I Had to Pass this Along

On Democracy

Let’s Stop Big Media’s (B)AD Behavior

March 29, 2012

by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

Over the years we’ve been reporting on how power is monopolized by the powerful. How corporate lobbyists, for example, far outnumber members of Congress. And how the politicians are so eager to do the bidding of donors that they allow those lobbyists to dictate the law of the land and make a farce of democracy.  What we have is much closer to plutocracy, where the massive concentration of wealth at the top is protects and perpetuates itself by controlling the ends and means of politics.  This is why so many of us despair over fixing what’s wrong: we elect representatives to change things, and  once in office they wind up serving the deep-pocketed donors who put up the money to keep change from happening at all.

Here’s the latest case in point. The airwaves belong to all of us, right? They’re part of “the commons” that in theory no private interest should be able to buy or control. Nonetheless, government long ago allowed television and radio stations to use the airwaves for commercial purposes, and the advertising revenues have made those companies fabulously rich. But part of the deal was that in return for the privilege of reaping a fortune they would respect the public interest in a variety of ways, including covering the local news important to our communities. If they didn’t, they would be denied their license to use the airwaves at all.

Alas, over the years, through one ruse or another, the public has been shafted.  We heard the other day of a candidate for office in a Midwest state who complained to the general manager of a TV station that his campaign was not getting any news coverage. “You want coverage?” the broadcaster replied. “Buy some ads and then we’ll talk!”

That pretty well sums up the game. But hold your nose: it gets worse. The media companies and their local stations – including goliaths like CBS and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp – stand to pull in as much as $3 billion this year from political ads. Three billion dollars! And most of that money will pay for airing ugly, toxic negative ads that use special effects, snide jokes and flat out deception to take us to the lowest common denominator of politics.

The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, which is supposed to make sure the broadcasters don’t completely get away with highway or, rather, airwave robbery has proposed to the broadcasting cartel that stations post on the Web the names of the billionaires, and front organizations – many of them super PACs — paying for campaign ads. It’s simplicity itself: give citizens access online to find out quickly and directly who’s buying our elections. Hardly an unreasonable request, given how much cash the broadcasters make from their free use of the airwaves.

But the broadcasting industry’s response has been a simple, declarative “Not on your life!” It would cost too much money, they claim. Speaking on their behalf, Robert McDowell, currently the only Republican commissioner on the FCC – the other one left to take a job with media monolith Comcast — said the proposal is likely “to be a jobs destroyer” by distracting station employees from doing their regular work. The party line also has been sounded by Jerald Fritz, senior vice president of Allbritton Communications, who told the FCC that making the information available on the Internet “would ultimately lead to a Soviet-style standardization of the way advertising should be sold as determined by the government.” We’re not making this up.

Steven Waldman, who was lead author of the report that led to the FCC’s online proposal, quotes a letter from the deans of twelve of our best journalism schools: “Broadcast news organizations depend on, and consistently call for, robust open-record regimes for the institutions they cover; it seems hypocritical for broadcasters to oppose applying the same principles to themselves.”

Hypocritical, but consistent with a business that values the almighty dollar over public service. The industry leaves nothing to chance. Through its control of the House of Representatives, it got a piece of legislation passed this past week euphemistically titled the FCC Process Reform Act. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave – this isn’t reform, it’s evisceration.

Not only does the bill remove roadblocks to more media mergers – further reducing competition – it would  subject every new rule and every FCC analysis of that rule to years of paper work and judicial review, enabling the industry’s horde of lawyers and lobbyists, “to throw sand in the works at every opportunity” as one expert puts it.  There was a noble attempt by California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo to include in this bill an amendment that, like the FCC proposal, called for stations to post on-line who’s putting up the big bucks for political ads. Shocker — it was rejected. Score another one for the plutocrats.

There is some good news. The White House opposes this latest bid by the broadcasting oligarchy to further eviscerate the public interest. And the fate of the House bill in the Senate is uncertain at best.  In the meantime, as far as those political ads go, we’re not totally helpless. Here’s what you can do: Under current law, local television stations still have to keep paper files of who’s paying for these political ads, and they have to make those files available to the public if requested.   You can even make copies to take away with you. So just go down to your nearest station, politely ask for the records, and then send the data online to the New America Foundation’s Media Policy Initiative or to the organization of investigative journalists called ProPublica. Both have mounted campaigns to get the information online.

