Because the last election was so filled with lies, hate, fear, and hypocrisy, culminating in the election of an unstable, needy man who rose to power by promoting the Big Lie of President Obama’s not being an American citizen, it is easy to go off the rails.  One is tempted to withdraw or become intoxicated by rage.

While every person should choose the path that appears most beneficial to oneself and others, here are a few thoughts about surviving the continuing turmoil.

Assume that the next two years will be a domestic political disaster

So far, the good news is that Trump’s connections to Putin make him vulnerable to Congressional investigations and that he has not inspired many people beyond his existing base. Think how bad you would feel if his approval ratings were at sixty percent instead of a bit over forty percent. Nonviolent political opposition has made a difference.

At best, we will avoid the domestic catastrophe of authoritarianism and the international cataclysm of major wars against powerful countries like Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.  So long as the People, Congress, Courts, and media retain enough power to protect our shared, core republican rights to personal freedom, free speech, freedom of conscience, and the vote, we have time to transmute our corroded Republic into a force that overcomes the growing threat of environmental catastrophe as effectively as it battled totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century.

 Decide how much daily information you need

For the past few weeks, I have rarely read or watched anything political. Bad news still travels fast. Friends and family members  informed me about Ryan’s proposed heath care plan, the latest example of the brutal class war consistently won by the rich. While it is worthwhile to periodically peer into the belly of the beast to understand the gravity of our situation, one can rot by spending too much time there. When you react to every Tweet, you may end up dancing to someone else’s twisted tune. It is particularly important to avoid trolls’ commentary, because it tends to make you despise the often-deluded followers as much as their ruthless leaders. It is as upsetting to read that every Trump voter is a racist as it is to be told that liberals don’t care about their country.

Participate, if you can

Fortunately, there are many tough and brave souls who document and analyze daily atrocities.  Many admirable people have decided to commit their lives, if only for a while, to political organizing and dissent. The Tea Party showed the value of attending Congressional town halls and making life uncomfortable for those politicians who hold millions of our fellow Americans in so much contempt that they don’t care if those vulnerable, younger people suffer from horrific disease and premature death. Right now, I don’t have the will to be part of such discord. If you are at Standing Rock, thank you. Please avoid violence’s temptation.

Perhaps, for one reason or another, you can’t be a political hero right now. Maybe you tried to join a local political group but were repelled by the unrepentant smugness of Identity Politics. You observed how the traditional Left increases Trump’s divisive power by demanding complete compliance with an existing litmus test that has failed to create the broad political majority needed to shift our society in the right direction. Furthermore, people often turn very competitive when participating in politics: they jostle for attention and position. Politics is an inherently hierarchical occupation. Do you really want to hear a bunch of platitudes before being assigned to lick envelopes?

Or maybe one of your children is ill and you don’t have time and money. Why feel self-aversion when encountering one of the most challenging spiritual practices imaginable? Furthermore, there are other, equally valid ways to rebuild our shattered community aside from partisan politics.  Join a church, participate in a book club, feed the homeless, joke with a stranger, go dancing.  They want us to be atomized and disorganized, satisfied with whatever consumer goods we can get.

This is a particularly dangerous time to withdraw completely from politics

Waiting to vote in 2020 is not enough. That single gesture has little influence. Nor is a check for 200 dollars very important when the billionaires and their corporate media determine most of the content within the public arena. Demonstrations are influential, but temporary phenomena.

The one percent commitment

So what is to be done by those of us who can’t or won’t commit to political immersion? You can vow to spend one week in the fall of 2018 helping Democrats win contested Congressional and local elections. Donate one percent of your time to reduce the power of the One Percent. Perhaps you can take a driving vacation to some place like suburban Ohio, upstate New York, or Texas.  You commit to six or more hours a day registering voters, driving voters to polls, and licking those damn envelopes. During time off, explore the community, perhaps with some new friends.  If enough of us work in these contested areas, our additional energy might make the difference in terms of controlling Congress. We only need one legislative branch to investigate the current administration’s already stunning record of corruption and malfeasance and to derail the next phase of the Republicans’ vile legislative agenda.

Notice the immediate benefits of this simple commitment. There is no reason to feel guilty for not always reading The Nation, watching Rachel Maddow, studying judicial opinions, reviewing bigoted and counterproductive immigration plans, or attending the next demonstration. You are not just going to commiserate with allies and argue with opponents. You will soon act in a way that might make a real difference. You will do something they definitely do not want you to do, because our time can defeat their money. Should the Democrats blunder their way to another defeat in 2018, commit to another week in 2020, perhaps by working on behalf of a less subservient Democrat during the primary. Maybe it becomes a biannual habit.  After all, younger generations may one day ask, “What did you do during the Environmental and Class Wars of the early Twenty-First Century?”

In the meantime, take care of yourself and others. Meditate, practice Tai Chi, walk the dog through the snow, drink some water with lemon juice, and then listen to someone like Norah Jones or Billie Holliday.

