the pollution in U.S. waterways comes from stormwater. We have created a section in our Cable Corridors for storing, treating, and moving stormwater.
• The implementation of our concept on a grand scale could  create thousands of jobs in the U.S. and around the world. It could allow us all the ability to manufacture our way out of our current economic crisis.

If you want a more expanded FAQ page, go here. If you are scientifically inclined, and want to know how much electricity solar roadways can really produce, go here.

The post Solar (Freakin’) Roadways! appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We are so close to losing our democracy to the mercenary class, it’s as if we are leaning way over the rim of the Grand Canyon and all that’s needed is a swift kick in the pants. Look out below.

The predators in Washington are only this far from monopoly control of our government. They have bought the political system, lock, stock and pork barrel, making change from within impossible. That’s the real joke.

—Bill Moyers

For some time, those of us on the Left have been calling the United States an oligarchy, meaning that the democratic process and our elected officials have been co-opted by banks, corporations, and billionaires who have undue influence on public policy. It means a small group of wealthy people control the government for their own ends. When calling the United States an oligarchy, we’ve been accused of hyperbole. Well, no more eye rolling when we say the “O” word. Sadly, we’ve been vindicated.

Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University will be publishing their study, “Testing Theories of American Politics,” in the Fall, 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics. They asked the questions “Who governs?” and “Who really rules?” in the United States. And this is what they discovered:

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, . . . America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”

In this first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, Gilens and Page demonstrated that theories that premised America as a democracy failed to hold water. They discovered “. . . the nearly total failure of ‘median voter’ and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America].” When the authors say “median voter” they mean average Americans.

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Their study was conducted using “a unique data set that included measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.” The authors suggest that the pervasiveness of corruption could be even worse than their data shows.

So, bottom line, you can keep calling the United States an oligarchy because it is a scientifically proven fact—the study strongly suggests that American democracy is a sham. A choice between corporate owned candidate, A, and corporate owned candidate B, is not really a choice. And neither candidate—Gilens and Page tell us—is going to represent your interests anyway. If your interests are reflected in policy decisions, it’s probably not because they listened to you, it’s because your interests coincided with the interests of the elite. After the recent Supreme Court decision that gives oligarchs free reign to buy as many politicians as they want, your elected officials may no longer have to pretend to listen to you. A hand full will, but the overwhelming majority are going to be serving their corporate donors.

Paul Craig Roberts, ex Assistant Treasury Secretary under Reagan gives a working definition of oligarchy and connects it to US foreign policy:

An oligarchy is a country that is run for private interests. These private interests–Wall Street, the military/security complex, oil and natural gas, and agribusiness–seek domination, a goal well served by the neoconservative ideology of US hegemony.

The takeover of government by oligarchs is both hidden and furthered by corporate-owned news media. These news outlets most often function as stenographers to power, delivering the administration’s official line on the issues of the day. The current reporting on the crisis in Ukraine is one example of how lies and fabrications are reported on a daily basis in order to convince ordinary Americans to accept whatever the administration and its shadow state are doing in service of the elite. Iraq anyone?

Of course there are cracks in the facade. Good reporting happens now and then even in corporate owned media. But, the main point to remember is this: while we are deliberately being distracted by false narratives on government policy and issues (NSA, for another example), or force fed oil and gas company ads claiming fracking is safe and will make us “energy independent,” or entertained by partisan Punch-and-Judy shows, our government is crafting oligarch-serving domestic and foreign policies behind closed doors.

The post Scientific study concludes US is an oligarchy, not a democracy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA’s surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans’ and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we’re trying to protect. —Daniel Ellsberg, Guardian 6/10/13

Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago. —Daniel Ellsberg, Washington Post, 7/7/13

Long time contractor for the CIA and the NSA, Edward Snowden, became increasingly troubled by the domestic and international surveillance  activities of the US government under the Bush and Obama administrations. He told the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, that the NSA was intent “on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them.”

He made the decision to leak the NSA’s massive surveillance of U.S. citizens (and others around the world) to the press because he knew that whistle blowing within official channels would be futile. When previous whistleblowers, like high-ranking NSA executive Thomas Drake, used official channels to complain about government wrongdoing, they were ignored or demonized by superiors. When they eventually went to the press they were tried under the Espionage Act. Like Daniel Ellsberg before him, who Henry Kissinger called “the world’s most dangerous man” he knew the Obama administration would demonize him and label him a traitor. He knew President Obama had, six times since he took office, charged whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, and that if he went forward, he would become the seventh.

Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.