Each is pulling together all the information on political ads they get from you and others — crowdsourcing  — and making it available to the entire country via the Internet. If you’re a high school teacher or college professor of journalism, have your students do it and maybe give them classroom credit for collecting the data democracy needs to work.

In other words, here’s a way citizens can take action even against the plutocrats who run Big Media and Congress.

Bits and Pieces.

“I would say that maybe we ought to consider a Golden Rule in foreign policy: don’t do to other natons what we don’t want them to do to us.” ~Ron Paul

“Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about American enemies. Kill them.” ~Newt Gingrich

Economist Richard Wolff says that both rich and poor Americans tend to think of themselves as middle class, but the middle class has nearly disappeared. The businesses that had a success catering to the middle class in the past –Sears, for example – are having difficulty today. Upscale boutiques and high-end department stores are at the one end and discount stores are at the other end are doing well.

45% of voters think poverty is very important in electing a president, 42% think it is somewhat important and 10% think it is not important. Have you heard that discussed much by our candidates?

Milton Friedman – one Scary SOB and a heavyweight in creating our current economic mess as an educator and advisor to President Reagan.

In a lecture in 1991 Friedman called for the closing down of Medicare, the postal system, Social Security, welfare, and public education. A young woman finally asked what this would mean for poverty. “There is no poverty in American,” Friedman replied. A voice from the back of the hall said, “Bullshit,” and the audience  cheered.

Mandated Health Insurance

Mark Thoma makes an important point about the “individual mandate” that applies equally well to health care and to Social Security:

“I don’t see anything wrong with asking people to pay the expected value of their health care — a mandate to get insurance to cover the catastrophic things that society would cover in any case — to avoid this type of gaming of the system. Yes, it’s true that many healthy people will pay, remain healthy, and seem to get nothing. But that’s the wrong way to look at it. They have insurance whether they pay for it or not. Society will not let them die of a standard, treatable illness so insurance services are present. In fact, it’s the knowledge that society is providing these services that motivates many people to take a chance and go without.”

Insurance is a betting game where you bet against yourself. We buy fire insurance and hope we lose our money, or our house doesn’t burn down. This is also true of auto insurance, disaster insurance, crop insurance, business insurance, leg insurance or whatever.

Now a motorcycle driver may complain like mad about his individual right to not wear a helmet, or carry adequate insurance, a government invasion of his personal rights but if he or she gets into a accident, who pays, the rest of society. Now the extreme right folk would seem happy to say let the dumb ass die but that is not the way of a civilized society who has the ability to care of its citizens, including the dumb ones or the poor ones who can’t afford insurance.

Insurance is redistribution of wealth for a good cause. It seems moral to me.

Dr, Margaret Flowers on a Single Payer Health Plan

Just watch it.

http://billmoyers.com/2012/03/28/moyers-moment-2010-dr-margaret-flowers-on-our-broken-health-care-system/

The American Dream

Just what is the American Dream? It seems most folk describe it in terms on economics. Meaning in this country if you work hard and are industrious you will have economic success. That is a good thing. It is also what many are dissatisfied about as this type of dream seems to be fading with the wealth distribution going to a favored few and the middle class struggling. Hard work does not seem to guarantee success so that you children will all have a better life than we have had. That has now changed and people are angry about it and blame whoever they choose to blame for its cause.

But I think there is more to the American dream than just economic matters. I believe there was a common morality, ethic, norms that served us well for a long time that now seem threatened by an over emphasis on just plain greed. We have a moral of the bottom line, if it meets my short term benefit, it is good. Providing benefits for stockholders outweigh the merit whatever product and service a company is providing. CEO’s and the like are worth outlandish monetary remuneration even when their companies are in economic trouble. We create and applaud industries that are too large to fail because it will have a negative impact on the country. Big is always better.

In simpler times we had more direct contact with the providers of goods and services and the buyers of those goods and services and personal expectations of both. Now we can hide behind structures that isolate and insulate us from each other which allow our more base nature to dominate.

Our government reflects this disconnect. Politicians’ main job is to get elected and reelected rather than to be public servants providing what is necessary for broad public. Again, greed has replaced a sense of intimate public service. This lack of contact allows us to dehumanize folk we do not agree with and convivial conversation of important issues gets lost.

Can we fix our country unless we fix our morality first? Where do we look for moral leaders and teachers?