The post Surviving political turmoil: The one percent commitment appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What the hell are democratic clubs good for, anyway? I received an email recently from the one in my area, imploring me, as a member, to help get out the vote for “our candidates.” Then came the list of candidates I’m supposed to work for. Five dandy, local candidates, from state representative and state senator to county tax assessor. But there was one glaring omission: the Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress. They must have made a mistake, right?

So, I called the president of the democratic township club, noting that the Congressional candidate’s name had been omitted. The answer I got spoke volumes about what’s wrong with our local democratic party organization—and maybe yours, too.:

“We talked about him and decided not to include him, because he’s not a serious candidate. He can’t win, and he probably won’t even get 20 percent of the vote,” he said. “He’s not raising money. He’s in a district completely gerrymandered for the Republican. I don’t know why he’s even running: The only reason to file for office in this district is to draw resources away from your opponent—to make her spend time and money opposing you. He hasn’t accomplished that. Also, we never heard from him: He didn’t contact us to make an appearance at our meetings.”

Whoa. Let’s take those “reasons” one by one:

“He’s not a serious candidate.”

By “serious,” of course, he means amassing large sums of money from fat cat donors, lobbying groups, corporate contributors and PACS—the kind of “serious” that has wrecked our political system; the kind of “serious” that makes lawmakers employees of their donors, not their constituents; the kind of “serious” that undermines the democratic principles that the Democratic party supposedly stands for.
And, by the way, he received the endorsement of our not-insignificant metropolitan newspaper this morning. I think one might call that “serious.”

“He’s not raising enough money.”

See above. But be aware that this particular candidate is running a low-dollar, limited contribution campaign by design. He’s trying to make a point, people. His per-person donation limit is $10.10—a number that is symbolic of the proposed Federal Minimum Wage, which he supports. If the democratic committee people had read any of the candidate’s literature, they would have understood that he is running on principle—a principle that you’d think the democratic party would applaud.

“I don’t even know why he’s running…”

So, according to this small-time, narrow-thinking political hack, the only reason to run for office in a gerrymandered district is to make mischief for your opponent? Would the democratic party in my state prefer that a Republican run unopposed, simply because she has the advantage of representing a district drawn to favor her party? What about the notion that opposing views need to be aired—you know, that democracy thing. The Congressional district is NOT 100 percent Republican: Democrats deserve the opportunity to vote for someone who represents their views—even if they are in the minority.

But, if you insist on looking at it strictly from the narrowest, lowest political viewpoint, what if the Republican candidate pulls an Akin or does something idiotic to make her candidacy implode—and what if there’s no democratic candidate in place. How would that feel? I am exasperated by the decades-long defeatist attitude of our state democratic party regarding this Congressional district: Should we roll over and automatically cede it to whichever Republican comes along, and not even bother to field a candidate?

“He can’t win. He won’t even get 20 percent of the vote.”

Okay, he probably won’t win. I’ll concede that. But it’s not reasonable to predict that he’ll get less than 20 percent of the vote, because he got 29 percent of the vote when he ran in 2010, and the district, as redrawn after the 2010 census, includes more democratic-leaning areas than before. Our esteemed democratic-club president didn’t know that, of course, and countered that point with “Well, even 40 percent would be a wipeout.” So, even if a Democrat could get 40 percent of the vote, it would be a waste of time?

And please note, sir, that the Republican candidate is so sure that she is going to win in a landslide that she is not even campaigning in her own district. She’s spending her time, and her money, campaigning for candidates in other states. Two words: Eric Cantor.

At the end of this exasperating conversation, as a way of trying to be a problem-solver, rather than just a complainer, I suggested that the club send out a correction to its letter, simply saying that the Congressional candidate’s name had been “inadvertently omitted” from the GOTV list. “Well, I didn’t make the decision,” said the president. “I’ll have to confer with the board about this. But sending out another email is a real pain, because my email server only allows me to send out 50 at a time, and I’ll have to divide the list up again, and that’s a lot of work.” Really: Boo hoo.

So, that’s how the conversation went, and that’s why my blood pressure spiked. The committee supposedly representing and working for Democrats dismissed a highly principled candidate because they decided that he isn’t “viable.” I might accept a democratic club ignoring a candidate who sounds like a lunatic, with way-out-there fringe-y ideas. But this guy is not like that—not by a long shot. But the issues didn’t even factor in. The fact is that the committee intentionally left him out, making it clear that this was a decision, not an accident—solely based on their perception that he couldn’t win.

I think it’s reasonable to expect the democratic club to be pro-active on behalf of a candidate who has taken the initiative—and the risk—to put his name on the ballot on behalf of the Democratic party—when the party itself has made no effort to recruit anyone.It’s simply unconscionable. Isnt’ it bad enough that Republicans have a powerful propaganda network [Fox News], the Koch Brothers and Citizens United working on their behalf? For democratic organizations to behave as this one did–and be complicit in our own demise as a politial force–is shameful and unconscionable.

