First Class

(Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

It appears that the United States Post Office, an agency mandated by the Constitution, is on its way out.  This week the Post Office announced that it will be discontinuing Saturday mail delivery.  With that cut in service, the end appears in sight.  David Horsey considers how we got to this point, and I think he got it right.

Sure, most people have not mailed a real letter for months, if not years, and prefer to send messages via email or text. And, yes, companies such as UPS and FedEx have stolen the more lucrative shares of the market from the venerable old post office. But the USPS might be in less dire straits if Republicans in Congress were not trying to kill it outright.

In 2006, the GOP Congress passed a bill that required the Postal Service to fully fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years and to accomplish this within a 10-year period. Republicans are always insisting that the USPS be run like a good capitalist enterprise, but few, if any, private businesses could bear the burden of funding three-quarters of a century of retired employees’ medical costs over just one decade.

In truth, the Republicans who crafted the bill were not interested in turning the Postal Service into a better business; they were seeking to run the post office out of business. With all those unionized employees working for a quasi-governmental operation that competes with private sector enterprises, the Postal Service is an affront to those who hate government, hate unions and hate to think that there is anything that government can do better than the private sector. The post office may be mandated by the United States Constitution, as clearly as freedom of religion or the right to bear arms, but it does not fit with modern Republican dogma and, therefore, has been targeted for extinction.

About the only thing that has saved the Postal Service is the fact that nobody else wants to serve rural areas. No one but the dutiful mail carriers deliver to America’s remote addresses because it is a money-losing proposition. The congressmen and senators who represent those rural constituents have fought against further cuts and may well block the elimination of Saturday delivery, as they have in the past.   [Emphasis added]

What is so maddening about this bit of chicanery by the GOP is that the USPS is cheaper by far than either FedEx and UPS for both domestic and international delivery.  A letter mailed first class across the country with the post office arrives (usually) within two days.  Does one day make a difference in most mail?  And what will UPS and FedEx charge to deliver to rural areas.  Will UPS and FedEx set up centers for people to register to vote?  To pick up income tax forms?  Change of address forms?  I doubt it.

David concludes his column by urging citizens to contact their congress critters and the White House and urge them to do whatever is necessary to save the office.  I would only add that we should demand that the law requiring the USPS to fully fund retiree benefits for 75 be repealed.

DO IT!

Too Much Success Is A Problem?

[Note:  I'm having some financial problems right now.  I know my timing is atrocious, given all the fund raisers lately, but if you can spare a little more, please donate to my "cat food for me and Home Boy" fund.  Thank you.]

When I saw this article earlier in the week, I chuckled.  Then I got to thinking about it and got a little annoyed.  The White House came up with what I thought was a terrific idea:  a place where people could go online and post a petition and if enough people signed the petition within 30 days, the White House would respond. A lot of other people thought it was a terrific idea as well, so much so that the White House has felt compelled to adjust upward the number of signatures required a couple of times.

No, the U.S. will not be building a Death Star. And no, President Barack Obama will not deport CNN's Piers Morgan or let Texas secede.

These are just a few of the wacky notions the White House has been compelled to formally address in recent weeks, part of an effort to put open government into action: the First Amendment right to petition your government, supercharged for the Internet age.

These are just a few of the wacky notions the White House has been compelled to formally address in recent weeks, part of an effort to put open government into action: the First Amendment right to petition your government, supercharged for the Internet age.

Now, as the Obama administration kicks off its second term, it's upping the threshold for responding to Americans' petitions from 25,000 signatures to 100,000, a reminder that government by the people can sometimes have unintended consequences. In this case, a wildly popular transparency initiative has spawned a headache of the administration's own making.

The idea, announced in 2011, was simple: Engage the public on a range of issues by creating an online platform to petition the White House. Any petition garnering 5,000 signatures within 30 days would get an official review and response, the White House said. Dubbed "We the People," the program was touted as an outgrowth of the "unprecedented level of openness in government" Obama vowed to create in a presidential memorandum issued on his first full day in office in 2009.

The response was overwhelming, and a month later, the Obama administration increased the threshold to 25,000 signatures, calling it "a good problem to have." The White House cautioned at the time that it might not be the last time the rules of the program would be changed. ...

Whether the petition initiative and the official responses will, in the long run, be deemed an effective use of White House resources remains to be seen. Another unknown is whether signing the petitions, aside from giving impassioned citizens a chance to be heard, has any effect on how Obama governs. Many petitions call for actions that Congress, not the president, would have to take.

While 5,000 signatures in 30 days may have been a somewhat low figure for this kind of set-up, 25,000 is not.  Sure, there will some silly suggestions (intentional or not), but the White House could have sloughed that off with good humor.  100,000 in 30 days seems impossibly high.  Yes, some issue with currency (the Connecticut Massacre) got that many signatures in just over a day, but if 25,000 people are concerned about an issue, the White House should take a look-see.  Staff can always refer the issue to Congress, if that is the appropriate venue and announce it is doing so, or it can put forth a reason why the issue will not/cannot be addressed.

The White House has taken a good idea, one that attracted a lot of attention, and bent it until it might very well now be broke.

And that's a shame.

By the way, the official site for this is here.

Bringin' It, Part 2

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers, published by the Charlotte Observer 1/17/13 and featured by McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

This is pretty much an update from my post yesterday on the President's gun control proposal.  At that time I noted that he was fairly strong in his presentation, but I wondered whether he would hold to his position once the gun nut yahoos and the NRA got to their bought-and-paid-for members of Congress.  It appears that Obama is going to do more than sit back and watch on this issue.