We live in an immense country where maintaining a common civil morality gets more and more difficult. Smaller countries have an easier time in maintained focus on the public good and responsible behavior of citizens and government.

Some are hopeful about our future and some are very pessimistic. Where do you look for hope or what makes you despair? If the American dream settles only for economic issues I have little hope, if the American dream looks beyond economic to social issues I am more hopeful. Right now the jury is out.

--------

Luke 12

¹⁶Then he told them this story: “The farm of a certain rich man produced a terrific crop. ¹⁷He talked to himself: ‘What can I do? My barn isn’t big enough for this harvest.’ ¹⁸Then he said, ‘Here’s what I’ll do: I’ll tear down my barns and build bigger ones. Then I’ll gather in all my grain and goods, ¹⁹and I’ll say to myself, Self, you’ve done well! You’ve got it made and can now retire. Take it easy and have the time of your life!’

²⁰“Just then God showed up and said, ‘Fool! Tonight you die. And your barnful of goods—who gets it?’

²¹“That’s what happens when you fill your barn with Self and not with God.”

Big Government

You hear the right constantly complaining about big government; seems like their mantra. But what are they complaining about? How many ever check to see if the government is actually growing or not? From what I’m reading that does not seem to be the case at all.

The above seems to contradict that idea that government is growing.

The next the right complains about is generally entitlement spending versus defense spending. Defense spending the like and Reagan and Bush II set records for that. But for some reason folk don’t like entitlements, except if it benefits them. They also seem confused about what entitlements are, such as Social Security, which is not an entitlement at all.

This chart seems to blow that idea as well. There is a lot of complaining about what has already happened but it sold then so why not keep on selling it even if it is not relevant.

For a much more detailed and better analysis of this and where I get my material go to http://baselinescenario.com/2011/05/12/whats-a-big-government/

And to really get educated I’d suggest http://whitehouseburning.com/beginners/

Who’s Against Obamacare?

I guess I am because it’s not called Obamacare, but I guess that is just nitpicking. Frankly I do not think the health care reforms went near far enough, I much sooner have a system like Canada’s or those in Europe. They are all cheaper and give better care for the majority people. Rich folk can always get better whatever.

But there are those, generally of a conservative persuasion, that think it is demonic and will destroy civilization as I know it, thus it is going to the supreme court to determine its constitutionality. And then there are the many claims of all those who have been hurt by “Obamacare.”

Brad Friedman writes a blog I regularly read and he says he has lots of folk who just love to write and condemn his liberal leanings. He decided to put on twitter an opportunity for all those who have been hurt by Obamacare, to respond and tell how it has had a detrimental effect on their lives. The response was zero, nobody reported negative effects of Obamacare. He figures that is because there are no negative effects, just those in the minds who oppose it.

Obamacare is not a government takeover of the health care system despite what Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum and the like say. In fact, the “individual mandate” in the ACA was Republican plan to begin with. A single payer system would be better but we have what we have. It’s like a kid with who wants a toy but when another kid gets it, he says it’s a bad stupid toy. Friedman points to the “Volsky’s ThinkProgress piece as an example of this; a 51 member Republican coalition who used to support a federal government individual health care mandate before they didn’t.”

We still live in the only developed country in the world that does not see health care as a right of citizens rather than an area to make money. Profit based systems are inferior to public systems. Do the research. It is a moral disgrace.

From TruthOut.org

On the News With Thom Hartmann: Republicans in Congress Release Budget Blueprint, and More

Wednesday, 21 March 2012 01:52By Thom Hartmann, The Thom Hartmann Program | Report

You need to know this.  Republicans in Congress unveiled their vision for America today – and if they succeed, the 99% of us are condemned to live like serfs.  House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, himself a multimillionaire, released his blueprint budget for fiscal year 2013 – which includes massive cuts to food stamps, student loans, Medicaid, and Social Security.  The budget also dismantles Medicare as we know it – transforming an insurance program into a voucher program, leaving millions of senior citizens on their own to deal with for-profit health insurance companies.  And in a nod to the Republican Party’s super-rich members like himself, Ryan proposes enormous tax breaks for the 1% - lowering the top income tax rate from 35% down to 25%.  According to the Tax Policy Center – Ryan’s budget would give $3 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans – all paid for by cutting spending on education, healthcare, and Medicare.  Congressman Ryan said about his budget, “It’s up to the people to demand ... a choice between two futures.  The question is which future will you choose?”  That is the question indeed – will we choose the future in which a middle class can thrive again in America like it did for 50 years after the New Deal until Ronald Reagan blew everything up?  Or – will we choose Paul Ryan’s path to an Ayn Rand dystopia, in which only the super-wealthy can go to good schools and see doctors, and everyone else is left with what trickles down from the tables of the rich?