Is this how other local democratic organizations operate?I hope not.

Update: After I spoke with the group’s president, and after I convinced a political friend of mine to call the committee-man, the club sent out another email with the corrected roster of GOTV candidates. In the end, they did the right thing, but only after we backed them into it. Sigh.

The post My local democratic club doesn’t cut it. How’s yours? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Obama won. But we’re far from done. How long did it take after President Obama won the popular vote and the electoral college for Republicans to assert that, despite all that pesky evidence, their ideas won and that, basically, nothing has changed? Hours?

So, it’s clearly not realistic for Democrats and the left to enjoy victory and take a break. The media is already speculating about 2014 and 2016, and even if you think that’s premature and silly, it’s reality. In addition, both the Democratic and Republican parties–as well as potential candidates–are already positioning themselves for those elections. And state legislatures have wasted no time in moving forward on unfinished business [for example, Michigan’s lightning quick passage of right-to-work-for less legislation] and gathering momentum for other agenda items. We need to stay on high alert.

That’s why, suggests Winning Progressive,  we need to stay actively engaged in the political process. And the site offers a helpful 10-point program for doing exactly that. The list also includes helpful resources for information and action. Here’s the plan:

1. Don’t be distracted by side issues, punditry and the incessant chatter.  The war against voters, women, unions, workers, education, healthcare, science, the gay community, immigration, minorities, the President and even Christmas will continue. And keep your eyes on the Heritage Foundation.

2. Get your voter identification, or if you have what’s needed in your state [or may be required in the future] help someone else update theirs.  Just because the election is over doesn’t mean Republican dirty tricks will stop. Don’t wait until another election is near: do it now. National Conference of State Legislatures has a database with all state voter identification requirements.

3. Register to vote and make sure your registration has actually been recorded. During this past election, Republicans destroyed Democratic registrations, switched Democrat registrations to Republican or failed to record them at all.  It isn’t enough to just sign your name…make certain you are “correctly” registered to vote…even if you just voted…take nothing for granted.

4. Follow the legislation that affects your life, and the voting record of your state and federal representatives. OpenCongress is a non-profit, non-partisan public resource where you can track all of the legislation in Congress.

5. Don’t get blindsided.  Candidates have records! Voters have a tendency to make decisions based on campaign rhetoric, when candidates are telling the public “what we want to hear”, but candidates have records that will give a clue to what they “really” believe. Project Vote Smart is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that gives the biographies, voting records, issue positions, ratings, speeches and campaign information of politicians. Another is On The Issues.

6. Pay attention!  “States Rights” have very special implications and because of gerrymandering, Republicans control many state governments and are likely assured to do so for the next 10 years.  It is where the “real” assault is taking place.  Who runs your state?State Government – USA.gov. – Resources and websites on U.S. states and territories, local and city governments.

7. Let common sense, instinct and knowledge be your guide.  We are all too often swayed by emotional and superficial values.

8.Find reliable sources to stay abreast of current events.  Try to steer clear of ideological agreement and seek out sources that report based on facts.  Sadly, that may not always be the media, so it’s important to

9.Do your own fact-checking. Congress.org is a nonpartisan news and information website dedicated to encouraging civic participation.

10. Get involved and stay involved.  Support petitions, contact your representatives…rally for the legislation and legislators who support your cause.  Write, call, fax, email, tweet, rally …make your voice heard!

The only thing I’d add would be to keep the conversation alive. Not only do we need to watchdog the right, we need to keep talking about the progressive agenda and why it’s better for our country. We need to remind ourselves–and those around us–that it’s about doing things in the interest of the common good, looking out for the well-being of others, doing the big things collectively that individuals and states can’t do for themselves, continuing to ensure access to the basics of democracy–and all of the other pillars of progressivism. And, finally, we need to keep repeating that even Americans who claim to want “less government” depend on it everyday.

The post 10 ways to stay politically engaged, even after winning the 2012 election appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a very thoughtful, eloquent and balanced editorial published on Sunday, October 7, 2012, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called for voters to re-elect President Obama on Nov. 6. Calling President Obama “a serious man,” the Post-Dispatch lauded his positive vision for the country and outlined his first-term achievements. Here are some excerpts:

Mr. Obama sees an America where the common good is as important as the individual good. That is the vision on which the nation was founded. It is the vision that has seen America through its darkest days and illuminated its best days. It is the vision that underlies the president’s greatest achievement, the Affordable Care Act. Twenty years from now, it will be hard to find anyone who remembers being opposed to Obamacare.

The editorial reminds readers that President Obama inherited an economy devastated by disastrous economic policies promoted by the George W. Bush administration, and that while recovery has been slower than hoped for, it would be unrealistic to expect a total turnaround in just four years.

To expect Barack Obama to have repaired, in four years, what took 30 years to undermine, is simply absurd. He might have gotten further had he not been saddled with an opposition party, funded by plutocrats, that sneers at the word compromise. But even if Mr. Obama had had Franklin Roosevelt’s majorities, the economy would still be in peril.