From the Los Angeles Times:

A somber President Obama, launching a public campaign Wednesday for a package of gun-control measures that is likely to face very tough opposition in Congress, signaled that he was prepared to go over the heads of lawmakers to push for his proposals.

In an effort to capitalize on emotions from last month’s massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, Obama couched his initiative in the context of protecting children from needless violence, and White House aides placed four children onstage with him to dramatize his plea.

“This will be difficult,” Obama said. “There will be pundits and politicians and special-interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty — not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear, or higher ratings, or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any commonsense reform.” ...

“I will put everything I’ve got into this,” Obama said, but added, “This will not happen unless the American people demand it.”

In a sign of just how difficult it will be to force legislative action, Obama called on the public to demand that Congress bring the proposals up for a vote, and put pressure lawmakers who oppose his plan.  [Emphasis added] 

Apparently President Obama was serious about his plan to get the public involved.  I received an email from the White House signed by Joe Biden urging me to go here and sign on in support of the president's proposals.  I suspect I got the email because I signed the petition at the White House web site which garnered over 200,000 signatures in just a few days proposing our gun laws be tightened.  Dutifully, I clicked on the link and discovered a recap of the presidents proposals.

If this effort to reduce gun violence is to succeed, it’s going to require all of us coming together and calling for a safer country. Sign on to show your support for the President’s plan to protect our kids and communities, then share this page with others.

The sign in portion only really requires the signer's email address and zip code.  The zip code will come in handy for identifying the signer's congress critters and the email for further updates.  I think this is a canny idea and I'm pleased to see the strategy.  Apparently President Obama is serious about getting reasonable (if limited) legislation passed.

I did leave a comment, essentially noting that while I considered the proposals were merely a start, at least it was a start.  I suggest you make the trip over to the site and leave at least your email and zip code.  As I've noted many times, unless we-the-people make it clear to our elected officials that we're the ones who vote, who ultimately own the chairs they've plunked their backsides into, we won't get the government we deserve.

Do it.  Make a cranky old lady happy.

Bringin' It

(Editorial cartoon by David Horsey and published 1/16/13 in the Los Angeles Times.  If you click on the link you'll get not only an enlarged image but also Horsey's commentary.)

I do find that Obama 2.0 is a bit more acceptable than the initial version.  I'm hearing less of the "Why can't we all just get along" and more of the "It's time to get it done.  My way."  He's pressuring Congress and he's demanding they walk and chew gum at the same time on contentious issues:  debt ceiling, immigration, and, today, gun control.

President Obama on Wednesday unveiled a broad array of executive actions and legislative proposals to curb gun violence, including a new push to ban assault weapons, impose a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines, and expand background checks for gun purchasers.

At a White House event, the president began to outline 23 separate actions he can take unilaterally, including authorizing research on gun violence and nominating a full-time director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The president will call on Congress to swiftly pass a series of proposals that would, among other things, go beyond closing the gun show loophole that exempts some sellers from running criminal background checks, and enact stiffer penalties for gun traffickers. ...

All told, aides said in advance of the president's remarks, Obama's package addresses four key goals: keeping guns out of the wrong hands, keeping “weapons of war” off the streets, making schools safer, and improving mental health services.

(The 23 executive orders are summarized here.)

As he showed us in the health care bill, Mr. Obama is an incrementalist.  At least this time around he's delivering the message with some teeth showing.  His proposals are not exactly what is needed, but it's enough of a start that the NRA and the gun worshipers are going nuts in response.  A couple of congress critters have already muttered the word "Impeachment."  I doubt that move will get much support, but getting any kind of gun control bill passed in the House is going to be difficult.

It will be interesting to see how much pressure the White House is willing to exert to get his proposals passed.  I think we're going to have to be the ones to do the pressuring, but a little back-up would be nice.

Catch-Up Time

David Horsey has come up with a pretty good term to describe the Republicans in Congress:  NeoConfederates.  He's referring, of course, to their stance on many issues which is reminiscent of Southerners in the 19th Century.  But he doesn't let the Democrats off the hook either in this column.

In the current issue of Vanity Fair, Todd Purdum equates the current era with the decades before and after 1500 during which the New World was discovered and explored, trade became a global enterprise, the Reformation broke the religious monopoly of the Roman Catholic Church, the feudal system gave way to nation states and movable type and the printing press created the first form of mass communication.

The introduction to Purdum’s column sums up his thesis: "Not in 500 years has the world seen such revolutionary change as it is now witnessing: the Internet, genetic engineering, mass migration, climate change, worldwide economic dislocation, a new global elite, and more." Then comes this kicker: "Yet our leaders don't seem to take any of it seriously." ...

Today, there are quite a few very vocal neo-Confederates who think gun rights, states rights, the protection of white American culture and elimination of "excessive" taxation on the rich are the nation's preeminent concerns. Their anti-bellum mindset makes it impossible for them to accept scientific reality -- climate change, evolution, the true age of the planet -- and political reality -- America is becoming a more diverse, tolerant nation that does not share their fear-driven philosophy.

One of our two great political parties has been captured by the neo-Confederates and, because so many of them have been elected to Congress, the political system is gridlocked. Big problems are either ignored -- climate change, deterioration of infrastructure, the toxic greed in the financial system -- or kicked down the road to be fixed another day.

And, as the cartoon shows, the Democrats in Congress and in the White House are allowing the latest iteration of NeoCons the space to wreak this havoc on the nation. At this point, there doesn't appear to be anyone ready to lead in the 21st Century.

