Home » Posts tagged 'Democracy'
Tag Archives: Democracy
Why Democrats Keep Losing!
by Brian T. Lynch, MSW
May I rant? It helps me to think out loud. Maybe you will find it helpful too. (or just ignore this if you like.)
Democrats are loosing in state after state and in federal elections because they are acting too white and wealthy for their base, the REAL latent base of the party. And this base is NOT its liberal donors. Dem donors are nice folks, but they can’t compete with the GOP donor machines. (Nor should they try)
According to OpenSecrets.org, from the prior election, two-thirds of corporate donations go to the GOP and one-third to Dem’s. That’s more than enough money to distract Democratic candidates. But that’s not the whole story.
We already have a party of wealthy white guys, so we don’t need another party of wealthy (relative term here, not pejorative) white gals or guys to oppose them. As badly as the GOP is exploiting and marginalizing woman (treating them like subordinates), woman’s issues are not winning over woman like it should, not even female Democrats. But that’s not the whole story either.
We need a Democratic party that gets intimately in touch with the needs of the ordinary people who haven’t been voting lately, people who, from their distal vantage, can’t tell the two parties apart. Their issues are literally bread and butter, not theoretical or ideological economics. They live in a deflationary universe where wages are flat and a dollar keeps shrinking. Their daily sweat has been sanitized and turned into a market commodity. There is no profit left in labor for them. They know their children will have no inheritance because everything they own can be sold at a flee market.
The middle class that we usually picture in our mind is not the middle income folks of today. Popular culture’s view, reinforced by network TV’s portrayals of middle-class lifestyles, matches people making more than $100,000 a year, twice the median wage. Which politicians for federal office speak openly and bravely for this half of our hard working citizens who make less than $50,000 per year? You can’t reach them by talk of job creation! Most of them have more jobs than they can handle.
If we think of the lower half of wage earners as being made up of those who are working and those looking for work, then 7% unemployed minus the 50% who earn less than a middle wage leaves 43% of the wage earners who are not being represented by either party. Of this group, those who call themselves Democrats aren’t showing up to vote. Why should they? What will change when no one seems to notice them?
Republican in this same low income group do show up to vote, but that’s because they are cynically manipulated by the wealthy wing of the GOP. They are voting out of fear, anger and pain. The wealthy wing of the GOP hears their pain even as it twist the knife.
Democrats in public office, or running for office, don’t want to ruffle the feathers of the powerful minority groups (Wall Street, CEO’s, Billionaires, etc.) even though these folks aren’t voting for them. Money is tight. I get that.
Let me give you just two examples from two New Jersey congressional races that were below the national radar, The incumbent Republican, Rodney Frelinghuysen, raise 7 times more money than his Democratic challenger, Mark Dunec in the 11th District. Incumbent Republican Leonard Lance raised 8 times more than his Democratic challenger, Janice Kovach in the 7th District. All this money did not come from the 43% of hard working American’s who still need some form of government subsidy to survive.
And what help did these Democratic candidates get from their party elders? Very little! A decision was made to write off these districts. The slick election strategy that carefully targets resources to the most competitive races writes off the needs of millions of people who have every right to be represented. The big get out the vote strategy touted by the party fizzled because they didn’t have an explosive message to motivate the 43%ers.
People who live below the median wage level have one thing in common with the richest billionaires… their vote is just as powerful. One person! One vote! It isn’t how corporations operate; It’s how democracies operate. And until Democrats start collecting those uncast vote, instead of appeasing the rich, Democrats will continue to loose.
It is time to stop playing the Republican’s game.
Here is a helpful article by Robert Reich that says in fewer word what I am trying to say above.
http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1342950
Anyway, I’m done with my rant. Thanks for listening, even if you didn’t make it this far. All the best in the future.
_______________________________
Image Credit: http://news.yourolivebranch.org/2011/05/24/iec-declares-election-free-and-fair/
Government of the People Is Gone- Here’s Proof
by Brian T. Lynch
Martin Gilens of Princeton University, and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern University , conducted a multivariate analysis of 1,779 policy issues in the United States, the results of which confirmed that the United States is no longer a Majoritarian Electoral Democracy.
In other words, we have lost majority rule. The United States has become an oligarchy. Business interests and the interests of the wealthy elite have overwhelming dominance in influencing United States policy and laws. You can read their conclusions below and read this newly published study in full at this URL:
Click to access Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf
According to the authors, “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.”
Of course, anyone paying attention to government policies versus the popular will of the electorate would already have drawn this conclusion. I recently posted a two part piece on this very subject a few months ago: http://j.mp/1bz7aO5
The Gilens and Page study opens by asking a critical question, who really rules? Are we, the people, the sovereigns of our nation, or have we become “largely powerless?” He begins to answer this by summarizing four different theoretical traditions recognized by scholars who study democratic governance.
The first of these theoretical traditions discussed is the Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, which is best “… encapsulated in Abraham Lincoln’s reference to government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” This tradition holds that laws and policies should reflect the views of the average voter, and that the positions of politicians seeking election should converge towards the center of the normal range of voter opinion. It is this view of democracy most often presented by major media outlets when covering our politics. More importantly, this is these are the outcomes most of us expect from our democracy.
The second tradition is the Economic Elite Domination tradition in which US policy making is dominated by those with high levels of wealth or income. Some scholars also include social status or position as part of this tradition. The economic elites often exercise their influence through foundations, think-tanks and “opinion shaping apparatus,” as well as to the lobbyists and politicians they finance.
Majoritarian pluralism is the third theoretical tradition that Gilens and Page discusse. This tradition analyzes politics through the lens of competing interest groups within the population. These groups may include political parties, organized interest groups, business firms or industry sector organizations. All things being equal, the struggle between diverse factions within the population should also produce policy outcomes that are at least compatible with civil majority opinions. But all things are not necessarily equal, leading to the fourth, related tradition called Biased Pluralism.
