An Interview with Ronald Lawless, Green Party Candidate for County Commissioner in Cook County, Illinois

The Left Turn Blog Team is proud to present a first for this site; an interview with a candidate currently running for elected office. Ronald Lawless is the Green Party’s nominee for County Commissioner of the 1^st District of Cook County, Illinois.  Questions were submitted electronically to Mr. Lawless who answered them and returned them to me. His answers appear below unedited from how they were transmitted to me.  In the interest of full disclosure I will let you, the readers, know that Mr. Lawless belongs to the same local of the Green Party that I do, and that I have participated in his campaign.  Links to Mr. Lawless’s Campaign website and the Illinois Green Party website are provided at the end of this article.

Before getting into the deeper questions, give the readers a little of your personal and educational background to get to know you?  

I was raised in lo-income communities on Chicago’s Near North and West Sides. After graduation from Jones Commercial H.S., I attended Columbia College and NIU, earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees.  

As a young adult, I worked with my neighbors in the Austin community to bring summer events to the community in La Follette Park.  I have continued to serve the community working with organizations such as the League of Women Voters of Oak Park and nonprofits throughout the Westside of Chicago. 

I volunteer my professional expertise and helping parents understand and navigate government bureaucracies when they are trying to work together to improve their children’s schools.  

What do you feel are the most pressing issues facing the 1^st District specifically and Cook County in general?  

The recent recession has put extraordinary and unprecedented pressure on all units of government. With declining employment rates and reduced business revenues, demand for all government services has increased dramatically.

In order to recover, we must work towards creating jobs, supporting small business development and improving core human services, including health care.  

County staff must continually monitor the cost effectiveness of projects from the perspective of budget development. District residents must have open and full access to spending and cost data in order to begin to make hard decisions about services and costs. 

County Commissioners must bring information to the public and involve citizens in discussions about both current services and future needs. This is the first step towards a realistic budget development process.

The County must creatively and thoughtfully consider entirely new sources of revenue while re-examining the effects of our current funding policies. This goes far beyond a one cent sales tax. We must look at the real cost of services. And we must consider the effects of providing these services on both individual users and the County as a whole.

 Cook County currently has a budget deficit well in excess of $700 Million dollars. Commissioners in the past year refused to repeal the penny on the dollar sales tax increase pushed through by Todd Stroger.  Is a further tax increase needed to close that budget gap? If not, where do you see opportunities for cuts in the county budget to help fill that gap?

Tax and spending reform in Cook County must go entirely beyond the question of a sales tax.  We must rethink what revenue we need, why we want it and what effect raising has on everyone working people.  Rich Whitney, the Green Party candidate for Governor, has proposed a one tenth of one percent (0.001%) financial services tax on speculative trading that would generate literally hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Without a clear record of spending or a realistic budget, no one can understand what to cut or what needs to be augmented. Gaining a true picture of County sources and uses of funds should be the first priority of all newly elected commissioners. Making this information public must be the first step in a decision making process that involves the people most affected.

If elected, what services would you like to see offered or expanded for the residents of your District.

                Cook County is facing many challenges.  Demand for health care services is increasing as unemployment grows and small businesses are priced out of the health insurance market. Cash-strapped municipalities such as Ford Heights even had to ask for police service in recent years.  The County Jail continues to present challenges both administratively and financially. 

                County government must continue to re-evaluate its efforts, bringing realistic changes that make sense.  A reinvented juvenile court system should focus on educational attainment of detainees while diverting them from adult incarceration. Similarly, improved inmate assessment should lead to increased public safety. At the same time, more realistic attention can be provided to inmates on release, easing the burdens of reentry  for both their loved ones and the community.  It is important to realistically take into account all those affected by crime, including the victims, the families of the accused and those charged as well.

A lot a headlines have been made in the past several years over relatives or close associates of county officials  being placed into high paying  county jobs or having jobs created for them while the possessing questionable qualifications and backgrounds for those jobs. What steps would you like to see taken to get the patronage out of county hiring? If elected are there any specific hiring measures that you personally will be proposing? Would you be willing to state publically that you will not nominate anyone for a county job unless you feel their qualifications exceed those required and know there is nothing in their background that would disqualify them? 