Yet, Horsey is still hopeful:

Change is constant but our political system always lags behind until the force of change is too great to resist. The fact that those who are now clinging to the past have become so rigid, desperate and shrill is a strong indication that a big leap is drawing close. We have not found our Abe or Teddy or FDR or LBJ, as yet. Barack Obama is more a manifestation of a changing America than he is the agent of a revolutionary shift. But when the shift comes, leaders will rise to the moment and history will call them great.

That is a hopeful thought at a dismal moment in our democracy.

Here is where I would disagree with Horsey.  I would suggest that a different paradigm than the "great man" theory implied in his conclusion is what will be the key to the change, and was in fact the key to the changes wrought by these American leaders.  There will be no change until the American citizenry demand it, even as the African Americans demanded it of LBJ and the public demanded it of FDR.

I'm not talking about the pollsters reports, delivered daily to the White House, Congress, and, yes, to us.  Those polls are skewed and presents results which pretty much say what the pollsters want them to say.  I'm talking about non-stop telephone calls, faxes, and emails.  I'm talking about more than 200,000 signatures on a petition to tighten gun laws at the White House petition site.  That clearly got the president's attention.

Until we start behaving as citizens in a democracy, we won't have one.

Here's An Idea

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 12/23/12 in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge and then please return.)

The NRA has made it clear that it has absolutely no intention of backing down from its decades old fight against gun control of any kind.  Wayne LaPierre's response to the horrible Newtown Massacre, both in his speech to the press on 12/22/12 and his comments on the Sunday Bobbleheads was not fewer guns, but more guns.  The transcript of his insane speech can be found here.

So, we can expect a fight.  No surprise there.

Fortunately, elements of the public are demonstrating their willingness to engage in that fight on the side of the angels.  From the Los Angeles Times:

An hour before the fifth annual gun buyback was set to begin Friday, a line of cars already snaked around a large empty lot and out into the street.

There was a monetary incentive — $50 for a rifle or shotgun, $100 for a handgun or assault weapon. But there was also another motive, represented by the commonly heard phrase "in the wrong hands."

"I don't need this shotgun sitting around and, with the break-ins in our neighborhood, I don't want it ending up in the wrong hands," said Bill Stowers, 59, an unemployed Teamster, who swapped his .12-gauge for a $50 gift card. ...

Friday's buyback in San Diego, sponsored by African American ministers, had already been on the calendar before the Connecticut shooting. But at a news conference before the event, law enforcement officials promised similar exchanges within six months throughout the sprawling county, particularly in the corridor of Highway 78 that stretches from Escondido to Oceanside.

In four years, the San Diego buyback has collected 850 guns. Those that had been stolen are returned to their owners; others are destroyed by the San Diego Police Department.

Among this year's weapons turned in were military-style rifles, at least two fully automatic handguns and numerous handguns small enough to be easily concealed. Friday's collection tally was 364, more than in any previous year.   [Emphasis added]

Los Angeles has regular buy-backs, usually in the Spring, but Mayor Villaraigosa has announced this year's buy-back in being bumped to 12/26/12.  Again, gift cards (from Ralphs Markets) will be issued.

The money for the San Diego buy-back came from private donations and from the budgets of the San Diego Police Department and District Attorney's Office.  Presumably, the Los Angeles buy-backs are similarly funded.

So, here's the idea I promised in the title of this post.  Budgets for local agencies all over the country are pretty tight because of the state of the economy.  It would be a shame for such programs to lose effectiveness for such a reason.  The federal government could easily step in to help out by imposing a higher tax on ammunition and designate those funds for buy-back programs all across the country.  This would enable communities to offer more realistic sums for what are often expensive arms.  It would also serve to make ammunition more expensive and cut back on sales of the ammo that makes those guns so deadly.

If you signed the White House petition demanding more rational gun control, you probably got a response from the White House inviting you to submit your ideas to the commission headed by Vice President Biden to look into gun control provisions.  If you like this idea, include it in your list to Mr. Biden.  In any case, please respond.  If a couple of hundred thousand people do so, maybe the White House and Congress will finally get the message.

New Day, Same Old Crap

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 12/19/12 in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge.)

Kind of says it all, don't you think?

Back to the phones:

Senate

House

White House

Sic'em!

Incrementalism

(Political cartoon by Yaakov Kirschen and published at Dry Bones.  Click on image to enlarge and then be kind enough to return.)

OK, I'm trying to claw myself out of the miasma of incredible sadness and depression following the Newtown Massacre.  I'm old,  and I don't have that many years left.  I don't want to spend the rest of my days weeping in bed with the covers pulled over my head.  That's the coward's way out.  It's time to move from sadness to anger, from immobilization to activism.

The ideal response would be to institute widespread changes which would ban all guns save hunting rifles from civilians, but even I know that ain't gonna happen right now.  Just like universal access to healthcare, we're apparently going to have to take an incremental approach.  Of course, that means we're going to have continuing deaths by guns, either in terms of mass killings or in terms of  "murder-suicides" or domestic violence.  People will still die, but perhaps not as many.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has seen the results of gun violence up close and personal, has already indicated she will be introducing a bill in the next Congress which will essentially re-instate the assault weapons ban.

Two days after the shooting deaths of 26 people at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pledged Sunday that she would introduce new gun-control legislation at the beginning of next year’s congressional session.

“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession,” the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

Feinstein said the purpose of her proposal, a version of the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004, is to get “weapons of war off the streets of our cities.”