Biased pluralism entails policy outcomes that result from contending, but unrepresentative organized interest groups. These unrepresentative interest groups are generally made up of upper-class citizens with the power and influence to tilt policy towards the wishes of corporations, businesses and professional associations.So, after statistically comparing almost 2,000 policy outcomes against these four models of political influence in our democracy, what did the researchers find? In their own words:
“By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model … we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. 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.”
“Nor do organized interest groups substitute for direct citizen influence [snip]… Over-all, net interest group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens.” The net alignments of the most influential, business oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes.”
“Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites… have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.
What then has become of our democracy? It has been usurped by billionaires who directly fund candidates for public office, directly influence policy through lobbying and heavily fund public marketing campaigns to influence public opinion for their own advantage.
We have seen this before during the “Gilded Age” at the turn of the last Century. We found our voice a hundred years ago and we took back our democracy from the wealthy elite. Today they are smarter, richer and have more control over the media and government than they did back then, so the challenges we face to save civil democracy and regain majority rule won’t be easy. But history tells us that power is ultimately with the people. We must start by recognizing our situation and begin organizing ourselves to collectively act in our own best interest. We need to become, once again, a nation of citizens, not a nation of businesses and the rich.
Tyranny of the Minority – Part 2: Rise of the Neo-Confederate Secessionists
Graycoat Conservatives – The Neo-Confederate Secessionists
by Brian T. Lynch, MSW
They are still small in number, but spread widely across the county. They are articulate, highly motivated and influential members within the Tea Party, the Christian right movement, Libertarians groups and nationalist groups in every state. They are the philosophic rear guard of the conservative movement pulling conservatives ever further to the right. They may not have a central organization, but they do have a significant social media presence. They remain under the radar of the national press which fails to take them seriously. The best way to find them is to type “secessionist” into your internet search engine. They are the Neo-Confederates, a polarizing counter-force behind the growing rift in the Republican Party.
The secessionists anti-government interests overlap with the corporate conservative wing of the Republican Party, and both groups favor free market economics, but the graycoat conservatives envision a very different America. So while wealthy conservatives continue to fund the Tea Party, graycoat conservatives are busy winning over hearts and minds to their radical alternative.
The following graphic is taken from one of the many secessionist Websites. It maps the number of secessionist petitioners from around the country. In effect it shows where they are most active and how they are distributed across the country. It doesn’t represent how popular or unpopular the movement might be.
Plotting whitehouse.gov secession petitions
Signers to White House secession petitions by county. Color based on proportion of residents signing, with darker colors showing higher levels of secession support. Current as of 9am on Saturday, November 24th. Works best in Chrome or Safari.
Update: It looks like the secession petition movement has peaked.
Since Election Day, more than 60 petitions have been posted on the White House’s website requesting that states be allowed to withdraw from the United States and create their own government. As of November 13, 2012, the following states had active petitions: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Virginias, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. [http://www.unc.edu/~ncaren/secessionists/]
A 2009 Zogby poll quoted on a number of secessionist Websites found that 20% of American’s believe states have a right to secede from the Union. Just today (12/18/13) Michael Hill, President of one of the Southern groups called League of the South, posted ten reasons for secession. They are:
- The U. S. government is an organized criminal enterprise, secession is the only way to return to legitimate government
- The U. S. economy is failing, secession makes economic sense
- The South’s unique history and culture is worth protecting
- The criminal nature of the bank bailouts and the Fed
- A dysfunctional national electoral system, secession may be the only way to restore integrity to elections
- Third World immigration into the South, secession removes the federal government’s interference and lack of performance
- Organic community vs. the globalism of the elites
- The implementation of an American police/surveillance state
- The Christian South v. secular America, secession provides the opportunity to return to Our Founding Principles
10. Because we think we can rule ourselves better than we are being ruled by DC, secession is a path to American Liberty http://dixienet.org/rights/2013/reasons_for_secession.php]
What these secessionist groups most have in common is a desire to facilitate the collapse of the Federal Government and the breakup of the Union of States. They see this as the natural and inevitable course of history. As they see it, every great empire has followed this path.
They oppose all forms of collectivism and eschew society as we know it. Among some groups there is a distinct “cultural” component. All groups seem to reject democratic majority rule. As one of them put it to me, ”
According to one person who wrote me, they are, “… committed to the cause of individual liberty and [individual] sovereignty. [They] would prefer secession, to revolution.” But revolution it will be if the majority opinion of the Americans go against them. They have a strong patriotic connection to our founding fathers even though their commitment to our Union is weak. Pin them down and they reluctantly choose the union of states over a return to a confederacy, but only if the Federal governments control over the states is weakened and individuals are free from all federal interference.
If you start to pin these folks down in a debate they squirm away. They are viscerally opposed to the our system of government, their anti-federal rage concealed only by their passion for an extreme interpretation of individual rights and freedoms. These passions are covered over by a thin veneer of selective scholarship. Scratch the scholarship and their passion flares. Challenge their constitutional interpretations and they circle the wagons.
They have no sense of responsibility towards society and nothing but contempt for majority rule. They believe the majority of American’s is just another special interest group, and one that is biased against minority rights. When majorities opinions prevail they force minorities to accede to their will which violates their rights. This is how they interpret the Constitution.
The only legitimate role they see for the federal government is the protection of the individual’s right to follow their conscience within Constitutionally defined boundaries. One major flashpoint seems to be taxes. They don’t want to pay any federal taxes, but when pressed say they agree to contribute only for spending within the limits of their narrow interpretation of the governments enumerated powers.
They resent being forced to pay taxes for national parks, education, environmental protection, food and drug administration, foreign diplomacy administration or anything else that isn’t specifically named in our Constitution. They claim a sovereign right not to pay for anything outside of the federal governments enumerated powers, as they define it. They reject all collectivism. For example they resent that the Federal government spends any money on highways and bridges, believing federal spending should be restricted to “postal roads.”
As one person wrote: ” For [the federal government] to “do” it must take. That violates rights. The only function of [government] is protect rights, not “do.”