The endorsement does not come without some criticism, and the Post-Dispatch also lists some of the disappointments even President Obama’s staunchest supporters have felt:

Mr. Obama has not been everything we expected. In his first weeks in office, Democrats ran amok with part of his economic stimulus package. His mortgage relief program was insufficient. Together with his Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, the president has been too deferential to the financial industry. The president should have moved to nationalize troubled banks instead of structuring the bailout to their benefit. Regulatory agencies and the Justice Department were unable to bring financial crooks to heel.

We had hoped that Mr. Obama would staff the executive branch with the best and the brightest. There have been stars, but there have been egregious failures, too. The “Fast and Furious” operation at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was a disgrace. The vastly expensive and unaccountable intelligence and Homeland Security agencies need stronger oversight. The now-renamed Minerals Management Service could have used some best-and-brightest inspectors before the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

But even given these factors, the Post-Dispatch reminds readers that the alternative to President Obama–Mitt Romney– is a candidate whose beliefs appear to change with the wind,  a person who has voiced disdain for people who are economically disadvantaged, and a politician whose policies are virtually identical to those that caused the economic downturn.

Mr. Romney apparently will say anything that will help him win an election. As a president, he might well govern as a pragmatic chief executive, or he might sell himself to the plutocrats and the crazies who have taken over his party. He is asking Americans to take a lot on faith — there’s nothing to see in his tax returns; he can cut taxes and whack away debt while trimming deductions he will not specify.

The editorial ends by describing the choice facing voters in the 2012 presidential election:

The question for voters is actually very simple. The nation has wrestled with it since its founding: Will this be government for the many or the few?

Choose the many. Choose Barack Obama.

 

[Image credit: St. Louis Post-Dispatch]

The post St. Louis Post-Dispatch endorses President Obama for re-election appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I never thought I would be writing in praise of an advertising agency, but Leo Burnett of Detroit deserves credit for its Effie award-winning, breakthrough advertising campaign to save the library in Troy, Michigan. Utilizing bold creativity and controversial messaging, they won a tax increase for the community and saved the town’s library from having to close and sell off its books.

Scheduled to close in spring 2011, the library got permission to hold one more election in August to raise taxes enough to keep its doors open. If it failed, it would close forever on August 5. Leo Burnett was approached in mid June, late in the game. It was tasked to get voters to approve a tax increase in one of the worst economies the state had ever seen. Corporate funded anti-tax voices were drowning out those in favor of saving the library, and they had a four-month head start. Leo Burnett only had six weeks to mount a campaign with a very small budget. Finally, the election would be held on August 2, in the simmering midwestern heat.

Disrupting the conversation

They brainstormed a strategy. First, they realized they would have to disrupt the conversation—which for years had been dominated by anti-tax, anti-public, corporate backed austerity zealots—before they could change it. They would do this by initiating a campaign that pushed the limits of the anti-tax rhetoric to its logical, albeit distasteful, conclusion. If the tax increase failed, the library would close and be forced to sell its books. The agency staff, pushing the envelope, reasoned the effect would be the same as burning the books. So, they put up signs around town that said “Vote to close Troy Library August 2, Book Burning party August 5,” and launched a Facebook campaign to go along with it.

The controversial part was, of course, that it was a hoax. Outflanking the Tea Party, they posed as an anti-intellectual fringe group that wanted to see the library tax increase fail. Even the library didn’t know the campaign was fake. The yard signs and the Facebook page attracted outrage from Troy citizens. Leo Burnett let this go on for three weeks, but two days before the election they added a redirect to their Facebook page.

Refocusing the conversation

Now that they had stolen the limelight from the Tea Party and had everyone’s attention, they would initiate phase 2 and refocus the conversation on the real issues at stake. The new landing page had a large message in white letters against a blue background: “A vote against the library is like a vote to burn books.” They began posting on their Facebook wall under the name “No Book Burning Party,” and encouraged conversation about the value of books and the merits of libraries. They got the townspeople to talk about what it would be like to have their beautiful library and its wonderful books gone for good. The news spread from Facebook to newspapers, to TV and nationally across the Web. Optimistic projections estimated voter turnout at 19%, but actual turnout was 38%. The library won by a landslide.

Would a straightforward discussion of the value of libraries have worked? It hadn’t in two previous elections, where tax increases to fund the library failed. Something had to be done to disrupt the corporate funded, anti-tax rhetoric, and the hoax campaign focusing on the reality of the right-wing agenda accomplished that. Public outcry over the book burning provided space for a real conversation about the value of a tax-supported public sphere. Leo Burnett did a good thing for Troy, and in the process, gave us some creative ideas for countering the right wing narrative that dominates public discourse.