Hiring always presents a balance between the needs of the employer and the abilities of available workers. Cook County is no different. One way to avoid patronage is to establish and monitor realistic staffing of tasks and duties. With clear job standards directly related to specific tasks, applicants and employees alike will understand the clear policies and objective standards by which employees (new and old) are judged.

This makes it easier for job seekers to respond to announcements as well. 

Any system that does not seek qualified candidates with legally allowable backgrounds is dysfunctional and must be promptly and publicly revised.

   What steps would you propose, or would you like to see taken to improve the quality and access to public transportation? 

Cook County commissioners can certainly support the efforts of many organizations and citizens with interest in improved coordination of transportation policies in northeast Illinois. We should support these efforts when undertaken by local governments, encouraging interagency transfer polices so that riders can travel across the county on one fare.  Finally, we can support state policies that negatively impact on local and regional planning efforts.

.       Chicago recently lost in a bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympic games. What conditions would you have to see to support a Chicago bid for the 2020 or 2024 summer games?

                Decisions about any Olympic bid must be developed from citizens’ interests, not as a result of closed-door negotiations for investors.  Venues, infrastructure improvements and local small business involvement must be among any early, first planning stages. Of course, long-term job development for people from low-income communities must be a central part of any planning process.   

Political campaigns are an expensive enterprise. How will you be financing your campaign and who will you and will you not accept donations from?

This is a participatory campaign which is people driven.   The majority of the funding for this campaign will come from individuals and local businesses that believe in a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

If elected you could be the only member of the Green Party on the County Board. Would you try to be a standalone voice, or would you try to form alliances with other members of the board you think support your position?

There are several Green Party candidates running for County Board Commissioner.  The               Green Party represents not just a focus on its four pillars but a practical application of these basic ideas to truly reform government.

a)      Supporting small and local business development will help increase sustainable employment

b)      revising our tax policies will further support employers’ ability to provide workers a living wage.

c)       Improving our transportation and energy infrastructure will reduce government costs while improving everyday school and work environments.

d)      Most importantly, involving citizens at every level of government decision making is the only way to really route out patronage and the graft and corruption that seems endemic to Illinois politics.

Contributions will not be accepted from special interest groups or individuals that have business with or pending business with county government. 

Just for fun; Cubs, White Sox or Cardinals?

I support local teams in general. Let’s hope for another cross town challenge

Ronald Lawless Campaign website –  http://lawless2010.com/

Illinois Green Party website – http://ilgp.org/

The 2010 Election Survey

Our first poll is here!! Take the 2010 Election Survey and make your voice heard in 2010. Think no one listens to you, here is your chance. Follow the link below. It should only take you about five minutes.

This survey was originally supposed to be open until April 26th. I’ve decided to reopen it for a while to give more people a chance to take part. Please take a minute or two and give us your answers. 

Thanks,

The Left Turn Blog Team

The Will of the People.

In the first part of an article series called The Game Plan I said that it was time for the Democrats in congress to stop negotiating and start fighting for what they wanted in healthcare reform. I further said that one of the thing they should be doing moving forward was pass a new part to Medicare that would be open to all Americans.  As most of my liberal friends will know, suggesting that the Democratic party grow a spine and go it alone in passing healthcare Reform with a government run public option caused great consternation, hyperbolic rage, and general foaming at the mouth for the  conservatives out there.  One of those conservatives who I call No Name, made a point of repeatedly yelling follow the will of the people. I happen to think he is absolutely 100% unequivocally correct. The Democrats SHOULD follow exactly the will of the people.  