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th Amendment is the source of their narrow interpretation of federal powers. Their interpretation provides all the justification they require. Below is a reprint from one of their Websites that lists the enumeration of federal powers which they feel the government has exceeded. These powers are listed on the Tenth Amendment Center Website where the members call themselves “Tenthers.: [http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/]
Disdain for the Federal Government or any large democracy is a central feature for these neo-confederate groups. They see majority as a special interest and would strip the government of its ability to show any favoritism to all special interests. This suggests that the only role of government must be the protection of the individuals rights yet they may concede collective rights to businesses. Perhaps this is why it is so important that corporations be viewed as people. It gives them individual status while denying other types of organization status as a collective entity.
MIDDLEBURY INSTITUTE PAPER V
http://middleburyinstitute.org/rightsandfreedoms.html
March 2007 – Introduction to “Minimal Rights and Freedoms of Individuals in a Sovereign State”
Because questions keep coming up as to the kinds of states that secessionist organizations are working toward, and because each organization in the movement has an interest in the objectives of any other organization, it seemed to us here that it might be appropriate to send out a suggested platform of the rights and freedoms that might be guaranteed to individuals in any future seceded state. [SNIP] There are important issues here and we hope you take them seriously.
MINIMAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF INDIVIDUALS IN A SOVEREIGN STATE
Rights to
Life, liberty, security
Equality before the law
Trial before competent tribunal, due process, counsel, appeal
Possess property and not be arbitrarily deprived thereof
Periodic elections with universal adult suffrage
Secession by any coherent unit
Freedoms of
Speech, opinion, expression in any media
Peaceable assembly, association
Belief, thought, religion, worship
Movement within any state, and to leave and return
Freedoms from
Slavery or servitude
Discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion,
political belief, nationality, property, or birth
Torture or degrading treatment
Arbitrary arrest or detention
Invasion of privacy
Arbitrary deprivation of citizenship
Any action by the state to destroy or deny any of these rights and freedoms
Signators:
Middlebury Institute, February 2007
Second Vermont Republic, March 2007
Southern National Congress Committee, March 2007
The role of a state to infringe on individual rights is not well thought out among members of this group. Because states are smaller they believe them to be inherently less intrusive in the lives of individuals. They consider themselves to have an individual right to not be “interfered with” by any government, but apparently feel that smaller, state governments would be easier to control. In a large constitutional democracy, such as the United States, a majority opinion is viewed as a form of tyranny against individual dissenters, even if that majority opinion is deemed constitutional according the the Supreme Court. On the other hand, they don’t see anything wrong with a minority group preventing the majority from governing in opposition to them. They see this as their right and duty as “soverigien citizens.” It isn’t clear whether this is true only when the minority feels the government is legislating beyond its enumerated powers, or if they claim this right under all circumstances. As one person put it:
“But you don’t see that resisting (but not compelling) action from a majority isn’t a tyranny of the minority? The minority isn’t forcing the majority to do anything, only to refrain from forcing the minority to do something. The rights of any minority supersede the wants or needs of any majority.”
In the face debt ceiling financial cliffs, government shut downs, and the nearly total inability of Congress to pass legislation, it is time to recognize that there are forces on the far right, and in Congress, who see this as successful strategy. Their intentions are malevolent and quite contrary to the motivations most often attributed to them by political analysts in the main stream press. It is time to pay attention to these groups and their impact on American politics. A failure to open a public debate that directly confronts both the graycoat secessionists and the corporate elite now would be a huge mistake.
Tyranny of the Minority – Losing Majority Rule
Part 1 – Losing Majority Rule
Most people pay attention to pocketbook issues that affect our family or retirement, but quite understandably avoid the rancorous politics we see on TV. There is a sense that government is failing because elected officials can’t agree and the country is evenly divided, but many important issues do get rationally settled in the opinion of vast majorities of the public.
For example,a large majority agree that global warming is happening and we are causing it in some way. Almost 90% of us agree we spend too much on defense. Large majorities believe we should generate more electricity from wind and solar. About 80% of us believe there should be universal background checks on gun sales and almost everyone agrees that big banks caused the great recession. Despite a near consensus on these and other issues there is gridlock in Washington.
One explanation is that there is not a lot of passion behind these majority views, so meaningful change against an organized and well funded opposition is out of reach. In the face of majority agreement, Congress fails to act, or act contrary to the will of its citizens. On the surface it may seem like political gridlock between evenly matched forces, but this is an illusion. There are many issues supported by majorities in both parties that can’t even get a hearing in Congress because a tiny minority who oppose it are able to kill it. This is tyranny by the minority when the majority isn’t allowed to govern. To understand what’s happening really requires us to pierce the noise of partisanship and media bias.
The voting majority has lost its ability to govern. In frustration more and more ordinary citizens feel alienated or betrayed, leaving us vulnerable to the radical fringe.
Evidencethat the majority has lost the ability to govern is everywhere. The smallest special interest group, the wealthy elite, are by far the most influential and obvious force in Congress. CEO’s of major corporations testified in Congress that they don’t want or need tax subsidies and Congress increases their subsidies. Wall Street asks for and got billions in bailout money with no strings attached. Try to attach some strings or implement substantial financial reform and Congress kills it, either outright or later on through the budget process. There is evidence of the failure of majority rule in the way the filibuster has shut down open debate and killed popular legislation. There is evidence in the inability of Congress to debate and vote on immigration reform, which is popular and has strong bi-partisan support. The debt ceiling crisis, the budget cliffs and the government shutdown are all signs that the majority has lost control of the federal government. The growing assault on voting rights, recently passed anti-abortion legislation and the imposition of emergency managers over democratically elected city and municipal leaders are other examples.
The truth is forces on the political spectrum are not evenly matched. Many political battles are asymmetrical. The nations shift to the right is mostly due to the success of highly motivated and well funded conservative action groups. For example there are right wing Christian groups opposed to secular society and what they see as moral decay. These groups promote socially conservative issues. There are Tea Party groups opposed to taxes. They promote free market capitalism and limited government. Then there are many extreme nationalists groups, gun rights groups, militial groups and the like. All of these groups have different aims but are drawn together by strong anti-tax, anti-government sentiments and by at least a laissez-faire view of capitalism.