The post Leo Burnett changes the conversation from “anti-tax” to “public good” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In St. Louis County, Missouri, there are approximately 45 elected political offices.  (The exact number is  difficult to determine and varies among  jurisdictions). If there were primary elections in each party, but none contested, and no third parties,  citizens would need to be aware of 90 candidates.Usually, though,  primary nominations are contested, so there can be as many as 150 candidates.

We need to simplify the number of offices for which voters cast their preferences. In accordance with the Constitution and common sense, here are seven individuals, or necessary pairs, that make sense for all of us on a national basis.

1. President & Vice-President

2. U.S. Senator

3. U.S. Congressperson

4. State governor (other statewide positions could be appointed as “states’ rights” are diminished and simplified)

5. State legislator (all states could follow the example of Nebraska and move to a unicameral –one house–legislature).

6. Municipal area executive (mayor of the metropolitan area in which one lives)

7. Metropolitan area council representative

If there were two candidates running in the primary elections for each of these races, there would be four candidates in each race and a total of twenty-eight for the seven positions.

Anyone  who can easily keep tabs of twenty-eight individuals running for important offices has quite a memory, as well as the ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each individual candidate. And yet our likelihood of getting to know and remembering more than twenty-eight or so candidates is far better than 150.

In essence, we have a gap between the number of people who want to run for office and those offices that are really needed to make government function. If there are seven offices, available but well over 45 that exist, then far more people want to run for office than are necessary. This disparity further exacerbates the problem of individuals running for offices that are better served as appointed positions rather than elected ones.

So what can we do about the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of individuals who want to run for positions such as recorder of deeds, treasurer, state secretary of state, etc. that are better appointed than elected?

There are essentially three reasons why individuals  want to run for office. First, they like the power that comes with the position. This is part and parcel for many, perhaps most, who run for office. Second, they want to have a direct impact on solving the individual needs of constituents. Third, they want to abuse the office; looking for opportunities for corruption and miscarriage of justice.

Each of these options exists in almost any profession. All we can do is what we have already been doing; keep an eagle eye on all individuals and do whatever is necessary to ensure that politicians are operating properly, while preventing them from abusing whatever temptations may corrupt them. Concerns about one’s behavior exist whether the position is a corporate executive, a labor leader, a teacher, a fire fighter, a police officer, or virtually any other job, civic responsibility, or family member.

The city of St. Louis has twenty-eight alderpersons for a community with a population of slightly over 300,000. Efforts have been made to reduce the number of alderpersons, but with no success. There has been virtually no movement because the entrenched want to keep the offices they hold. This is not only true for alderpersons; it applies to virtually all elected offices.

I’ve written before about political change being measured in generations rather than election cycles. Significant reduction of the number of political offices for which citizens vote may take more than a single generation. In the meantime, our brains will be overtaxed, and as a society we’ll be overtaxed because of inefficiencies and confusion. Let’s just hold on; hopefully, positive change will come while most of us are still around to see it.

The post Term limits? Why not office limits? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Can your homeowners’ association or subdivision board prevent you from planting a political sign in your front yard? That’s a question that comes up just about every time there’s an election, and 2012 is no exception.

This week, in exurban Wentzville, Missouri, homeowner Don Prinster had to settle for taping his favorite candidate’s sign in his front window, because his subdivision prohibits political yard signs.

Is that okay? It’s a tricky question: Is political expression an over-arching right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, or are yard signs nuisances and clutter that can be regulated by local subdivision associations as a way of keeping up the neighborhood?

At least one local legislator—state representative Kurt Bahr, a Republican from nearby O’Fallon, Missouri—thinks freedom of speech trumps everything. And he’s proposing a bill that would prevent homeowners’ associations from enforcing or adopting bans on political signs.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, similar laws are already in effect in 10 other states. [Of course, it’s hard to know whether laws banning bans are motivated by a deep belief in the Constitution and its guarantee of freedom of expression or by politicians’ needs to get their yard signs out there. But that’s commentary, and I’ll get to more of that later.]

Historical note: Missouri has had a headline-grabbing role in this issue. In 1990, Margaret Gilleo, a homeowner in upscale Ladue, Missouri placed a sign in her front yard to protest the Persian Gulf War. Her action violated Ladue’s ban on all residential political signs. She took her case to court, and in 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ban. But that 1994 ruling pertained only to a city law, not to rules for a privately run subdivision. And that issue remains unsettled, as Don Prinster recently learned.

In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch front-page story about this issue, one member of Prinster’s subdivision board voiced his opposition to a law banning bans on yard signs, saying he doesn’t like it “when big government comes in.”

That’s an intriguing statement on several levels. [Here’s the commentary portion of our program.]  First, he doesn’t like “big government.” In this case, that means the state of Missouri. In the political parlance of 2012, especially that of Republican candidates, “big government” usually refers to the Federal government. Most of the Republican candidates are hell-bent on focusing power in the states, so that “big government” label would seem to fall outside of current Republican dogma. But, okay: that subdivision guy—and I have no factual information as to what his political leanings are—just doesn’t like people bossing him around, and it doesn’t matter where they get their authority.  I get it.