                Research 2000 conducted a poll of 600 randomly selected people in Nevada, Illinois, Washington, Missouri, Colorado, Minnesota, Virginia, and  Iowa. These 600 people were selected at random by a pull of phone numbers out of the whole state directory of numbers. These are the results.  Respondents were first asked the following question; “  What would make you more likely to vote for Democrats in the 2010 elections: If they pass health care reform that includes a public health insurance option but gets zero Republican votes OR if they pass health care reform without a public option but with some Republican votes?”  The results were clear. In Nevada 53% overall and 56% of Independents preferred Democrats fight for what they want over   compromise and seek Republican votes.  The same was true in Illinois 61% overall, 68% of Independents, Washington 61%, 69% of Independents; Missouri, 49%, 55%; Virginia, 55%, 63% of Independents, and even in Iowa 58% overall, 67% of Independents.  In Minnesota and Colorado the question was slightly different; “Which do you think should be a higher priority for congressional Democrats right now – working in a bipartisan way with Republicans in Congress or fighting for policies that will benefit working families, even if those policies can only be passed with Democratic votes?” Even with that change the results in Minnesota stayed consistent 51% overall and 53% of Independents favoring democrats fighting over seeking a compromise. Only in Colorado were the results close with a 46% – 43% spread overall and a 47% – 38% spread among Independents. The people are speaking. As a whole and even Independents would prefer that the Democrats fight for their bill rather than seek a compromise.

                The Results were even more telling when the people were asked; “Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of buying into a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?”  The responses to this question were, without exception higher across the board.  Nevada, 56% overall, 61% of Independents; Illinois, 68% overall, 69% of Independents; Washington, 65%, 67%; Missouri, 57%, 56%; Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota, all reporting 61% – 62% Overall and for Independents. Even Colorado, 58% Overall, 59% of Independents.  Not surprisingly, the Senate Bill specifically did not poll above 38% overall or among Independents  in any of the States polled .

                The people are speaking, and their will is clear; No, to stop and start over, not to seek a compromise, but to charge ahead boldly with a Democratic plan with a public option modeled on or part of Medicare.  The people are clear. NO, to the Senate bill. YES, to Democrats fighting for the Reform they proposed and saying to hell with bipartisanship. YES to the Public Option akin to or a part of Medicare. Democrats, you have see the will of the people. Start carrying it out.

The Game Plan. Part 2

In the first article in this series I talked about ways to pass health care reform. In this article I am going to focus on financial reforms. If there is one thing people dislike more than politicians right now, its banks, specifically big banks. People feel, and rightly so, that they have been taken advantage of. They feel that the banks were basically gambling with other peoples money and when they lost they came to the taxpayers, they same people who’s money they had been gambling with, and asked for enormous loans to stave off disaster. People want to know that it is safe to deal with banks again. They want to know that when they deposit their money into Bank of America, or Citi Bank et. al. that it will be there, earning interest and not used to make his risk investments that can go disastrously wrong and in some cases cost people their retirements or college funds. 

            Step one in this process will involve the resurrection of a Depression era classic, the Banking Act of 1933, otherwise known as the Glass – Steagall Act. This act was a response the catastrophic collapse of the financial following the stock market crash of 1929. Then as now, banks housed all of their operations under one roof and were making risky investments in high risk assets. When you make an investment like that the reward can be great, but there is the risk of losing the entire principal, or the principal and owing more than the original cost of the investment.  This is where Glass – Steagall comes in. This act basically says that Investment Banks and Commercial Banks must be, by law, separate entities. This would mean that Bank of America, as an example, would have to split its investment operations away from the part of the bank that handles commercial banking i.e. Savings, Credit Lending, Loans, Mortgages etc.  What this act will do is not break up the big banks as some have suggested, but rather break up their operations. Bank of America may still operate as an investment bank under the B of A name but that operation and the assets tied to it must remain separate from the commercial operations of the bank. In essence what this will do is create a firewall with in the banks. If in the future there were another collapse triggered by investments in risky assets only Investment Bank operations would be hit. The only money lost would be money that was placed there by people who understood that there was a risk of losing on those investments.

            Passing this act will probably be one of the easiest tasks this congress will take on. Senators McCain (R- AZ) and Cantwell (D-WA) have proposed the re-enactment of this act in the Senate, that happening in mid-December. This idea has also received bi- partisan support in the House of Representatives. Interest in the regulations contained in this act that the EU is considering adopting regulations on the European banking industry based on this act.