He says it well.

Psalm 150 plus

Psalm 150  [The Message]

¹Hallelujah!

Praise God in his holy house of worship,

praise him under the open skies;

²Praise him for his acts of power,

praise him for his magnificent greatness;

³Praise with a blast on the trumpet,

praise by strumming soft strings;

⁴Praise him with castanets and dance,

praise him with banjo and flute;

⁵Praise him with cymbals and a big bass drum,

praise him with fiddles and mandolin.

⁶Let every living, breathing creature praise God!

Hallelujah!

Praise God for warm sunny Florida skies,

    Praise God for refreshing rains and mud puddles;

Praise God for families who travel from the north,

    And share their presence and bring us joy.

Praise God for the visions of little children,

    Praise God for their unmitigated zest for life.

Praise God children’s imaginations,

    For their jubilation noises, and nightly purrs.

Praise God for family, families of origins,

    For families connected throughout the earth.

Zen Koans

For years I have enjoyed the wisdom I find in Zen Buddhism and their pithy little saying called koans. I thought I would share a few of my favorites.

The first is about one who was seeking enlightenment and asked a Zen teacher if you met a zen master on the road to enlightenment, what would you do? The teacher replied, “Whack him one.”

Another is about a woman who possessed a beautiful little golden Buddha in which she could burn incense. But she wanted to keep her little Buddha to herself so she would always cover it with her hands when she burned incense. Soon the little gold Buddha was covered with black with suet.

Finally, this is my favorite. A man was walking down the jungle path one day when he heard growling behind him. He ran down the path with growling behind him and came to a cliff. He looked over the cliff and saw a vine growing on the side of the cliff. He jumped over the cliff and grabbed hold on the vine and listened to the growling of the tiger above him and then noticed at the bottom of the cliff was another tiger looking up at him and growling at him. Hanging on to the vine he then heard some gnawing sounds. Looking up she saw a white mouse and a black mouse gnawing on the vine he was hanging from. Then he looked beside him and saw a clump of grapes growing on the vine. With on hand he hung on to the view and with the other he plucked some grapes, tossed them in his mouth and said, “How delicious.”

Keep Those Polar Bears in Jail

I just heard on the news about that dirty rotten Bentley driving drunken polar bear who is on trial got his come uppins; convicted and soon sentenced after killing a young man while under the influence.

What was he doing out of jail anyway, isn’t that where we keep most polar bears; they are natural killers. And what was that idiot doing that gave him booze after the accident and/or before. They eat bamboo not booze, everyone knows that; or is that pandas; polars pandas what's the dif. I know bears look cute peddling bicycles and things like that but a Bentley, let’s get real. Keep polar bears in jail zoos where they belong I say and out of Bentleys.

Eh Doreen? It was a polo player not a polar bear…well I haven’t got my hearing aids on yet… Nevermind.

A Bad Good Quote

I both dislike and like this statement of Goldwater. I know where he is coming from and I agree with his sentiments, but as a Christian Preacher I find his stereotyping reprehensible.

Who Goldwater is talking about are the extreme right preachers and Christians that are akin in my mind to the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. The legalists who see the Bible as a club to beat people over the head with to make them conform to a particular view of scripture and life they believe. These folk are much more politically sophisticated and active than they were in Goldwater’s era. And it really irks my liberal bones to hear Christianity made synonymous with Republicanism. All of that ilk reminds me of the TV evangelistic hucksters we find who are more interested in fame and power than in the teachings of Jesus. They are the folk who preach the “mean gospel” of a harsh and judging God who seems anxious to condemn certain people to hell. I see them walking around with sandwich boards proclaiming, “Ha, ha, ha, I’m saved and you’re not.” They are who point out when they decided to follow Jesus rather than realized Jesus died for the world and not the few. And often they are folk of limited education at a narrow viewed bible college or “just felt the call” and began preaching. I’m not in the condemning business and folk in that background can do good and have promoted God’s kingdom. But also many of them give a false picture and claim authority they do not have.