But what makes his statement even more illogical is that he thinks that subdivision “government” is just fine. As a board member, he’s part of something you might call a private, “micro-government.” As a subdivision trustee, he thinks it’s his job to enforce the rules set forth in the subdivision documents—rules initially formulated by a private developer, and possibly amended by members of the homeowners’ association—whether or not they conform to the U.S. Constitution.

The logic is hard to follow. It reminds me of the argument against healthcare reform: People who want “Obamacare” repealed are against big government “interfering” in a person’s healthcare decisions. [The Affordable Care Act doesn’t do that, for the record.] But they don’t realize that, in America’s largely unregulated, privatized healthcare system, healthcare is “governed” by insurance companies who do, in fact, “interfere” with healthcare by denying coverage, steering patients to in-network doctors and hospitals, dropping members when they become sick, and excluding people with pre-existing conditions.  It’s the difference between the federal government protecting your rights, versus a private, for-profit organization deciding what rights you have.

It’s surprising, too, that someone who doesn’t like government would say, “What you do in your yard doesn’t just affect you,” as the subdivision trustee is quoted as saying in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Based on his comment about big-government, I would have expected him to be an individual-liberty and property-rights defender. Instead, he’s demonstrating a sense of community and respect for the common good.  He may be inconsistent, but to me, that’s a hopeful sign. [Pun intended.]

Hey, no one ever said that these issues were simple.

The post Big government, micro-government, and freedom of political speech appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Angling for a behind-the-scenes staff job on Capitol Hill? If so, you’re probably curious about what salaries are like in the capital of the free world. Even if you’re not hoping to put that poli sci degree into play in DC, you might be interested in knowing what Congressional representatives and Senators pay the staffers who do the trench work [while their bosses get all the glory—if there’s any to be had, that is.] Lucky for you—and all of us who care about transparency [and gossip]– there’s Legistorm.

On Dec. 5, 2011, Legistorm posted the latest data on staff salaries, gleaned from official records published by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. According to Legistorm, the Senate publishes its data every six months; the House, every three months. The December 2011 information release represents the first time that the Senate has published its staff-salary data electronically. Previously, this information was available only in printed volumes, making Legistorm’s job much more difficult. This time, because Legistorm staffers didn’t have to manually enter all of the information into its database, the information became available in less than three business days—a record, according to Legistorm.

So, what do we learn from this data? We already know that, for the most part, elected members of Congress make the same as each other [as of January 2011, $174,000]. But they have broad discretion in how they pay their staff.

A few aides are well paid by any measure. Many others make an embarrassing sum, especially in an expensive city such as Washington, DC at jobs that can have a ferocious intensity to them. While Congress is in session, Congressional aides often work well into the night, sometimes into the early morning, to craft legislation or to broker deals with the administration.

And yet because of their prestige, competition for congressional jobs is fierce. Lawyers with Ivy League educations seek positions earning a small fraction of what they might work for at a private law firm. In fact, many experienced congressional staffers leave the public sector to find jobs in the private sector making many times what they make in Congress. Of course, their value in the private sector is sometimes enhanced not by their skills but by the personal connections they make while working for Congress.

So, how much do they earn?

Legistorm offers a variety of ways to browse its database. You can search by staffer, representative, senator, committee, leadership office, administrative office, or state. Legistorm has 11 years of this stuff, so it’s a rich database. Below are a few examples from the most recent report.  The amounts listed are salaries paid during the covered time period. In a simple world, you could calculate annual salaries with some basic multiplication. But, according to Legistorm, it’s simply not that simple.

Congressional staff salaries shown are the amount paid in the period shown. They are not annual salaries. Because bonuses may be included here and other payments may not be (most notably with aides working for multiple offices or for a political campaign committee.”

We encourage all users to keep in mind that information on our site can easily be misused, that raw data can have limitations. Sometimes context is vitally important.

That said, here are the promised examples, randomly selected and in no particular order. It’s a fascinating database. Do your own research, draw your own conclusions…

Time frame – 7/01/11 to 9/30/11

• Constituent advocate, Rep. Jan Schakowsky [D-IL]                                           $11,499.99
• Press secretary, House Natural Resources Committee                                      $18,750.00
• Senior professional staff member, House Foreign Affairs Committee:          $34,166.67
• Staff associate & policy assistant, House Foreign Affairs Committee:           $  9,999.99
• Staff assistant, House Space & Technology Committee                                     $12,500.01

Time frame – 4/01/11 to 9/30/11

• Professional staff member, Senate Ethics Committee                                       $50,089.00
• Special assistant for financial disclosure, Senate Ethics Committee               $17,999.96
• Legislative assistant to Senator Bernie Sanders [I-VT]                                       $21,666.64
• Caseworker for Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL]                                                          $20,801,40