            Step two is where Democrats get to be Democrats and get back to their roots fighting for the little guy, the working man, and giving him the muscle to take on the establishment. Regulating banks and the financial sector to avoid the freewheeling gambling that got us into this mess in the first place is a good start.  What the Democratic Party needs to do next is make sure that when workers, after 25, 30, 35 or more years of dedicated work are ready for retirement their retirement plans are protected. This starts with a change in the way Social Security is operated. Under the current system Social Security makes payroll deductions up to $107,000 a year. After that, even if someone earns more than $107K deductions are capped at that level. Let’s say someone earns $250K a year. Social Security makes deductions on there pay up to $107K, after that they pay nothing on their income up to their maximum pay. The pay out from Social Security however, is calculated on their highest earning years. The fix here is simple. Remove the $107K cap on Social Security deductions so that people pay deductions based on their entire incomes. The majority of middle class workers who earn well below $100K a year, will see no increase in the amount they pay into the system, but with the increased cash flow into the system they will, in all likelihood see increased benefits. The same will be true of those earning at or above the $107K level. 

            Passage of this measure will require the Democrats to stop chasing the notion of bi-partisanship and start, for lack of a better term, as Norman Goldman says, playing smash mouth football. I say this in light of the fact that in the Senate, their was wide spread support for a bill that would have created a deficit reduction task force. This would have been a committee that would have had legislative teeth, and it was supported by a great many Democrats and Republicans. I looked at the legislation, I happen to think it was a very good idea. The President too, thought this was a good idea, however, when he openly voiced his support for this measure, seven Republican members who were signed on to support this bill and in some cases were co-sponsors, flip-flopped and voted no, killing the legislation in the Senate. That is why I say it’s time to stop playing nice and start staking out positions that force Republicans to take a position and rhetorically defend policy positions that put them at odds with what the middle class wants and needs. In this case they would have to argue that people who make over $107K would should not have to pay into Social Security on their full salary like the average middle class worker does. The Republicans would also be in a position of arguing against the insures solvency of Social Security in the future with an increased revenue flow, and arguing against increased benefits that will most likely be feasible because of that increased revenue. 

            Step number three is where Democrats really get to put the Republicans on the ropes and start landing body blows. This is where we make sure that when someone decides to call it a career and draw on the pension that they have been paying into while giving yours of service to a company that it is there waiting for them. This would require passing legislation that would require all companies to insure their pension plans with the FDIC.  The theory here is simple. If my checking account held at even the smallest bank is good enough to be insured up to $100K with the FDIC, and an IRA is good enough to be insured at $250K than so is my pension. It is worth noting that since the FDIC was founded as part of the above-mentioned Banking Act of 1933, no one penny of depositor money has been lost.  The only difference will be that instead of a bank paying into the system to be covered by the FDIC it will be private companies that are using that available insurance to protect the pension plans of their employs. This protection would be in case, like we have seen in the past there is a sudden and dramatic drop in the markets, which many pension plans are invested in, in order to generate more revenue in the plan.

            As part of this step the Democrats also need to address corporate bankruptcy laws. These laws need to be reworked so that if a company needs to file for bankruptcy protection pension plans are exempt. Workers who have given a company good a faithful service for years, long enough to be vested in a retirement plan should not have to suffer and lose that plan to the companies creditors because the management of that company was not wise with its investments, or did not produce and properly market a product that the people wanted.  Take Chrysler for example. It’s not the fault of the UAW members in the factories, or the secretaries in the home offices, or the staff accountants, or the people in Chrysler Financial that the company, year after year produced cars that the people simply did not like and did not want. All of the people that worked for that company, from the ones who built the cars, to the ones who processed the loans for those cars gave good service, some spending their entire careers their. When that happens, but the company fails these good, hard working people should not lose the pension they have paid into for years because a company needs to satisfy its creditors. All other company assets can be left on the table, but pensions should be declared, by law, off limits, exempt from bankruptcy proceedings.

            Both of these measures mean placing Republicans in untenable positions. They will either need to take the position of the corporation and against the working men and women of this country by saying that their pension plan should not be afforded the same protection as every Checking, Savings, Money Market, CD and IRA at every affiliated bank with the FDIC.  It will also place them in a position of having to argue that pension plans should be assets that companies should use to satisfy creditors in the case of bankruptcy regardless of how it effects the people who are counting on them for their retirement. In short, as I argues in the first article in this series, Democrats need to win a battle of maneuver, placing Republicans in positions where they will be taking the side of corporations over people and having to defend those positions at election time, or agreeing with the Democrats and saying, yes, I agreed with the other side because these protections look out for the people who punch a time clock.