Money and organizational clout for these action groups comes mostly from wealthy capitalists who want to weaken the power of government to tax and regulate commerce. There is an anti-government alignment of interests between the wealthy elite and each of these groups.
There is another, less visible segment in these groups as well, a far right group with a welll defined ideology but no central organization. These are the real insurgents fighting for control of the Republican Party. Their goal is to dismantle the Federal government as we know it, limiting its powers to the narrowest extent possible under their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. They are the members of the Tea Party who pull it further to the right. They are the members of conservative Christian right groups that fan the flames of anti-government rhetoric. Some belong to hate groups, conservative issues groups or libertarian organizations. Everywhere they show up they agitate to pull the organization further to the ideological right by sowing dissatisfaction with our Federal government. They seek an individual level of freedom that transends any personal responsibility to society or majority rule.
Who are these far right ideologues and what do they want?
Imagine a future in which our Federal government is forced to cut back on every service or function not specifically named in the U.S. Constitution. What if, to keep Wyoming and a few other Mid-West and South-Western states from seceding, we give up our national parks. These are sold off to corporation such as Disney, ExxonMobil, Boise Cascade, Massey Energy Corp. and various land development corporations. Under this scenario Texas or some other states may have already seceded and we now have to worry about the nuclear armed country of Texas on our southern border.
Imagine the Federal government no longer able fund departments and agencies over the objection of a minority of sovereign citizens. Gone are the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor, Transportation.. all gone and replaced by individual state control, subject to the ability to fund them over the objections of “sovereign citizens” in each state.
The Environmental protection agency, The FDA, FCC, SEC and almost all federal regulatory agencies would all be gone. These are considered outside the enumerated powers of the Federal government. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are obviously gone as well. It is up to the sovereign citizens of each state to decide what they decide to fund or not fund within their own state.
In this future all Federal powers would be limited strictly to military defense, protection of the rights of individuals with respect to constitutional liberties and settling interstate commerce disputes among the states. In this future citizens could target where their tax money goes. In effect, majority rule would be subject to minority consent, in fact to consent by each sovereign citizen’s consent.
Continued in Part 2 – Meet the Gray Coat Conservatives.
(Part 2 will detail the belief system of the neo-confederate conservative)
The Economy Didn’t Stall for Congress During Recession
by Brian T. Lynch, MSW
|
The Wealthiest US Legislators Estimated Net Worth
|
|
|
Issa, Darrell (R-Calf) House
|
$448,125,017
|
|
McCaul, Michael (R-Tex) House
|
$380,411,527
|
|
Harman, Jane (D-Calf) House
|
$326,844,751
|
|
Kerry, John (D-Mass) Senate
|
$231,722,794
|
|
Kohl, Herb (D-Wis) Senate
|
$173,538,010
|
|
Combined Wealth
|
$1,560,642,099
|
|
Average Wealth Increase per Legislator by Party and Chamber – 2004 and 2010
|
|||||
|
Wealth /Member in 2004
|
Wealth /Member in 2010
|
Six Year Dif /Member
|
Total % Change
|
Annual % Change
|
|
|
House Democrats (n=176)
|
$2,918,824
|
$4,408,237
|
$1,489,414
|
51.0%
|
8.50%
|
|
House Republicans (n=133)
|
$5,243,557
|
$10,111,971
|
$4,868,414
|
92.8%
|
15.47%
|
|
Senate Democrats (n=40)
|
$20,516,818
|
$19,323,256
|
-$1,193,561
|
-5.8%
|
-0.97%
|
|
Senate Republicans (n=41)
|
$4,394,130
|
$5,128,482
|
$734,352
|
16.7%
|
2.79%
|
|
Senate Independents (n=3)
|
$577,182
|
$1,359,855
|
$782,673
|
135.6%
|
22.6%
|
|
Total Wealth Increase of All US Legislators Between 2004 and 2010
|
|||||
|
Average Wealth in 2004
|
Average Wealth in 2010
|
Difference in Six Years
|
Total % Change
|
Annual % Change
|
|
|
All Members (n=393)
|
$2,213,699,631
|
$3,108,019,528
|
$894,319,897
|
40.4%
|
6.7%
|
|
All Democrats (n=216)
|
$1,334,385,659
|
$1,548,780,022
|
$214,394,363
|
16.1%
|
2.7%
|
|
All Republicans (n=174)
|
$877,552,427
|
$1,555,159,941
|
$677,607,514
|
77.2%
|
12.9%
|
|
Independents (n=3)
|
$1,731,545
|
$4,079,565
|
$2,348,020
|
135.6%
|
22.6%
|
|
Senators (n=84)
|
$1,002,563,604
|
$987,277,595
|
-$15,286,009
|
-1.5%
|
-0.3%
|
|
Congressmen (n=309)
|
$1,211,147,532
|
$2,120,971,945
|