The post What do Congressional staffers earn? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I’m not a sports writer, but I am a Cardinals baseball fan and a political junkie. So, after the downs and ups of the 2011 World Series, I’ve been thinking about what happened as a parable for progressive politics. In no particular order, here are some thoughts:

1. Statistics don’t score runs.

The Texas Rangers—several other teams, too, in fact—looked a heckuva lot better on paper than the St. Louis Cardinals. If a computer program had played the World Series using probabilities and payroll statistics alone, St. Louis would not be celebrating. But St. Louis fans are riding high, because the Cardinals had something that simply wasn’t quantifiable. That’s a lesson to remember, as we move into the 2012 election season: The folks with the most money are supposed to win; but sometimes, they don’t. Surprises happen, so we all need to look beyond the fundraising totals and the beauty-contest votes and examine candidates [at all levels] in non-numerical ways before jumping on the bandwagon, pulling out in the face of supposedly insurmountable odds, or declaring a winner.

2. The superstar can’t do it alone.

Everyone assumed that future-Hall-of-Famer Albert Pujols would power the Cardinals through the post season. He contributed significantly, but he wasn’t the whole show.  I think that’s what a lot of us thought about Barack Obama when we voted for him: walk-on-water superstar who will change everything. It didn’t exactly happen that way. Our mistake was thinking that the President can do it all.

3. Pitching is everything.

In baseball,  you’ve got to step up on the mound and throw your best stuff. If the pitcher fails, you’ve got nothing. The Cardinals figured that out. President Obama and Democrats in Congress have been somewhat minor league in that department. They’ve been lobbing softballs to the opposition, while the other team is throwing curves.

4. A few smart trades can make a difference.

The Cardinals had a mediocre record for the first half of the season. Then they shuffled the deck, got rid of some non-performers, and added some young talent that changed the team’s chemistry. After a gangbusters start and then a depressing slump, President Obama did a bit of housecleaning. Getting rid of two toxic team members—Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel—could turn out to be game-changers for the Obama administration.

5. Experience counts.

Cardinals fans were highly critical of the team’s 2011 decision to sign Lance Berkman, an aging [for baseball] player with a doubtful future. He turned out to be a productive batter, a consistent clutch hitter and fielder, and a stabilizing influence in the dugout. On the political scene, Vice President Joe Biden’s future on the 2012 ticket is under scrutiny. But dumping him, as some have suggested, could mean losing a solid, savvy, wizened [and, yes, outspoken] political asset who acts as a pragmatic counterweight to President Obama’s often-criticized conciliatory nature.

6. Use the bench and the bullpen wisely.

When Pujols didn’t, others did—including guys like John Jay, who was 0 for 16 before hitting a key double in Game 6 of the World Series. Allen Craig and David Freese, who were not full-time starters during the regular season, became World Series heroes. Jason Motte, a catcher who became a relief pitcher, turned out to be the Cardinals closer. That can happen in politics, too. Elizabeth Warren, a relative unknown until President Obama nominated her to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has become a progressive icon, and is running a courageous race for Senate in Massachusetts. If we want to win, the left needs to look at our bench, our bullpen, and our political farm system, and encourage people to step up and make a difference—even if the odds are long.

7. Risk can reap rewards.

Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa wins a lot of games by doing unconventional things—such as having the pitcher bat eighth in the lineup, or making “double switches.” Unfortunately, the Democratic political establishment isn’t that creative. Conventional wisdom rules, meaning that races deemed unwinnable often don’t even get candidates. We need to climb out of that box, take a chance on new candidates, and make sure that the progressive viewpoint on issues is part of the dialogue in every elective race. We need to encourage courageous candidates who are willing to take on the thankless task of running in Republican gerrymandered districts—and even buck the Democratic establishment.

8. Stay steady, and let the other team self-destruct.

Both the Cardinals and the Rangers made mistakes during the World Series, but, in the end, the Rangers made more, and the Cardinals never stopped playing. Amazingly, while President Obama is under fire from both left and right, and as the vote-killing economy drags along, the Republican party can’t come up with a decent candidate for President, is engaged in an internecine game of presidential-primary leap frog, and is amassing an embarrassing voting record against even the most modest economic recovery and jobs programs. Letting that that error-filled scenario play out could be the Democrats best game plan for winning in November 2012.

9.  Fan support is a huge factor.

Players hear the cheers from the stands. Cardinals fans are famous for being knowledgeable and discerning about the game, and they buy tickets even when the team has a less-than-stellar record. We may not like everything that President Obama is doing, and we may wish that he had a better win-loss record, but considering the alternative, you gotta cheer [and vote] for him, right? Of course, the fan thing works both ways: it’s equally important for the team to keep the fans interested and motivated by giving them something to root for.