OK, that's a start, but only a tiny baby-step.  I'd like to see more for this start, as would a lot of my friends.  In a discussion at Eschaton, folks came up with a list of other terms for the first step.  I have added a few to the list, including the following:

1. The banning of internet sales of guns and ammunition.
2. The addition of a stiff federal tax on both guns and ammunition to be set aside for a federal buy-back program on military-type assault weapons and hand guns.
3. The banning of gun shows.
4. The requirement of registration at the time of ammunition purchase with a delay while a background check has been run.
5. The mandatory reporting to the federal government of large sales of ammunition.
6. The requirement that mental health professionals report individuals who should not have access to firearms much as they are required to report in some states individuals who are a threat to themselves or others.

This is, once again, just a start, but one we have to make that start if we are going to move this country, and it is one which might just might save a few lives.

All of this might look like weak tea, but you can be sure that the gun-rights people will begin howling as soon as a decent period of grieving for the deaths of 20 first graders is over.  That means we have to get active.

As soon as the 113th Congress has been sworn in we need to let our senators and our representative in the House know what we expect of them.  We can't expect the current congressional toadies to be interested in the issue in the next ten days.  And, of course, we can hold our president's feet to the fire on the issue after his comments at the Newtown vigil on 12/16/12.

We can also sign  a petition at the White House site.  Yes, it requires registration, but if you're on the internet and reading blogs such as this, the government has already got information on you.

We need to do these things because, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing."

Kingbirding

(Photograph by Steve Creek and published at his wonderful blog, which is filled with great photography and worth a visit or a hundred.)

The big day has finally arrived.  I've decided to spend most of the day away from the internet and the newspapers and the radio.  This evening I'll check in to see just what things look like, but I don't intend to stay up all night following all the details closely.  At least at this point.  I just hope that the outcomes are decided by Wednesday morning, although I have a hunch not all of the races will be.

I don't anticipate any major changes, even if President Obama is re-elected.  The Democrats will probably hold the Senate (with one or two new progressives), and the Republicans will probably hold the House (again, with a few new progressives).  The 113th Congress will be pretty much like the 112th, which means little will get done.

Unless.

Unless we do a little kingbirding on our elected officials' backsides.

For those not familiar with kingbirding, it's a term I coined back in June.  Let me reprise a few of the salient sections from that post.

"Nature notes: Watched a tiny eastern kingbird assail a bald eagle who must have done some nest robbing. Irate little bird actually surfed the back of the eagle furiously pecking his head for about 1000 feet. Saw similar outrage directed at a raven. Tough day for nesting kingbirds."

I consider that an excellent metaphor for the very least we can do, so much so that I've created a new label, "Kingbirding." I suggest that as often as we can, we peck mercilessly at the heads of the rapacious thieves stealing from our nest for as long as we can. If nothing else, it will annoy them, causing them to spend their oh-so-precious-time trying to shake us off. Faxes, letters, emails, telephone calls, vigils, letters to the editors: they may be just momentary distractions, but at least we are doing something.

 And that's what I intend to do for the next two years.  I'd really love some company on the journey.  If you need persuasion, maybe Marge Piercy's poem will do the trick.

But We COULD Have Nice Things

(Graphic found at Eschaton.  Click on image to enlarge.  Do it so you can read it easily.  Then please come back.  I'll explain it later.)

Susie Madrak found the most incredible article I've read in a long time.  I'm going to excerpt a little bit of it, but you really need to read the whole thing.

I never thought I'd use this column to write about a Laundromat's success. Or that the column would be sprinkled with words like "grace," "mercy" and "fabulous." But something other than Starbucks coffee is brewing at The Laundry Cafe, and it says a lot about community, expectations and - dare I say this? - love.

But let's first talk about owners Akins and Holland, who met while working together at Johnson & Johnson - Akins in marketing, Holland in sales. Both were deeply affected by the company's famous credo of responsibility to customers, employees, communities and stockholders.

So when they decided to go into business together - "Laundry is practically recession-proof," says Akins, "since people will always need clean clothes" - they wrote their own credo, which is printed on their business cards:

"Serve with honor. Grow with humility. Live with respect. Repay with generosity."

The men, who grew up poor, had seen little of those virtues in the dark, dingy and depressing Laundromats their families once used. ...

Hence, The Laundry Cafe, which attracted a crowd on opening day, April 13, and whose business has ballooned 300 percent since, using only word of mouth for advertising. Customers are pulled in by a breadth of amenities usually not offered in low-income areas. What makes them stay, the men are convinced, is the unspoken message those amenities telegraph: That customers are worthy of them.

 What these young men did was to turn a laundromat into a center for the community.  Yes, there are washers and dryers, but there's also coffee, and room for discussions and lectures and meetings.  And the people of that community have used it for all of that, and kept it neat and functioning.  It's their place as much as Akins' and Holland's.

Now compare that story with the vile message from Ed Conard.  See the difference?  More importantly, see the implications?

I hope you will pass both stories around freely, maybe even to your Congress Critter and the Administration.  And I also hope you will make some pretty strong demands.  We are worthy of having those demands met.

Family Values

Earlier in the year, the Obama administration announced that some new rules on immigration would be formulated. On Monday, one new rule was posted for public comment, and the right wing anti-immigrant people went wild. Media Matters details just how crazy things got.

Right-wing media have attacked a proposed Obama administration rule change that would reduce the amount of time required for undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of American citizens to apply for residency as "stealth amnesty" by a "lawless regime." But the proposed rule change would allow eligible immigrants to obtain a lawful return visa without a long separation from their families...

The post details the hateful spewings of the usual suspects: Judicial Watch, the Drudge Report, Fox Nation. Go visit the post at Media Matters to view the nonsense crap being "reported" and links to those sources. I decline to post too much of either. I'd rather post a link to the Federal Register which sets forth the actual rule change and rationale behind it.