In 1971, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press. Like Edward Snowden, he was charged under the Espionage Act for copying and leaking the Pentagon Papers to the press. His trial was dismissed in 1973 after evidence of government misconduct, including illegal wiretapping, was introduced in court. In 2007, in an interview with Democracy Now, Ellsberg said the documents he leaked “demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates” He leaked the Papers to end what he perceived to be “a wrongful war”. Writing in the Guardian, in a piece titled “Edward Snowden: Saving us from the United Stasi of America,” Ellsberg, in condemnation of the Obama administration’s policies and actions, says “Snowden’s whistleblowing gives us a chance to roll back what is tantamount to an ‘executive coup’ against the US constitution. “ Strong words, indeed.

One of main complaints leveled at Snowden is that he did not stay and face arrest in the United States as Ellsberg had done in 1971, but as Ellsberg explains, these are different times. After the New York Times was enjoined from publishing the Pentagon Papers, he went underground for 13 days to elude authorities while he approached other newspapers to publish the material. When he finally surrendered to arrest, he was released on a personal recognizance bond the same day. For the whole two years he was under indictment, he was free to speak to the media, to speak at anti-war rallies, and to give public lectures. In a recent op ed in the Washington Post Ellsberg  fully endorses Edward Snowden actions and defends his decision to flee the United States.

There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today, let alone that a trial could be terminated by the revelation of White House actions against a defendant that were clearly criminal in Richard Nixon’s era—and figured in his resignation in the face of impeachment—but are today all regarded as legal (including an attempt to “incapacitate me totally”).

I hope Snowden’s revelations will spark a movement to rescue our democracy, but he could not be part of that movement had he stayed here. There is zero chance that he would be allowed out on bail if he returned now and close to no chance that, had he not left the country, he would have been granted bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell like Bradley Manning, incommunicado.

He would almost certainly be confined in total isolation, even longer than the more than eight months Manning suffered during his three years of imprisonment before his trial began recently. The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Torture described Manning’s conditions as “cruel, inhuman and degrading.” (That realistic prospect, by itself, is grounds for most countries granting Snowden asylum, if they could withstand bullying and bribery from the United States.)

The Obama administration’s “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of whistleblowers is designed to deter others from doing the same. Obama’s attempt to make a journalist a co-conspirator in a leak case, and his ordering of the widespread surveillance of the cellphones of AP journalists, is designed to have a chilling effect on reporting what the government is doing, with the help of private contractors, in secret. Ellsberg believes Snowden has done nothing wrong and that such leaks are the “lifeblood” of a free press. They are essential for democracy to survive. He hopes Snowden

. . .finds a haven, as safe as possible from kidnapping or assassination by U.S. Special Operations forces, preferably where he can speak freely.

It is painful, and frightening, to write Ellsberg’s matter-of-fact comment. That a man with Ellsberg’s integrity feels the Obama administration could be trying to silence whistleblower Edward Snowden by kidnapping or killing him should send a chill down the spines of every U.S. citizen. That the Obama administration has openly lied to Congress should send up additional warning flags that the constitution is being violated.

Most journalists today are in a sycophantic relationship with government. The David Gregorys and Wolf Blitzers of the world function as stenographers to power. The true purpose of journalism is to be in opposition to the government, to hold it accountable to the people it is supposed to be serving. Leaks and whistleblowers are essential in a democracy to keep government in check. A government that operates in secrecy is not a democratic government. Ellsberg, in his full throated endorsement of Edward Snowden, reminds us that “secrecy corrupts, just as power corrupts.”

d States will be.

The post Daniel Ellsberg: Edward Snowden was right to leave the U.S. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Some Democrats in the last election had a hard time voting. Republicans, like Secretary of State John Husted of Ohio, worked overtime, using a variety of means—including restricting hours the polls are open, demanding photo IDs, not supplying enough voting machines at polling places—to disenfranchise those living in traditionally Democratic districts. The poor, African Americans, Hispanics, the elderly, and students struggled in states like Ohio and Florida where Republicans continue to use vote suppression as a political strategy for winning elections.

In his post, “Our recent history of “voting wars,” Arthur Lieber reminds us that the right to vote is guaranteed by the federal government. Given how the right to vote is under siege at the state level by the Republican Party, Republican elected officials, and Republican-backed “Protect the Vote” groups—it makes sense that the federal government takeover our national elections.

Jon Green, writing at Americablog, has thought about what that would look like. He calls for the federal government to create “an independent, non-partisan body charged with administering elections.” The following is an edited version of his ideas. For the entire post click here.

The federal non-partisan body would have the following responsibilities:

Universalize Voter Registration

A federal voter registrar should be established to ensure that every eligible citizen is registered to vote somewhere. Nationalizing and universalizing voter registration would enfranchise millions, resulting in elections that more accurately reflected the will of the people. Moreover, if universal registration were coupled with a national ID card, as it is in many European countries, it would put concerns about voter impersonation fraud to bed.

Standardize the Ballot

A standard ballot, with consistent formatting for all types of races and uniform guidelines for issues such as candidate order, would make it easier for voters to inform themselves and others about what to expect when they show up to vote.