The Way Things Ought to Be

Since we are getting an eye and ear full of the way things can’t and shouldn’t be in this country, let’s make a bold step and take a real look at the way things ought to be instead. The United States of America is a country that exists and relies on a balance of competing interests that are meant to work together as a whole for a united interest. You have state vs. national interests, conservative vs. liberal interests, Congressional vs. presidential interests, legislative vs. constitutional interests, majority vs. minority interests and societal vs. individual interests. And guess what? At any given point in time they can all be right while they can all be wrong.

Right and wrong are misleading terms. We Americans like to banter them about as absolutes, yet right and wrong are actually based on subjective opinion, which is often based on the slightest of fact. Is anything ever truly right that we refer to as right or truly wrong that we refer to as wrong? Society may come to a general consensus about what it collectively views as right or wrong: murder, rape, abuse and torture are wrong and kindness, giving and love are right. But take a moment and think about it. Don’t we condone murder, abuse and torture within the scope of acts of war or self-defense? Don’t a large number of us feel that within the bonds of marriage there is no rape or that rape can be justified if “a woman asks for it?” Doesn’t a great deal of the anger of the independents and the Tea Party spring from the idea that their tax money might be used to benefit someone other than them and theirs; that it may be given to someone who is less “deserving” or “worthy” than themselves? Aren’t there a huge number of people who feel that it should be illegal, and even unconstitutional, for two people who love each other and wish to formally and legally commit to each other for life to have that love recognized by our secular legal system?

There are no absolutes in politics or in society unless you want to live under a dictatorship, where everything-including what is right or wrong- is solely decided by one human being. In any other circumstance, especially in any form of democracy, all things are part of a balance and subject to compromise. Sometimes the needs of the collective- society, national government or the majority- need to come first. Other times the needs of the individual- state, local community or the minority- need to come first. My take on a democracy is that since it is a representative of society, the collective interest of all Americans- the common good- must come first since it ensures the best chance of survival for us all. But where the common good is not affected or threatened by the actions of the individual, then the interest of the individual comes first. The need for quality education, health care, roads and justice system, for example, take precedence because they affect and benefit everyone- directly or indirectly. What someone chooses to read, do in the privacy of their bedroom with a consenting adult or who they choose to pray to do not affect anyone but the person or persons involved.

It takes thought to look at every issue and to balance needs. When we choose to live in a democratic society, we commit ourselves to the effort necessary to make this form of government work. We cannot leave it to others to do it for us and then sit back and criticize. We can also not think only of ourselves and equate what is good for us, what is right to us, to what is good and right for everyone. We cannot live in the either/or scenario that is currently dominating talk and politics; we have to live in an and/or scenario. Sometimes that means standing up for our rights or the rights of others; other times it means looking out for the needs of us all. We are a NATION of INDIVIDUALS, an amalgamation of our differences, with all of the beauty, complexity and obligation that implies. This nation, the United States of America, is an experiment for the ages and we owe it to ourselves and our children to do what we can to make it work.

Looking Back to the Future?

Mankind, both collectively and individually, has a strange little quirk. We ignore the past when it holds valuable lessons that go against what we want to hear or believe. Our insistence in doing this has negatively affected our future many times, both as individuals and as a society. We give our tacit approval for the negative consequences of this mental slight-of-hand by choosing to carry on with the lie, even though our prior experiences tell us we shouldn’t.

Take the recent swing in voter favor toward the Republican Party, as demonstrated by the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Voters who chose Brown over his Democratic rival cited their desire to take a stand on health care, Wall Street bailouts and unemployment, along with the active role of the federal government in implementing sweeping change. “It’s time for the country, for the taxpayers, to take back their money,” stated 49 year old Karla Bunch, when speaking about why she voted for Brown. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34923900/ns/politics-capitol_hill/ )

This flies straight in the face of recent history and how the GOP took a federal budget that did not have a deficit to a record deficit in less than 4 years. Most of this was spent funding a war that has cost over $1 trillion dollars (http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/25/shared-sacrifice-war-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html) in direct spending to date and may cost about $2.5-3 trillion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102074.html) by the time the fighting is over and the affiliated spending ends. President George W. Bush’s insistence that “every American deserved to own a home” helped encourage high risk financing by the sub-prime mortgage market (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html ) that caused the Wall Street disaster. The Bush administration pushed for the first bail out of Wall Street in the fall of 2008 (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/25/as_bush_admin_pushes_700b_for ). The GOP was in control of both the White House and Congress when pork barrel projects like Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” were being funded (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/93690_1.pdf).