DHS proposes to change its current process for the filing and adjudication of certain waivers of inadmissibility for qualifying immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, who are physically present in the United States, but must proceed abroad to obtain their immigrant visas. DHS proposes to allow qualifying immediate relatives to apply for a provisional waiver of their inadmissibility for unlawful presence while they are still in the United States and before they leave to attend their immigrant visa interview abroad.

Approving an application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver prior to the immediate relative's immigrant visa interview will allow the DOS consular officer to issue the immigrant visa without delay if there are no other grounds of inadmissibility and if the immediate relative otherwise is eligible to be issued an immigrant visa. The immediate relative would not have to wait abroad during the period when USCIS adjudicates his or her waiver request, but rather could remain in the United States with his or her U.S. citizen spouse or parent during that period. As a result, U.S. citizens' separation from their immediate relatives would be significantly reduced. In addition, given the greater certainty that will result from this process, U.S. citizens and their family members would also be able to better plan for the immediate relative's departure and eventual return to the United States. [Emphasis added]

In other words, parents and/or spouses who are not here legally are being given a chance to expedite a determination on their status, in some cases, without leaving the country. They still have to go through the process, but will not have to be separated from their families for extended periods of time. This hardly looks like amnesty. What it does do is open a channel for those who have not entered the process because of the length of time and the expense involved an opportunity to make things right.

If the only "crime" involved is over-staying a visa, what's the harm? If the undocumented immigrant is the primary bread-winner for the family, or the only parent of an American born child, a lengthy separation doesn't do anything but punish harshly those left behind. The rule change would keep families intact.

The "family values" folks don't quite see it that way. Apparently only all-American families are valuable in their eyes. That certainly comes as no surprise, especially since it involves people with darker skins or differently shaped eyes.

The rule change has been posted by DHS for the mandatory period for public comment. You might want to wander over to the Federal Register for more information on how to enter your comment in the discussion. You can bet the usual suspects have been sending their minions over.

Information For The Privileged

It's no secret that members of Congress somehow come out of their service far wealthier than they went into it. What isn't as well known is how they manage that increase in personal worth. As reported in a recent "60 Minute" program, one way has been to engage in a practice that would be illegal if done by the rest of us, and apparently some in Congress want to keep it that way.

House Republican leaders have foolishly sidetracked a bipartisan ethics bill in Congress to ban members from using inside information they gain in private hearings and discussions in stock trades. Insider trading is illegal generally, but Congress’s apparent exception from the ban was never a concern on Capitol Hill until a recent report on “60 Minutes” questioned whether various members were profiting from back-room knowledge.

That report caused lawmakers in both houses to fast-track enactment of an explicit ban. The House version picked up 225 co-sponsors in a matter of days after gathering dust for years in the good-ideas hopper. However, committee action, scheduled this week, was abruptly postponed when Eric Cantor, the Republican majority leader, said unnamed members considered the measure “flawed and being recklessly moved solely in response to media pressure,” according to Mr. Cantor’s spokesman. [Emphasis added]

Apparently Mr. Cantor and some of his cohorts are unfamiliar with the role that a free press has in a functioning democracy. Either that or they want to subvert it for their own personal gain. The "60 Minutes" program raised important questions when it comes to those charged with representing us and not just the financial behemoths. That kind of "media pressure" is exactly what our press is supposed to exert when it is functioning properly.

I suspect that what the House Republicans blocking the bill really object to is being caught with their hands in the corporate cookie jar and having to face a sugar-free diet when it comes to their "just desserts."

Interestingly, the Senate has no such qualms. The governmental affairs committee has approved a bill which explicitly bans such insider trading. Presumably the bill will come to a vote soon (no doubt after the holiday recess), and will hopefully be passed.

Maybe in addition to "media pressure" some "constituent pressure" is in order. It is, after all, an election year.

Not Quite Surprising News

According to the Republican presidential candidates, it's time to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. The programs are too expensive and too poorly run to keep in their present form. That isn't all that surprising. Wall Street doesn't like all that money tied up in government programs when it could be all tied up in the banksters' and streeters' ledgers. And the Tea Partiers have made it clear that they want a smaller government and less money flowing from their pockets into the government coffers. The candidates, along with a lot of congress critters, have a mandate from the voters.

Or do they?

Perhaps not, according to a recent poll taken of Republican voters in Florida.

Florida Republican voters have a clear feeling about cuts to Medicare and Social Security: Don’t do it, according to a new poll by the AARP.

By wide margins, the survey shows that Republicans of all kinds — whether they’re Hispanic, moderates or in the tea party — would rather fix the nation’s budget by withdrawing from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, eliminating foreign aid or eliminating so-called tax loopholes. ...

The issues are particularly important in Florida, which has the largest number of retirees in the nation. The poll shows that 60 percent of the Republican primary voters in Florida are retired, and that 87 percent of all respondents say Social Security benefits are or will be important to their retirement. Nearly 45 percent say they rely on Medicare for health insurance.

If you think about it, this isn't all that surprising, either. It's a form, I guess, of NIMBYism. "Cut, but not those programs which are important to me." And the numbers are pretty dramatic:

But even modest changes to benefits for future retirees are opposed by 66 percent of voters, the poll shows. Only 27 percent favor future reductions, which could include raising the retirement age, though the poll didn’t specifically address that issue.

Asked if they favored or opposed reducing Medicare benefits to help reduce the deficit, only 22 percent liked the idea. About 70 percent didn’t.