10. It’s okay to mess with Texas

Texas shoulda, coulda, woulda won. But just because George W. Bush throws out the first ball of the World Series [he was once a part owner of the Texas Rangers, an investment that made him a very wealthy man before he became president], and just because one of baseball’s greatest pitchers [Nolan Ryan] is the team’s president, the team doesn’t get a special entitlement to the World Series championship. You can be Texas Governor Rick Perry and proclaim that your state is a role model for all kinds of things, but the “Texas miracle” in education was a fraud, and the new jobs created in Texas are  mostly low-paying, and the state’s oil industry has created a slew of wealthy one-percenters who live in a specially reserved bubble. So you can scream, “Don’t mess with Texas,” and “Let’s go Rangers” at the top of your lungs, but, in the end, that don’t make me no never mind.

The post 10 political lessons from the 2011 World Series appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the new Republican Congressional majority’s first moves in January 2011 was a smack-down of the 600,000 residents of Washington DC.  On the very first day of the 112^th Congress, the Republican-controlled House revoked DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s (D-DC) right to vote in the Committee of the Whole—an already essentially ceremonial practice. And so, DC citizens—who vote, pay full federal taxes, and are eligible to serve in the military like all other US citizens—lost their last vestige of representation in Congress.

The inherent unfairness of this rule is obvious in a District that pays more federal taxes than 19 states and has more citizens than the entire state of Wyoming. The arguments behind it have proven specious again and again. Speaker of the House John Boehner led the most recent move to deprive DC citizens of a fundamental right, contending that representation is unconstitutional. His position ignores a 1994 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of the DC Delegate [and a representative from Puerto Rico] to vote in the Committee of the Whole.

Time line

DC representation in Congress has had many ups and downs, which parallel the see-saw between party majorities. DC Vote offers a handy timeline, chronicling the political football that DC representation has been through the years:

1871: An elected House of Delegates and a non-voting delegate to Congress are created.

1874: The territorial government of the District of Columbia, including the non-voting delegate to Congress is abolished. [This status continues for 96 years.]

1961: 23^rd Amendment grants DC citizens the right to vote for President

1970:  Congress [Democratic majority] allows the District of Columbia to elect a Delegate to the House of Representatives. Walter Fauntroy is elected in 1971.

1991: Eleanor Holmes Norton elected

1993: Rights of the Delegates and the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner are expanded.[Democratic majority].

As of 1993, the DC Delegate was allowed to vote in standing committees, such as the Armed Services and Judiciary Committees, because, “committees do not pass final legislation and their actions are not binding on the House of Representatives.” DC Delegate Eleanor Homes Norton successfully argued that, using this logic, she should be allowed to vote in the Committee of the Whole as well.

In 1994, Republicans filed a lawsuit [Michel v. Anderson] challenging Congress’s constitutional authority to allow delegate voting in the Committee of the Whole. A U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the DC Delegate’s right to vote.

However [and with DC representation, there seems always to be a “however,”], even that court victory had limitations:

… if any measure passed or failed in the Committee of the Whole because of a delegate’s vote, a second vote—excluding the delegates—would be taken. In other words, delegates were permitted to vote only if their votes had no effect on a measure’s ultimate outcome.

Back to the timeline:

1995: Republicans take control of the House in the 104th Congress—the first change in party control in 40 years, and make major changes to the House rules, including rescinding the right of Delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole.

2007:  A new Democratic majority reinstates the right of Delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole with House Resolution 78, by a vote of 226-191

More recently—most notably in 2010—attempts  to pass DC voting-rights bills have failed when Republicans attached amendments that would have negated the District’s strict gun-control laws. Another proposed deal called for the quid pro quo of adding another Congressional district in Republican-dominated Utah.

Along the way, politicians have taken some noteworthy and quote-worthy stands regarding DC voting: For example:

• The late Sen. Ted Kennedy, a supporter of DC voting rights in Congress, once said the reason Republicans won’t support full representation for DC is because “it’s too liberal, too urban, too democratic, and too black.”
• In a show of support for the city, President Bill Clinton used “Taxation Without Representation” plates on the presidential limousine. President George W. Bush had them removed.
• Republican Party Platform 1976:
  “We…support giving the District of Columbia voting representation in the United States Senate and House of Representatives.”

For now, DC once again remains unrepresented in Congress in any meaningful way, and the longstanding “taxation without representation” argument rages on. Some DC voting-rights activists have proposed a twist on that argument, calling for an end to federal taxation in the District to parallel its citizens’ lack of representation. In the meantime, House Speaker Boehner and Congressional Republicans continue to deny DC citizens representation, while attempting to impose their political preferences on the District by loosening gun laws and pushing school vouchers.

Can this injustice resolved?

DC Vote puts it this way:

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that all Americans deserve democracy. Opinions from conservative legal experts like Judge Kenneth Starr and Professor Viet D. Dinh support Congress’ authority under the Constitution to give the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress through simple legislation. Congress does not need to amend the Constitution or make DC a state to give DC a vote in Congress.

With voting representation equal to that of other Americans, DC will be better empowered to end congressional interference in local matters, have an equal vote on important national issues and tackle local problems with more resources and greater freedom.

The post Vexation about DC representation appeared first on Occasional Planet.