All this money was spent while the GOP controlled White House and Congress actually lowered taxes (https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/21039) and did not cut domestic spending (http://enlightennj.blogspot.com/2006/02/federal-spending-2001-2006.html ), yet those who voted for Brown touted the focus on fiscal responsibility which has been part of the official mantra of the GOP for at least the past 30 years. We may be able to take back our money, but we spent our children’s and grandchildren’s to do it (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/debtus.pdf).  

We not only do it as a nation, we do it as individuals. How many people have a spouse or family member who has an addiction or abuse problem, yet constantly make excuses for their loved one’s actions? This is despite the abundant past evidence that demonstrates it is part of an ongoing pattern. They want to believe that in that loved one so badly that they erase or mitigate past events to fit what they want to believe. There are shelters full of battered women who honestly believed their husbands and boyfriends when they apologized and said that they would never hit her again…or again…or again.

When is enough, enough? How many times will we continue to fool ourselves as individuals and as a nation? By ignoring the obvious, we open up the floodgate and have no one but ourselves to blame. We ask why things don’t change, while doing the same old things and making the same short-sighted choices we have always made. By choosing our self-deceptive perception over reality and the hard solutions it entails, we retreat into cozy little fantasies but still cry out with hurt and indignation when we get exactly the same result as before.

We need things to change. We asked for change. We voted for change. Yet when on the verge of change, we as a nation are pulling back and playing into the same set of deceptive visions offered by conservatives numerous times before. In the future, after another 15 years or so of the status quo, when health care, the environment, energy management and oversight of corporate corruption is in dire condition, we will point fingers and ask why. We will want to find a guilty party to blame, but the only direction our finger can honestly point to is right back at us.

 Laura Bramble’s columns can also be seen at Conducivemag.com.

The Game Plan. Part 1.

                 This article is going to be part of a series that will lay out the way forward as I see it for the Democratic Party since they no longer hold a 60 seat majority in the Senate and face the prospect of losing more seats in the house and senate resulting in slimmer majorities. The current situation means that the Democratic leadership needs to exercise some gamesmanship. They need to be clear eyed field generals calling effective plays that guide their team to victory. In short, they need is a game plan.

                Before I get started I should make clear a few things. One is that although they have 60 members in their caucus in the Senate they never had a 60 vote majority. Those 60 votes included Joe Lieberman of the Lieberman party of Connecticut who only represents his own interests and seems more interested in exacting revenge against the party for not backing him in his last re-election bid. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was also included in those 60 votes. Conservatives are fond of calling moderates in their party RINO’s Republicans In Name Only. Mr. Nelson based on his votes and his policy stances could best be described as a Republican by another name. The same could be said for Blanch Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and to a lesser extent Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. Two is that the bare bones of it are that of the 60 members of the Democratic Caucus there were approximately 52 solidly Democratic Senators that believed in the Parties values and solidly voted for those causes. Basically, this is a very long way of saying that while there were 60 members of the Democratic Caucus there were never 60 solidly Democratic votes. Now that an election in Massachusetts has made numerically clear the lack of a Democratic super majority the time has come to stop negotiating and start fighting.