$909,824,413
|
75.1%
|
12.5%
|
|
Average Wealth Increase Per US Legislator by Party and Chamber Between 2004 and 2010
|
|||||
|
Wealth /Member in 2004
|
Wealth /Member in 2010
|
Six Year Dif /Member
|
Total % Change
|
Annual % Change
|
|
|
All Members (n=393)
|
$5,632,823
|
$7,908,447
|
$2,275,623
|
40.4%
|
6.7%
|
|
All Democrats (n=216)
|
$6,177,711
|
$7,170,278
|
$992,566
|
16.1%
|
2.7%
|
|
All Republicans (n=174)
|
$5,043,405
|
$8,937,701
|
$3,894,296
|
77.2%
|
12.9%
|
|
Independents (n=3)
|
$577,182
|
$1,359,855
|
$782,673
|
135.6%
|
22.6%
|
|
Senators (n=84)
|
$11,935,281
|
$11,753,305
|
-$181,976
|
-1.5%
|
-0.3%
|
|
Congressmen (n-309)
|
$3,919,571
|
$6,863,987
|
$2,944,416
|
75.1%
|
12.5%
|
|
Average Wealth Increase of All US Legislators by Party Between 2004 and 2010
|
|||||
|
Average Wealth in 2004
|
Average Wealth in 2010
|
Difference in Six Years
|
Total % Change
|
Annual % Change
|
|
|
House Democrats (n=176)
|
$513,712,948
|
$775,849,769
|
$262,136,821
|
51.0%
|
8.50%
|
|
House Republicans (n=133)
|
$697,393,079
|
$1,344,892,164
|
$647,499,085
|
92.8%
|
15.47%
|
|
Senate Democrats (n=40)
|
$820,672,711
|
$772,930,253
|
-$47,742,458
|
-5.8%
|
-0.97%
|
|
Senate Republicans (n=41)
|
$180,159,348
|
$210,267,777
|
$30,108,429
|
16.7%
|
2.79%
|
|
Senate Independents (n=3)
|
$1,731,545
|
$4,079,565
|
$2,348,020
|
135.6%
|
22.6%
|
|
Average Wealth Increase per Legislator by Party and Chamber – 2004 and 2010
|
|||||
|
Wealth /Member in 2004
|
Wealth /Member in 2010
|
Six Year Dif /Member
|
Total % Change
|
Annual % Change
|
|
|
House Democrats (n=176)
|
$2,918,824
|
$4,408,237
|
$1,489,414
|
51.0%
|
8.50%
|
|
House Republicans (n=133)
|
$5,243,557
|
$10,111,971
|
$4,868,414
|
92.8%
|
15.47%
|
|
Senate Democrats (n=40)
|
$20,516,818
|
$19,323,256
|
-$1,193,561
|
-5.8%
|
-0.97%
|
|
Senate Republicans (n=41)
|
$4,394,130
|
$5,128,482
|
$734,352
|
16.7%
|
2.79%
|
|
Senate Independents (n=3)
|
$577,182
|
$1,359,855
|
$782,673
|
135.6%
|
22.6%
|
|
Top Ten Legislators /w Biggest Jump in Wealth ($ increase) by Party and Chamber – 2004 and 2010
|
|||||
|
Aggregated Totals
|
Average Wealth in 2004
|
Average Wealth in 2010
|
Difference in Six Years
|
Total % Change
|
Annual % Change
|
|
House Democrats (n=176)
|
$327,705,235
|
$568,142,204
|
$240,436,969
|
73.4%
|
12.2%
|
|
House Republicans (n=133)
|
$331,746,289
|
$1,005,864,579
|
$674,118,290
|
203.2%
|
33.9%
|
|
Senate Democrats (n=40)
|
$137,206,389
|
$216,341,049
|
$79,134,660
|
57.7%
|
9.6%
|
|
Senate Republicans (n=41)
|
$21,576,271
|
$81,888,741
|
$60,312,470
|
279.5%
|
46.6%
|
|
Top Ten Legislators /w Biggest Jump in Wealth ($ increase) by Party and Chamber – 2004 and 2010
|
|||||
|
Average per Legislator
|
Wealth /Member in 2004
|
Wealth /Member in 2010
|
Six Year Dif /Member
|
Total % Change
|
Annual % Change
|
|
House Democrats (n=176)
|
1,861,962
|
3,228,081
|
1,366,119
|
73.4%
|
12.2%
|
|
House Republicans (n=133)
|
2,494,333
|
7,562,892
|
5,068,559
|
203.2%
|
33.9%
|
|
Senate Democrats (n=40)
|
3,430,160
|
5,408,526
|
1,978,367
|
57.7%
|
9.6%
|
|
Senate Republicans (n=41)
|
526,251
|
1,997,286
|
1,471,036
|
279.5%
|
46.6%
|
|
Top TenLegislators /w Biggest Jump in Wealth (% increase) by Chamber & Party – 2004 and 2010
|
|||||
|
Aggregated Totals
|
Average Wealth in 2004
|
Average Wealth in 2010
|
Difference in Six Years
|
Total % Change
|
Annual % Change
|
|
House Democrats*
|
$779,531
|
$31,996,557
|
$31,217,026
|
4004.6%
|
667.4%
|
|
House Republicans
|
$35,430,212
|
$392,877,862
|
$357,447,650
|
1008.9%
|
168.1%
|
|
Senate Democrats
|
$19,415,702
|
$56,516,827
|
$37,101,125
|
191.1%
|
31.8%
|
|
Senate Republicans
|
$11,871,405
|
$67,686,976
|
$55,815,571
|
470.2%
|
78.4%
|
|
Top TenLegislators /w Biggest Jump in Wealth (% increase) by Chamber & Party – 2004 and 2010
|
|||||
|
Average per Legislator
|
Wealth /Member in 2004
|
Wealth /Member in 2010
|
Six Year Dif /Member
|
Total % Change
|
Annual % Change
|
|
House Democrats*
|
$4,429
|
$181,799
|
$177,369
|
4004.6%
|
667.4%
|
|
House Republicans
|
$266,393
|
$2,953,969
|
$2,687,576
|
470.2%
|
78.4%
|
|
Senate Democrats
|
$485,393
|
$1,412,921
|
$927,528
|
191.1%
|
31.8%
|
|
Senate Republicans
|
$289,546
|
$1,650,902
|
$1,361,355
|
470.2%
|
78.4%
|
|
* One member, P. Kennedy, accounted for most of the increase. Excluding him for the in rank on the list yeilds an increase of 1,602.6% or 267.1% annual increase.
|
|||||
Abe Lincoln on Corporate Corruption
What Lincoln Foresaw:
Corporations Being “Enthroned” After the Civil War
and Re-Writing the Laws Defining Their Existence
by Rick Crawford, crawford@cs.ucdavis.edu
|
Here is a sobering quote by Abe Lincoln:
Some people expressed doubts about its authenticity, given Lincoln’s work as an attorney for railroad corporations! It was an interesting job tracking it down and verifying its authenticity.