Standardize the Polling Place

It is time to take voting machines out of the hands of partisan Secretaries of State and mandate that each polling location be allocated voting machines and paper ballots proportional to the number of registered voters in that precinct.  And perhaps it’s time we stopped permitting partisans from owning companies that make voting machines, then we could stop worrying about machines that change your vote from Obama to Romney, or about “computer glitches” that suddenly make 1,000 early voters (in a black neighborhood, of course) vanish.

Waiting for all 50 states to pass and enforce meaningful regulations that prevent activities such as these from occurring is a pipe dream at best; federal action is necessary to ensure that voter suppression on this scale is prohibited and prosecuted.


Establish Election Week

To reflect the varying schedules and obligations of our diverse population, many states have increased accessibility to vote by letting citizens vote early. This practice has worked well in the states that have established it, and should be implemented nationwide. While some states offer early voting quite early (Iowans can start casting their ballots more than a month before Election Day), a national voting week would ensure that nobody’s work schedule or weekly routine could prevent them from casting a ballot, while avoiding concerns about whether we’re all really voting in the same election when some of us vote in November, and others in September (thus missing the presidential debates, among other concerns).

Taking the responsibility of administering elections out of the hands of individual states, and setting a clear standard for what an American election should look like, would make our elections freer, fairer and more accurate. After a series of elections fraught with mishaps, federal action is necessary to set things right.

The post Blueprint for a federal takeover of national elections appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men . . .

—John Adams, 2^nd president of the United States

If John Adams were alive today, he would see that what he warned against has come to pass: The government exists primarily for the profit and private interest of an elite group of people and the global banks and corporations they control, and only secondarily for the common good of the rest of us. As an example, let’s take the Walton family, the billionaire owners of Walmart, and their relationship to the federal Food Stamp program:

The historic 100-city strike of Walmart workers on Black Friday 2012 was organized to protest their low wages, lack of benefits, and appalling working conditions. It was significant in that it was the first strike against Walmart in its 50-year history. It was a statement about the growing difficulty of living on low wage jobs in America.

So, how does Walmart get away with treating its workers so badly? Walmart and the Walton family are substantially subsidized by federal tax dollars. The Walton’s can pay workers $8.00 per hour—an amount no one can live on—because they know the government will step in and subsidize that amount with Food Stamps and other programs for those living at or below poverty levels.

So think of it this way:  From your pocket to theirs—not for the “common good” but for the Cayman Islands accounts of a family of billionaires with the blessing of your government.

The Walton’s food stamp scam

John Thorpe, writing for Benzinga, explains how the Walton’s have built their fortunes by working both ends of the Food Stamp program.

First of all, he offers a shocking figure: Walmart receives between 25 and 40 percent of all Food Stamp spending. Up to 2 in 5 dollars spent by all Food Stamp recipients is spent at Walmart.  Of the approximately $72 billion the federal government spent on Food Stamps last fiscal year, Walmart would have earned up to $28.8 billion in sales from the program alone. The company brought in $448 billion in sales last year, so this government program represents a good chunk of those sales.

So let’s recap: Walmart doesn’t pay a living wage, lets the government subsidize their operating expenses by giving employees food stamps, which the employees then spend at Walmart. A very nice scam indeed!

Walmart’s devastating effect on the economy and communities

The following is from Winning Words Project:

Walmart’s intentionally low wages force employees to need approximately $420,000 per year, per store, totalling $2.66 BILLION annually in Food Stamps and other taxpayer assistance…to survive.

Walmart’s intentionally low wages cost the country HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in payroll tax deductions for Federal, State, and Local taxes.

Walmart’s intentionally low wages cost our communities the ability to hire and retain important public service workers like firefighters, police officers, maintenance workers, and teachers.

Walmart’s intentionally low wages cost our communities with their increased need for those same public services they are underfunding.

Walmart’s intentionally low wages and lack of covered benefits cost taxpayers over $1.02 BILLION a year in healthcare costs.

Walmart’s intentionally low wages cost taxpayers as much as $225 MILLION in free and reduced price lunches for school-age children.

Walmart’s intentionally low wages cost taxpayers over $780 MILLION tax deductions for low-income families.

Under a sane government policy, the minimum wage would be a living wage. It would be illegal for a company to underpay its employees and use the government to subsidize the rest of the wages (and its operating cost) with government programs. But what we have exists because our elected officials are not focused on the common good. Instead they let the owners of Walmart and other slave-wage-paying corporations, in the name of a “free-market system,” steal boatloads of cash from the public coffers.

When you hear the phrase “welfare queen” think members of the Walton family living high on the hog with your money. Then call your Congressman and Senator and tell them you no longer want Walmart to pad their payroll with your tax dollars, and that you no longer want the federal government to subsidize the Walton family fortune.

The post The Waltons and Walmart: a fortune built on food stamps appeared first on Occasional Planet.