When given predetermined choices to cut the deficit, most voters wanted to “eliminate tax loopholes” (40 percent), cut foreign aid (34 percent) or reduce involvement in foreign wars (18 percent). [Emphasis added]

Quite a disconnect with the voters, there. And it just leaves Wall Street as wanting those government programs switched to the market place, which also is not all that surprising. After all, there has to be a reason why even some Democrats in Congress are willing to go after these programs in some grand attempt at reducing the deficit without hurting the feelings of our owners.

So the voters, regardless of party affiliation, have some work to do. One place to start is with the current crop of elected officials. Rep. John Conyers has an idea that I think is a good one. Click on over to his web site and join him in "co-sponsoring" a bill which will leave these programs in place. Let Congress know what the 99%, those who actually do the electing, think of shredding the safety net.

Like I said, it's a good place to start.

Pay For Delay Scam

I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that the Washington Post editorial board actually got something right in a recent editorial. The board strongly deplored the practice of pharmaceutical companies' paying off manufacturers of generic drugs in an effort to hold off competition when it comes to new drugs. It's an easy way to keep the dollars rolling in while the consumers foot the bill.

AN UPCOMING REPORT by the Federal Trade Commission shows that brand-name pharmaceutical makers continue to cut questionable deals with generic manufacturers that delay the introduction of cheaper drugs onto the market.

Such pay-for-delay arrangements hurt consumers and increase costs for federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by the editorial board. These deals are not illegal, but they should be. ...

In 2004, the FTC did not identify a single settlement in a patent litigation matter involving drug makers that raised pay-for-delay concerns. In its new report, the agency points to 28 cases that bear the telltale signs of pay-for-delay, including “compensation to the generic manufacturer and a restriction on the generic manufacturer’s ability to market its product.” [Emphasis added]

Here's how it works: when a patent on a drug is about to expire, the patent holder fends off a competitor's attempt to market a less expensive version by litigation. Once the papers have been filed, the patent holder settles with the challenger, paying money to keep the generic off the market for a while. Both companies win, but consumers lose. As the editorial notes, all of this is at the present time perfectly legal.

Keeping the generic off the market for a year or longer has some steep consequences, as this AP article notes.

Drugs like Zyprexa can cost up to $500 per month. Generic versions can cut the cost by up to 80 percent.

That's a lot of money to be saved, especially for elders caught up in the doughnut hole dilemma in their Medicare Part D plan. Making approved generic versions available once the patent on the original drug ends saves consumers and the federal government a lot of money. Projections on the savings vary, but the Congressional Budget Office has it at about $3 billion over ten years. That's something that should get the Super Committee's attention.

Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) have offered a bill which would end the practice of pay-for-delay. This is one bit of bipartisanship I can live with. Whether PHARMA will allow the bill to pass remains to be seen, but it certainly couldn't hurt to contact your senators and urge their support for the bill.

Preach It, Brother Bernie!

Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont) has a remarkably detailed post up at the Daily Kos. In it, he excoriates Wall Street and the federal government, and then provides some good sense solutions to the problems caused by the banksters and their style of doing business.

More than three years ago, Congress rewarded Wall Street with the biggest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Simultaneously but unknown to the American people at the time, the Federal Reserve provided an even larger bailout. The details of what the Fed did were kept secret until a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that I sponsored required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed’s lending programs during the financial crisis.

As a result of this audit, the American people have learned that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in low-interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, huge foreign banks, multi-national corporations, and some of the wealthiest people in the world.

In other words, when Wall Street was on the verge of collapse, the federal government acted boldly, aggressively, and with a fierce sense of urgency to save our financial system from collapse with no strings attached.

Now that the middle class is collapsing and a record-breaking 46 million Americans are living in poverty, the Federal Reserve has failed to act with the same sense of urgency to make sure that small businesses receive the affordable loans needed to put millions of Americans back to work and prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes. [Emphasis added]

Those too wealthy to fail got the benefit of an extraordinary bailout by the feds, so extraordinary that our government tried to keep it secret from the rest of us and almost pulled it off. If the move was necessary to keep us from utter destruction, why hide it? Was the government afraid that the 99% of us who paid for that extra bit of corporate welfare might catch on too soon that we were being sold out yet again? Apparently so.

Sen. Sanders then issues six legislative proposals designed to put Wall Street back under control in a manner they should have been so as to avoid the catastrophe --the near catastrophe for them, the complete disaster for everyone else. Go read them and then forward them on to your congress critters. Explain to them that there's a reason the Occupy Wall Street protests are catching on with the 99%.

And Bernie has a few words about those protests in his conclusion:

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are shining a light on one of the most serious problems facing the United States -- the greed and power of Wall Street. Now is the time for the American people to demand that the president and Congress follow that light – and act. The future of our economy is at stake.

Preach it, Bernie!

Let Them Know

Further to last night's Sunday Poetry, I have a suggestion for getting our message out to the Democratic Party: let them know that there will be no money sent for the 2012 national campaigns until the Democrats start acting like Democrats.

That's what Christopher Tucker did in response to one of the endless stream of emails and telephone calls from various elements of the national party soliciting donations. Here's his response:

Here's the final revision of the letter I just printed out to Steve Israel, chairman of the DCCC, replying to one of his GIVE US MONEY emails to me.


July 18, 2011

Dear Steve:

I got an email from you the other day. Seems you're "tired" of something. You actually never mention in the body of the email exactly what it is you're "tired of". You DO go into detail about what you want me to do.