The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
In several books, I found numerous places where Lincoln spoke about Capital and Labor (“Workingmen”). Lincoln re-used his own material frequently, and virtually identical passages appear in several places. Lincoln praises the moral rightness ofboth Capital and Labor, but this is invariably in the context of a nation where NO MORE THAN ONE MAN IN EIGHT is a Capitalist or a Laborer, ie, where 7/8 of the population are “self-employed” on their own farms and homesteads.
|
It’s Time for Citizens to Take Control of Our Democracy
North Carolina doesn’t want you to vote if you live in a college dormitory in that state. They don’t want you to vote if you don’t have a special state identification card. There is a provision in state law that polling places can serve a maximum of 1500 voters, but in Boone, where college students nearly caused the parish to go for Barak Obama, you must now travel out of your way to the one polling place left, which serves over 9,000 voters. With only 45 parking spaces the parking lot will need to fill and empty every 6 or 7 minutes to accommodate everyone. Of course, accommodating all the voters is the last thing this Republican controlled local voting board has in mind.
Throughout the South and in other conservative stronghold around the country the story is pretty much the same. Since the United States Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act an ideologically obstinate Republican Party, which is in demographic decline, is responding to growing pluralism and power sharing by rejecting democratic majority rule in favor of vote manipulation and dirty tricks. In one voting precinct in Texas, changes to the distribution of voting machines would have predominately African-American polling places handle ten times the number of voters as predominately White polling places. In every Republican controlled state the voting districts have been redrawn to make it nearly impossible for them to lose their incumbency. And all these changes are not random developments but elements of a nationwide plot to project conservative power and suppress opposing or alternative social views.
Admitting that there is a problem with our democratic process is difficult enough. Fixing it will be even harder. Elections are the province of state governments, each with unique constitutions, chapter laws and administrative policies. In a previous post [http://wp.me/p2WIGz-7B ] I reported on the results of a survey I conducted of the constitutional voting rights articulated in every state constitution. The results were disturbing. Most of the rights we think we have are not supported in the language of most state constitutions and no state constitution has adequately defined voting rights.
Voting is, of course, the cornerstone of democracy. It is the means by which political power is aggregated and distributed within a democratic society. Each vote is a transfer of power collected by the chosen candidate. The integrity of the voting process is therefore critical to a democratic society. It is too precious to entrust in partisan hands. The administration of the election process should be pre-partisan, outside of total government control. It should be directly under citizen control.
Our present system of election relies on election administrators appointed by the party in power. In most states that means the State Secretary of State. Keeping in mind that most states don’t have constitutionally secure voting rights, the legislatures have significant control over election procedures and the Secretary of States have great leeway over how these laws are implemented. Among the strange consequences this has cause is the turning over of elections to private voting companies. Most or our votes are cast and counted by private companies using electronic machines run on proprietary software. The voting companies are accountable to no one. We citizens didn’t ask for this and there was no discussion about this prior to hiring these private firms to collect and count our votes. Since these companies have taken over the election process we have had some of the most unusual and controversial elections in modern times. I have written extensively on this subject in the past (see below).
How should we protect our voting rights? By electing non-partisan, independent citizen boards to run our elections. All voting policies and procedures should be approved through public referendum developed by these citizen Boards of Election. Citizens on these boards should have no party affiliations and should not hold any public office. These citizen boards should be responsible for everything from drawing congressional districts, maintaining voter registrations preparing ballots, assigning polling places, etc. right down to training poll workers and monitoring elections. Any significant changes in voting policy should have to be put to a public vote. If private companies are to be hired to count our votes, it is the voters who should decide whether or not to use them. In my view, there should be nothing involving the franchise that isn’t itself subject to direct citizen approval.
The candidate who collects the most votes wins the consent to govern. In the bargain, the candidate in a representative democracy is expected to represent everyone, even those opposed to him or her. In exchange, all the people consent to be governed by majority rule even if there candidate didn’t win. Representatives should do what is right for the greatest good even if it isn’t what is popular at the moment or aligned with the interests of those who supported the candidate. Of course, this is the ideal, not the practice. But today, the basic bargain that makes a Republic work has broken down. Elected representatives are narrowly pursuing the interests of their political donors and party constituents almost exclusively. The Republican minority in the Senate no longer accepts majority rule, using filibusters to forcing super-majorities on nearly every vote. With this same disregard they are making it harder for citizens who don’t agree with them to vote in public elections. Governments and powerful interests have broken faith with democracy. It’s time for ordinary citizens to take back control over the democratic voting process.
MY BLOGLIOGROPHY ON VOTING ISSUES
The sorry state of voting rights in America, a 50 state comparison
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/03/sorry-states-of-voting-rights-in.html
How voter ID laws might block you from voting
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/07/seven-ways-voter-id-could-block-you.html
Republicans have a 5% election fraud handicap built into the voting system
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/08/republicans-have-5-election-fraud.html
Many state are unprepared for a fair and free election
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/07/many-states-unprepared-for-fair-and.html
Outsourcing or privatized voting process overseas
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/07/outsourcing-our-privatized-voting.html
Voting rights denied to a record number of “felons”
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/07/voting-rights-denied-for-record-numbers.html
Ireland Scraps Electronic Voting Machines for Good
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/06/ireland-scraps-electronic-voting.html
Secret flawed voting software discovered and exposed
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/06/ireland-scraps-electronic-voting.html
Does voter suppression have a new target in Florida (Latino’s)
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/05/does-voter-suppression-have-new-target.html
To know your Voting Rights you must know your state constitution
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/03/voting-know-your-rights-know-your-state.html
Can a convicted, or formerly convicted felon vote? Lots of confusion
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/04/can-convicted-felon-vote-major.html
Colorado sues for voting privacy, but do we have that right
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/02/colorado-group-sues-for-vote-privacy.html
A private company has the first peek at election results
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/02/company-wprivate-access-to-vote-totals.html
Voter suppression in America to get a hearing at the United Nations
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/03/voter-suppression-in-america-to-get.html
Caucus voting flubs highlight election system flaws
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/02/caucus-voting-flubs-highlight-our.html
South Carolina out sources vote count to Spain
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2012/01/south-carolina-outsources-vote-count-to.html
A voters “Bill of Rights”
http://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2011/10/voters-bill-of-rights.html
America’s Social Contract And The Measure of Our Commitment
(Note: contains some material from prior posts)
by Brian T. Lynch, MSW
A key element in America’s social contract is the idea that government derives its authority from the consent of the people. So the question should occasional be asked, is our mutual consent to be governed wearing thin? There is evidence to suggest a growing restiveness in certain populations. Some symptoms of declining consent include gridlock in congress marked by an inability to pass any legislation on a simple majority vote, the resurgence in states’ rights activism, calls in some states for secession, citizens arming themselves in fear (or perhaps the hope) of armed resistance and wide spread efforts to manipulate elections. Perhaps the best, most quantitative way to judge the degree to which we consent (or commitment) to self-government is by our willingness to pay taxes.