While those of us in mainline churches that require their pastor’s to have Bachelor degrees as well as advanced degrees and applied internship training may fall prey to the same prejudices and narrow view of those less trained, it is less likely. We have studied scripture and have training in the biblical languages. We have studied church history including its mistakes and learning. We have studied theology, the ideas about God by great minds that precede us from which we can build our own theology, and we have training is being pastoral, caring for members of our congregations. This doesn’t make us perfect, more likely we learn of our own failings and inabilities and recognize our dependence upon God and God’s daily grace. And hopefully we are more open and accepting of views that differ from our own, but also have the inclination and training and processes (polity) to work through our differences emphasizing our common values rather than our differences.

When it comes to politics as a pastor I talked to my congregations about the importance of political involvement as part of our stewardship of the world God gives us. I never told them what party to vote for or any particular candidate to vote for. I did tell them to use their belief systems to inform the political beliefs and choices but realize we will not end up agreeing. To me that was responsible pasturing. And when I see the extreme right wing preachers backing particular political points of view or endorsing candidates I am ashamed of them as representatives’ of the inclusive Christ.

This is not to say that pastor’s cannot have political views and speak to them, but not from the pulpit, that is the wrong forum and abuse of office. I appreciate that I am now retired I can be more public about my political preferences, thus this blog.

Barry Goldwater was the first presidential candidate I ever voted for; obviously my political views and changed since then. But the Republican party of his day is a far cry from the Republican party of today. I has, in fact, become what he warned about despite his over generalizations in that statement above, that John Dean quotes in his 2006 book, Repubicans without Conscience  the Goldwater said in 1994. I prefer this statement he gave in 1981 in the senate, On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Religion and politics are the major issues which we should be debating in our society. But I abhor those narrow minded debaters who claim to have the sole truth in these matters. Religion should inform our political beliefs. But the Bible I see and follow is the one of a loving God who cares equally for all people and asks us to care for our brothers and sisters with respect and responsibility. I believe in the good news of the gospel, not the hatemongering of anyone.

Politicians today would serve better today if they remember religious civility and those positive responsibilities we have for each other rather than fear mongering that has become so popular in recent elections.

Basketball Courts Defy the Golden Mean, Why?

I have no idea where this come from in my mind but my inquiring mind wants to know. The NBA basketball court is 50’ by 94’, a high school BB court is 84’ by 50’ and a junior high BB court is 74’ by 42’. Why those dimensions?

If the NBA court followed the golden mean, a known balanced form, if the court remained 50 feet wide it should only be 81 (80.9) feet (I am only using four digits here width times 1.618.) A High school court would be the same as the NBA, and a junior high court would be 42’ by 67.956, let say 68 feet. Or why not a court that was 60’ wide and 97’ long.

Just wondering. Perhaps it explains why basketball players are so tall; probably not.

Congressional Representative/Politician to Admire

We spend so much time condemning the politicians that we don’t like and seem just like pawns of the wealthy, the lobbyists representing the interests of the wealthy, and the poll followers, we often lose sight of congressional representatives that do possess great integrity and want to do right by the country whether it is popular or not.

As I set out to make such a list I struggled. I came up with Elizabeth Warren who is the only member of congress that has been reported by the media as a woman of good common sense who in clearly on the side of the middle class. Herb Kohl who is retiring has also done great work. I get his web page and it is clear he does good things. I also get our Governor’s web which is unimpressive unless you are fond of spin. I also thought of Russ Feingold who did really good work, but lost his last election. I still get his web page or emails and am impressed by his continuing commitment to good government. After than I ran out of ideas. Below are ones I picked from Mother Jones (quoted material) who I trust to give good insight that matches my own values system. I would be curious as to others input.

Elizabeth Warren

The Boston Globe calls her “… the plainspoken voice of people getting crushed by so many predatory lenders and under regulated banks.” TIME magazine has called her a “New Sheriff of Wall Street” and has twice included her among America’s 100 most influential people.