"Contribute $20 or more right now to our Emergency Rapid Response Fund to help us send a $100,000 message to Speaker Boehner: We will defeat Republicans who try to slash Social Security and Medicare while protecting tax breaks for multi-millionaires."

Steve, you want to know what I'm tired of?

I am tired of the DCCC, the DSCC, The DLC, and every other group in D.C. with "Democrat" in its name not barging into the Oval Office and telling President Obama to GODDAMN STOP KISSING THE GOP's ASS!

I am tired of waiting for a united Democratic force in D.C. to tell President Obama that Social Security and Medicare are NOT ON ANY GODDAMNED TABLE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, FOR ANY REASON!

I am tired of waiting for a united Democratic force in D.C. to tell President Obama to lead, follow or get the goddamned hell out of the way, and let REAL DEMOCRATS lead the country.

That's what I'm tired of.

What you're tired of doesn't mean a fat rat's ass to me.

Because right now, President Obama does not get a penny from me. He doesn't get a second of my time or labor. He DOES NOT GET MY VOTE. Not until I see a united Democratic front and a united Democratic message vigorously and publicly opposing, and fighting against the GOP agenda to destroy the public workers unions, the teachers unions, environmental legislation, and all the other things the GOP supports that are dragging this nation down into Third World status.

I'll contribute to local Democrats here in Massachusetts and here in Boston. But nothing for any other Senator, any other Representative, or President Obama. Not until you and all the other Democratic organizations in D.C. give me a reason to give them and President Obama money.

The ball's in your court Steve. Don't wait too long, though.

Because I'm tired of waiting for all that "change" I was promised a few years ago to happen.

Sincerely,


Christopher H. Tucker

I believe that states our case quite nicely. If enough of us send the same message, maybe the Party that is supposed to represent us, not the fat cats, will realize that we can't be taken for granted anymore. Maybe they'll get the hint that while we'll donate what little money we have, will volunteer our time, and will vote for state and local candidates who are more than DINOs, we won't for those at the national level who have sold us down the river.

I urge you to send the same letter every time you get one of those fund raising appeals. Modify it to fit the circumstances, but send it or read it to those making the calls.

Do it.

Michael Gets It

Once again, Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzig proves that he has a firmer grip on reality than most Republicans. His latest column takes a look at the Ryan Medicare proposal, finds it morally bankrupt, and offers some alternatives to reining in healthcare costs.

His first blast is aimed at Ryan's tying Medicare costs to deficit cutting. Hiltzig points out that Medicare didn't cause the deficit. That was caused by fighting two wars off-budget and giving tax cuts to the wealthy. He also admits, however, that Medicare does need to pare expenditures, just like all healthcare programs.

Medicare's ills are entwined with our national system of healthcare — how it's used and how it's distributed. You're not going to make a dent in the problem unless you change the underlying system. Ryan's approach doesn't lay a finger on that system, except to magnify its inefficiencies and expense. ...

...In fact, plenty of research points to ways to extract excess costs from the healthcare system and to alter its embedded incentives to reward efficient and effective care rather than just lots of care.

Some of these methods were enacted last year as part of healthcare reform, much of which Rep. Ryan proposes to repeal. The healthcare act reduced payments for Medicare Advantage plans, HMO-like plans that have turned into lavish giveaways to health insurers. The act will save $136 billion over 10 years by trimming those government handouts to insurers, according to a CBO projection. Ryan would put insurers in the saddle. ...

The medical and drug lobbies have beaten down numerous other cost-cutting proposals over the years. Medicare could save $24 billion to $60 billion a year in drug costs, according to various estimates, if it were permitted to negotiate prices directly with drug companies for its Part D pharmaceutical benefit. Pressure from Big Pharma killed any hope of that when the drug benefit was enacted in 2003.

The indispensable key to bringing down healthcare costs, and therefore Medicare costs, is to alter the incentives driving both insurance pricing and doctor and hospital behavior. One idea is known as competitive bidding, which would require health plans to bid to provide a minimum menu of Medicare benefits; the government subsidy for Medicare members would be pegged to the cheapest bid. Members who chose a more expensive company would pay the difference out of their own pockets, a requirement that proponents say would force insurers to truly compete on price and quality of care.

More fundamentally, what may be needed to change the cost profile of American medicine is a reorientation of care at the end of life from extending one's years at all costs to improving the quality of those years. That means less institutionalization, more home healthcare, a more rational appraisal of heroically aggressive therapies. It doesn't mean rationing or "death panels," but change in the name of humaneness and dignity.

Those are just a few of the things people interested in actually saving Medicare should be looking at. Michael Hiltzig managed to do so in one column. Surely Congress could do likewise, but it won't unless more people speak out with their voices and their votes.

One way to get some movement in the proper direction might be to simply email Hiltzig's column to the congress critters. Let them know you're paying attention and you expect them to do likewise.

Dicky Wicked

On Tuesday, I ranted about the horrid decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. Yesterday, the center-left editorial board of the Los Angeles Times issued a more rational response to the federal judge's decision, and mostly got it right.

Every year since 1996, Congress has routinely attached the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to appropriations bills, thus forbidding the federal government from funding "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed." President George W. Bush issued an executive order interpreting this to mean that it was all right to fund research on stem-cell lines that had been created before 2001, but not after. His interpretation was broadened by President Obama, who separated the research into two parts: It would still be illegal to fund the creation of new stem-cell lines, which involves destroying embryos, but the government could award grants to researchers doing work on lines created by privately funded scientists practicing strict ethical standards.