The attitudes we have towards paying taxes, and the extent to which people and organizations will go to avoid them, is an underappreciated index of our consent to be governed. Just as taxation without representation was a rallying cry leading up to the Revolutionary War, the Tea Party and many other popular reform or resistance groups today rally around taxes as a central point of contention. Objectively speaking, the Tea Party’s opposition to taxes makes no sense since their complaint corresponded with the lowest federal tax rate since the Eisenhower administration. It isn’t until we understand that our attitude towards taxes is a barometer of our consent to be governed that the Tea Party’s tax objections become clear.
For the sake of discussion it is helpful to identify different segments of the population that are particularly opposed to taxes. But keep in mind that our personal attitude towards paying taxes is just as valid an indicator of where each of us falls on this measure of consent.
Let’s begin with those who see themselves through the lens of American individualism. They value self-reliance and see this as a patriotic duty. They tend to think less of those who are more collaborative, more dependent or less successful. They tend to discount the contribution of the public commons to their own welfare and don’t often recognize how massively interdependent advanced societies really are. They believe that less government is best for everyone. These folks are less willing to contribute to tax supported government services other than for military defense. They are ideological individualist. This group may include some libertarians and on the extreme fringes may also include some anarchists or survivalists.
There are those who are suspicious or uncomfortable with American pluralism. These folks tend to live in parts of the country where there is little diversity or just a single predominate minority group. However, folks who hold this belief can be found everywhere. They believe a disproportionate amount of their taxes go to support other ethnic or cultural groups whose members don’t share their same values or work ethic. They may fear that these other groups are taking advantage of government largess. As a result, they are more resentful of paying taxes and more critical of what they see as wasteful government spending. These folks are pluralism-adverse and at the extreme fringes this group may include racists or hate groups. A highly nationalistic subset of this pluralism-adverse group believe their government has already broken faith with them and is threatening their liberty. For them, paying taxes is akin to paying tribute to a foreign potentate. The most extreme of these consider themselves to be soverign citizens.
There are some religious fundamentalists who believe all secular government is evil. Some fundamentalist sects focus on The Book of Revelations and an apocalyptic view of the world in which governments plays a role in the rise of the false prophet. For these groups anything that expands government is evil as well, including increased taxes. They are usually considered to be on the fringe of the Christian community, but they have an impact beyond their numbers.
Then there are those who believe taxes compete or interfere with commerce and free markets. They believe that taxes reduce the capital available for businesses investments. They fear that more taxes will lead to more government regulations and further hinder commerce. They don’t see government spending as simulative for the economy. For them, the provision of government services to those who aren’t successful contributors is an unfair redistribution of wealth. Members of this group are more likely to have higher incomes and a sense of entitlement. They may pride themselves in their ability to avoid paying taxes. At the extreme fringes of this group members tend to see society as being made up of the have and the have nots, the makers and the takers. They are often contemptuous of taxes and government.
Next, there are the disaffected and those too self-absorbed to care much about government. For this group all taxes are an annoyance to be avoided. This is a large and diverse group that is often underrepresented in our national conversations. They include many who are poor, but also many who are middle class folks working hard just to make ends meet. They tend to be swing voters when they vote and their grasp of politics and government policies are more maliable. The underground cash economy is significant for them.
The impact of this growing reluctance by some citizens to pay income taxes is huge. According to a GAO report called “HIGH-RISK SERIES, An Update”, the Internal Revenue Service estimated that the gross tax gap–the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid on time–was $450 billion for tax year 2006. The IRS estimated that it would collect $65 billion from these taxpayers through enforcement actions and late payments, leaving a net tax gap of $385 billion. This doesn’t include the loss of tax revenue due to the underground cash economy and foreign US cash transactions. These create an additional tax gap estimated to be between $400 billion and $540 billion annually. There is also the tax gap created when wealthy investors hide their money in off shore tax havens. According to a study by the Tax Justice Network the world’s super rich have at least $21 trillion secretly hidden away in tax shelters as of 2010. This is equivalent to the size of the Japanese and United States economies combined, according to The Price of Offshore Revisited report. Further, the amount of secretly hidden wealth may be as high as $32 trillion.
Arguably the most tax resistant groups, which also have the greatest fiscal and political impact, are businesses and corporations. The largest loss of tax revenue, representing the lowest level of consent to be governed, comes from the corporate sector. The shift in the percentage of total federal income taxes paid by individuals verses businesses has grown substantially over the years. Individual income taxes raised 41% of the total tax revenue in 1943 while business income taxes made up the rest, or more than half of the income tax receipts. Compare this with today where 79% of total revenues comes from individual income taxes. This shift in tax receipts from corporations to individuals cannot be explained by a shift away from C corporations (who pay the corporate income tax) to S corporations (who don’t). According to the financial site NerdWallet, the 10 most profitable U.S. companies paid an average federal tax rate of just 9 percent in 2011. The group includes such giants as Exxon Mobil, Apple, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and General Electric. The Economist recently posted a graphic by the Bureau of Economic Analysis that depicts the decline in corporate taxes juxtaposed to the rise in corporate profits.