”There are plenty of people in Washington looking out for the billion dollar corporations and lobbying for Wall Street. I’ve been an outsider, but for years, I’ve been fighting for middle class families, taking on big banks, putting forward new ideas, and working to turn those ideas into a reality that makes a difference for people. That’s what I’ll keep doing once I’m in the U.S. Senate. I’ll be there fighting for small businesses and middle class families.”

http://elizabethwarren.com/

Herb Kohl

Herb Kohl was elected to the Senate in 1988 and re-elected to a fourth six-year term in 2006. Kohl was born and raised in Milwaukee, where he attended public school. He earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1956 and a master's degree in business administration from Harvard University in 1958. Kohl served in the Army Reserve from 1958 to 1964. [see his website for more information.

http://www.kohl.senate.gov/

Hakeem Jeffries (New York): "Income inequality is worse now that it has been since prior to the Great Depression," the state assemblyman said during a passionate speech at an Occupy rally in Brooklyn this fall. In January, Jeffries announced that he'd run for Congress in New York's Tenth Congressional District against 15-term incumbent Ed Towns, who'd angered labor unions when he cast the deciding vote in 2005 for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Since then, Jeffries has picked up endorsements in the Brooklyn district from prominent unions such as the Communications Workers of America.

Lori Saldaña (California): "Lori Saldaña has leapt headlong into the Occupy movement," writes the San Diego Union-Tribune. While that may be a bit of an overstatement, the Democratic former assemblywoman certainly caters to the cause with her campaign slogan: "Fighting for America's middle class." In January, she joined a rally organized by Occupy the Courts in protest of Supreme Court rulings that give corporations the rights of people.

Alan Grayson (Florida): Nobody running for Congress has done more to side with Occupy Wall Street than the outspoken former  congressman from Orlando. In October onReal Time with Bill Maher, Grayson destroyed conservative pundit PJ O'Rourke with a fiery defense of the movement. A clip from the segment now features in an Occupy-themed video that automatically plays on the Grayson campaign's homepage. Beloved by progressives for his voting record and willingness to go on the attack—he likened Dick Cheney a blood-sucking vampire and summed up Republicans' health care plan as "die quickly"—Grayson lost his reelection bid in 2010 but is attempting a comeback in Florida's new Democratic-leaning 9^th Congressional District.

Norman Solomon (California): A well-known political author and activist, Solomon is a feisty underdog in a race to fill an open congressional seat that includes ultra-liberal Marin County and parts of Northern California's pot-friendly Emerald Triangle. He has visited Occupy protests in seven towns across the district, making the movement a central focus of his campaign. "From Manhattan to Marin County and beyond people are anguished, disgusted, angry, and—increasingly—determined," Solomon wrote on his website after attending an Occupy protest in San Rafael. He pledges not to accept any donations from corporate political action committees, arguing that "corporate money is habit-forming."

Eric Griego (New Mexico): One of the most progressive members of the state senate, Griegogave a speech at Occupy Santa Fe this fall denouncing corporate personhood. He's also one of a handful of elected officials who signed Occupy Santa Fe's "99 Pledge," a commitment to vote for rigorous campaign finance reform.
Prospects: Good. Griego's centrist primary challenger for the vacant seat, former Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez, is tainted by the arraignment* of his live-in girlfriend on embezzlement charges. But another contender in the race could divide the progressive vote to Chavez's advantage.

Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts): In an interview this fall with the Daily Beast, the Harvard Law prof took credit for creating "much of the intellectual foundation" for Occupy Wall Street. (Read our profile of Warren here.) She didn't back down when Republicans tried to tie her to the movement's extremist factions: "She understands why people are so angry and why they are taking the fight to the street," her spokesperson told the Washington Post, adding that Warren will "take the fight to the United States Senate."

Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin): In 2010, the National Journal called Baldwin the most liberal member of the House. She earned kudos in November from the Occupy crowd for sponsoring a resolution opposing any government deal that grants criminal immunity to banks. "When the conventional tools for expressing yourself...are closed and your voice is cut off," Baldwin has said of Occupy Wall Street, "what else is left but to use the possibility of standing on a soap box and screaming to anyone who will listen?"
Prospects: Excellent. She is the likely Democratic nominee to replace the retiring Sen. Herb Kohl.

Wenona Benally Baldenegro (Arizona): Two years after Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick lost her Arizona congressional seat to tea party Republican Paul Gosar, she's campaigning to retake it. But she could lose in the primary to Baldenegro, who blames her for alienating supporters with votes against the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act and for job-killing foreign trade bills. A Harvard Law grad who'd be the nation's first Native American congresswoman if elected, Baldenegro has renounced campaign donations from corporate lobbyists and supports taxing the rich and public financing for elections. In late October, she joined six other progressive House candidates—including Griego, Sheyman, and Saldaña—to hand-deliver House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) 35,000 signatures from people who "stand with the 99 percent."