The president's motives were admirable, but as U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled Monday, Obama's order subverted the will of Congress. It takes a logical leap to separate research on stem-cell lines from the creation of those lines, sort of like saying it's OK to do illegal research on monkeys as long as somebody else catches the animals for you. It wasn't enough for Obama to issue an executive order; he also should have pressured Congress to strip out the Dickey-Wicker Amendment — or to codify his interpretation of it.

I am not so certain that Judge Lamberth's decision was all that logical, but even I admit that to some extent his reasoning had merit. Congress has indeed continued to shore up the Dickey-Wicker amendment by sticking it into appropriation bills year after year. It's as if even Democrats are comfortable with the inane theories that a few cells equal a living, breathing person and should be accorded even more rights. Those inane theories, by the way, are not grounded in science but rather in the religious beliefs of some on the far right.

Polls suggest that most Americans are in favor of embryonic stem cell research with reasonable ethical guidelines. The potential rewards for those already-born persons with debilitating diseases are too great to ignore. Yet Congress routinely extends Dickey-Wicker each year, including the last four during which Democrats held the majority.

That can be remedied if the White House and Congress actually pay attention and remove the amendment from the catalogue of stupid and evil laws passed because most people aren't paying attention to what they vote on. It's here that the Los Angeles Time gets it right:

The Justice Department is rightly appealing the injunction. Meanwhile, Congress should get rid of Dickey-Wicker, which polls show is opposed by a majority of Americans.

To get that done, the White House is going to have to exert real pressure, not the polite kind the President seems stuck in, on Congress. It would also help if we also joined the fray and dashed off a few well-chosen words to our Congress Critters demanding the same.

Just do it.

Some Grounds For Optimism

I can't think of too many tougher activist chores than going door to door in 110 degree heat in Arizona to register Latino voters. Yet that is just what some people are doing to offset the passage of the horrid anti-immigration law recently passed by the Arizona state legislature and signed into law by the state's governor.

Activists hope that SB 1070, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law in April and is scheduled to take effect July 29, will generate enough angry new Latino voters like Robles to reshape this state's hard-line approach to immigration.

As they fan out across sun-bleached barrios this summer, the activists cite the example of California.

More than 1 million California Latinos became citizens after the passage of anti-illegal immigrant Proposition 187 in 1994, putting the state solidly in the hands of Democrats and pushing immigration crackdowns to the margins.

Many analysts and political scientists predict a similar outcome — eventually — in Arizona. Latinos, 30% of the population, are the fastest-growing and youngest demographic group in the state.

"It's the same energy I saw with 187," said Ben Monterroso, a Service Employees International Union official who spearheaded voter registration in California in 1994 and now oversees the Arizona operation. "People are saying enough is enough."

In terms of eligible voters, Arizona has a lower percentage from the Latino sector than California did at the time of Prop 187, but the outrage stirred by that misbegotten proposition got the ball rolling, just as the organizers of the voter registration drive in Arizona hope their work will provide the impetus to moving Latinos to the polls this November and every election thereafter.

It's a tough road the young activists are walking, one with more than few dangers, but it's the kind of work that must be done. Righteous anger isn't worth much if isn't channeled into some positive action. The founders of this country knew that, and the Tea Partiers are demonstrating that they have learned that as well. It's time for our side to make the kind of commitment, and some people in Arizona are taking up the challenge.

Good on them.

Coffee, Tea, Or?

Now, I know that the Tea Party movement is the creation of some cynical bastards anxious to purify the Republican Party, but the fact is it worked. There's a lot of free floating angst and some definite anger that has been visited on a great number of Americans during this time of economic turmoil. While many have lost their jobs and their homes, they have seen the agents who caused the turmoil keep their jobs and be rewarded with huge bonuses paid for to a large extent by government bail-out money. That they would respond to the offering of scapegoats should come as no surprise.

But I must admit that I was surprised by the latest response to all that anxiety and anger, the Coffee Party.

From the NY Times:

Fed up with government gridlock, but put off by the flavor of the Tea Party, people in cities across the country are offering an alternative: the Coffee Party.

Growing through a Facebook page, the party pledges to “support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.”

It had nearly 40,000 members as of Monday afternoon, but the numbers were growing quickly — about 11,000 people had signed on as fans since the morning. ...

The slogan is “Wake Up and Stand Up.” The mission statement declares that the federal government is “not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges we face as Americans.” [Emphasis added]

The creator of the Coffee Party is Annabel Park, a documentary filmmaker. Although she admits the Coffee Party is at least partially a reaction to the Tea Party, she suggests that it is more. She also acknowledges that the two movements actually share some concerns, primarily that of a desire for fiscal responsibility and a frustration with Congress. That said, Ms. Park has what I consider to be a much healthier approach to citizen activism:

he Tea Party argues for stripping the federal government of many of its roles, and that if government has to be involved, it should be mostly state governments.

“The way I see it,” Ms. Park said, “our government is diseased, but you don’t abandon it because it’s ill. It’s the only body we have to address collective problems. You can’t bound government according to state borders when companies don’t do that, air doesn’t. It just doesn’t fit with the world.”

I think it reasonably certain that the mainstream media will not give the Coffee Party the loving attention it has given the Tea Party. Coffee Partiers look to be far more moderate and far less crazy, and there isn't much news in that. Still, if some of those Coffee Parties succeed in energizing a segment of the population enough to throw a little fear into obstructionists in Congress, thereby getting the attention of the world's most influential country club, we might get some real change. We might see election turnout rise above the deplorable 35-40%. We might see local congressional offices inundated with phone calls, faxes, and emails. We might actually see a participatory democracy.

And that wouldn't be so bad.