The inability of the federal government to collect taxes from the nation’s elite and its biggest corporations is a serious sign of trouble. It signals a real strain in our social contract and severly limits the ability of the government to serve its people. The problem is compounded by the fact that anti-tax sentiments are being exploited by wealthy business interests to ferment dissatisfaction and distrust of our government. A coalition of the most anti-tax, anti government constituents from the various tax adverse segments of society described above would look very similar to the Tea Party base of today’s Republican Party. The power we invest in civil government is the only check we have to balance the power of the largest corporations to do as they wish in pursuit of profits. It would be a mistake to weaken our commitment to good government now when it is under assault.
There are still many who believe taxes are the price we must pay for a just and robust society. Paying taxes is our civic duty and evidence of our commitment to one another. It reflects confidence that our government is representing us and upholding the social contract. The present IRS scandal over the targeting of Tea Party groups for selective scrutiny of their 503(c)4 tax status is really a minor but convenient distraction from the real tax crisis we face. We are facing a crisis of confidence in self-government. It is a challenge of our time to rekindle a popular passion for civil government that is truly of, by and for the people.
International Corporate Plans to Oversee National Governments
Have you ever heard of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?
This posting is not so much an article on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement being negotiated as it is a gateway to articles on the subject. It is important to learn about this subject because, as Dave Johnson wrote in OpEdNews, “You will be hearing a lot about the upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. TPP’s negotiations are being held in secret with details kept secret even from our Congress. But giant corporations are in the loop.”
I would like to suggest you watch the DemocracyNow video from last June (see below) to UNDERSTAND this pending trade agreement and why it is a really big deal. Note, however, that the video of an awards cerimony was actually an anti-TPP activist’s hoax.
Here is an excerpt from Public Citizens analysis of TPP: ” TPP is a “trade” agreement between several Pacific-rim countries that is actually about much more than just trade. It will be sold as a trade agreement (because everyone knows that “trade” is good) but much of it appears to be (from what we know) a corporate end-run around things We the People want to do to reign in the giant corporations — like Wall Street regulation, environmental regulation and corporate taxation. ” [Note: Once finalized, this trade agreement will remain open ended so that any other nations may sign on to it in the future.]
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/14/breaking_08_pledge_leaked_trade_doc
HOUSTON, TAKE DOWN THIS THREATENING MESSAGE
An Orwellian chill ran through my veins as I sat waiting for my connection at Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport. It was the early hours of the morning and the Eastern sky was just starting to brighten. Travelers milled about the vast terminal or sat in various stages of slumber at the terminal gates as a female voice echoed over the public address system. It was that familiar security announcement about keeping track of your luggage and such. No one seemed to notice when this particular message went on to say:
“You are also reminded that any inappropriate comments or jokes concerning security may result in your arrest. We appreciate your cooperation while these measures are in effect.”
Arrest? “While these measures are in effect”?
I looked around. No one else seemed to notice they had just been threatened with arrest for cracking jokes or making comments that some security agent might not like. I suddenly felt less free and less safe from the mercurial powers of the state.
Once we discovered that jetliners can become weapons, tightened security was inevitable, but infringing on our First Amendment rights was not part of the bargain. It’s one thing to take off your shoes and empty your pockets, it’s quite another to face arrest for “inappropriate” speech.
Free speech has boundaries, of course. Everyone knows you can’t yell “fire” in a crowed theater or threaten someone with bodily harm, but when was the last time you were reminded about this in a public announcement at your local cinema? Houston’s airport message was obviously not referring to the normal boundaries of free speech.
From where does this authority to arrest come and how broadly is it being interpreted? What law enforcement authority approved this chilling message? And why is this additional “measure” in effect in Houston but not in most other airports, such as in Newark’s Liberty or New York’s Kennedy Airport?
It seems unlikely that the federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be behind this announcement. The TSA has very limited law enforcement authority. Unless you are committing a felony under US law in their presence, TSA agents have no routine power to arrest you (49 USC 44903(d)(2)). And as far as I know, joking about airport security isn’t a felony. The authority of the TSA extends mostly to allowing passengers to fly or not fly. They can detain you for the purpose of screening or inspecting your personal property, but can’t arrest you if they find, say, a pen knife in your bags. If you refuse to be searched, they can deny you access to the plane. Having said that, the practical reach of the TSA is still an open question and there are examples of apparent abuses of their power. (For an interesting post on TSA authority see: http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2009/04/20/tsa-claims-new-powers-of-detention-search-and-interrogation/).
Most large airports are owned by state or local governments in the US. They operate under state or local authorities, sometimes through an airport authority administration or private management company. Airport security, other than passenger screening, is usually provided by state or local law enforcement agencies.
The George Bush Intercontinental Airport is owned and operated by the City of Huston. It is likely that the Houston Police Department is in charge of airport security. In fact, on the Houston Police Website, M. A. Eisenman is the Assistant Police Chief in charge of the Homeland Security Command and C. W. Driskel is Captain of the Airport Division. If there is a law or temporary measure to limit free speech, the city of Houston and not the TSA would be responsible.
There is internet evidence that this same message has been playing in Houston since at least 2007. In the years since this security message first played, the Iraq war ended, Osama Bin Laden was killed by our special forces, his terrorist network has been decimated, the war in Afghanistan has nearly drawn to a close and there has been no significant attacks in the United States. The “war on terror” is settling into a more or less routine program of security vigilance and covert actions. The flying public accepts today’s airport security arrangements. If there was ever a need to threaten citizens with arrest for inappropriate speech, that heightened need has surely passed. It is time for the City of Huston to stop threatening citizens with arrest for making bad jokes and restore respect for our First Amendment liberties. Houston, take down this threatening message!
Data Driven Viewpoints 