Hansen Clarke (Michigan): Sponsoring legislation to forgive student debt has made the Detroit Congressman a hero to thousands of college kids involved with Occupy. During the movement's March 1 "Occupy Education" protests in Washington, DC, activists relayed a statement from Clarke using the famous people's mic: "Young people in America should be able to pursue higher education to achieve their dreams without worrying that this decision will devastate their financial futures."

Ilya Sheyman (Illinois): A 25-year-old former national mobilization director for MoveOn.org, Sheyman has made Occupy's message of shared prosperity a key theme of his campaign. "Right now, the wealthiest 400 Americans in this country have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million," he said during a Democratic primary debate this fall. "We are seeing those at the top get wealthier and wealthier while the middle class gets squeezed. So yes, I am a supporter of Occupy Wall Street."

Crystal Ball Time

Next Tuesday I believe the Republicans will propose their new budget by Paul Ryan chair of the House Budget Committee and it will attempt to make things even worse.

The proposal will have two tax brackets 10% for the lower incomes and 25% for upper incomes. Which amounts to just more of a tax break for the wealthy and a greater burden on the poor.

And then they will propose slashing lots and lots from government spending, things like money to enforce regulations and  reduce or end benefit programs. The Tea Party, will love it and they represent a whopping 25% of the electorate.

It is just more of what we’ve been doing since the Reagan years that got us into our current mess. If successful the country will be in a worse mess than ever.

It is not a serious proposal because Ryan and cohorts know it will just end up just making a huge mess right before the elections. And then they wonder why congress has a 10% approval rating. The serious politicians get hurt right along with the wimpy ones.

Revolution may well be coming if it is not already happening, but it is not from the Tea Party and the extreme right. It comes from organizations like MoveOn which represent many more people and is less partisan.

You can judge for yourself if my crystal ball is cracked.

Billionaires Galore

We were watching Anderson on TV today with the new woman billionaire woman, Sara Blakely, featured on Forbes Magazine. Good for her. But then the country has a lot of them today. Spanx for everyone I say.

1982 Forbes published its first list of billionaires, there were thirteen of them. Twenty five years later the Forbes 400 was all billionaires and 82 billionaires were left of the list because they were not rich enough to make the cut.

Now for the working class; in 1982 the average wage for fulltime workers in 2006 dollars was $34,199. Twenty five years later the average wage for a fulltime worker is $34,861.

So, how does the average worker maintain their standard of living? They borrow. In 2005 US saving went negative for the first time since 1933. They spent more than they borrowed so by 2007 households took on another $1 trillion in borrowing. During George W. Bush’s first 7 years family debt expanded by $7 trillion. The primary place they borrow is from the equity in their homes. When Reagan took office homeowners owned 70% of the homes, the rest was in mortgages. By the end of Bush’s 2^nd term it had dropped to 50%.

And there boys and girls is part of why the top 1% has doubled its share of national income since 1985. They are the lenders. The government followed a similar path.

The above material comes from William Greider’s book that I have referred to a lot lately; particularly from his 10^th chapter, The End of the Conservative Era. In it he blames the politics of Reagan and then Bush that has led us away from traditional conservatism. The “freed” market created prosperity for only a few at the cost to the middle class.

I agree with him we are at a crossroads in politics where no one seems to offer a truly new look at what is needed. Politicians have become more and wimpier with everyone moving to a popular right that lacks sense. Greider says the Democrats lost their way in the 1970’s when the New Deal pieces were no longer needed. They Fumbled, Reagan made his impossible promises and sold them even if they made no sense. And now 30 years later the Republicans are rattled but still promote all that has not worked. Deregulation has messed up the country at a time in world history where we need new ideas and we seem to be out of them. We have a weak federal government and the Democrats he says see themselves as responsible managers rather than reformers. Good point.

The result of all this: a lot of billionaires and a lot of borrowing. And we have old rhetoric which demands smaller government and balanced budgets which was never modeled during the presidencies of Reagan and Bush. Now power has shifted from labor to capital and we are reaping the consequences. If there ever was a time to bring back a progressive tax system it is now. Republicans and Democrats both should understand that.