                First and foremost, Healthcare reform needs to be completed. The Democratic Party has basically painted itself into a corner on this issue. After spending the best part of a year putting this legislation together, making it the centerpiece of the first year of the Obama administration, and enduring a long hot summer and miserable fall in winter in which Republicans in the minority controlled not only the pace and composition of the debate but also the message that the American people received something meaningful needs to be passed before the midterms. Ideally, some form of this legislation that makes a real impact in terms of cost control and services will be passed before the middle of March. The problem is this. The Senate bill is wholly unpalatable to Democrats in the House of Representatives. They view it, correctly so, as deeply flawed, and in essence benefitting only the very insurance companies that this legislation was intended to reign in. Conversely, the member’s of the Senate view the House bill as far too liberal, and in the minds of some bordering on socialism. I will save the glaring mistakes with the socialism arguments of another day. The problem still remains that in their current forms neither chamber of congress is willing to pass the bill passed by the other, and a comprise will almost certainly not satisfy enough to pass both houses. Even if a compromise bill were to be palatable enough that the progressive members of the House of Representatives were to be able to swallow hard and pass it would likely never be able to pass in the Senate. The problem still remains giving up means surrendering the labors of a year and most assuredly a huge midterm gain to the Republicans, and going forward means possibly going down to defeat and likewise seeding the work of a year to the Republican Party. This is where the political gamesmanship comes in.

                We already know that healthcare legislation can pass in the House. The Democratic leadership needs to scrap the bills that are being worked on now and adopt quickly a one two combination punch approach. First, in the House, you put together a bill that covers regulation only. This bill needs to include; the repeal of the insurance industry anti – trust exemption, barring insurance companies from dropping coverage for “pre-existing conditions, removing the ability of insurance companies ability to place a cap on the amount of coverage someone can receive when they become sick and likewise dropping their coverage when they become sick. This bill would also need to include the establishment of a national insurance exchange, a marketplace where people may shop for insurance across state lines, along with that ability to buy the same insurance policy that every federal employee including all members of congress are covered under today. This exchange would be comprised totally of private, regulated insurance plans. The cost of administering this national exchange could easily be covered by a service fee at the time of sale equivalent to a sales tax.  This bill could easily pass the House with bi-partisan support. In the much more conservative Senate the leadership would need to play hardball. If the Republican minority threatens to filibuster this regulatory bill the Democratic leaders need to call the bluff. Tell the Republican leadership they may block these regulations that benefit every American with a private insurance policy, or they can publically and loudly side with insurance companies over their constituent’s interests and the Democratic Party will be sure that they have to run on, and defend that vote when they return to this district. Maneuver the minority into a position where a vote of no means almost certain political suicide from constituents tired of insurance companies taking advantage of them.   

                The second punch in this one two combination is creating competition. As a separate, stand alone bill, you create Medicare Part E. This will offer the same level of service as the Medicare that all of our seniors enjoy. This would be a premium based system. If you want this insurance option, just like a private insurance plan, anyone who wants this plan will have to pay a monthly premium for their coverage. The difference would be that unlike private insurance Medicare Part E will be not for profit, and like all the other parts of Medicare, will have the same low overhead in terms of management. The result will be an insurance plan with a monthly premium lower than the private plans. With the passage of the above mentioned first bill private insurance, now subject to antitrust laws, specifically laws regarding price fixing, will have to individually compete with a lower cost option that delivers a high level of service.   

                Passing this bill would follow much the same path as the first bill I described. Their will, likewise, be large, and possibly bi-partisan support for this bill in the House. In the Senate the passage will again be harder, with a much more conservative body. Once again, the Democratic body needs to replace their spine with steel and call the filibuster bluff. Stare down the opposition and tell them if you feel that strongly, they a lower cost option should not be in the market place to further drive down costs and make things easier for the American people then block the bill. Grind the Senate to a halt for 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks, day after day reading the phonebook or your favorite author, and then go back to your states and run on this. Again, maneuver the opposition into an unwinnable position and pass the legislation you want to pass.

                These are the first steps in a very long process. As I states in my opening, the way forward must be one of fighting for the policy that we want, not negotiating for it. These will be hard fights against vigorous resistance. These moves are basically the opening rounds of a fight, or the first drives in a football game, they are designed to start fast and hit hard, imposing your will upon your opponent, causing him to rock pack on his heels and react in an off balance disorganized way. These moves are not meant to exemplify comity in any way. These are the two fisted fighter’s approach that Middle America likes. The Democratic Party needs to dig in, hold its ground and fight for the average American.

Democracy for Sale

                  As he emerged from the Constitutional Convention Ben Franklin was asked, “What have you given us?” Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” After the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission it would be more apt to say that we have a Republic, if you can afford it. In a 5 to 4 ruling the court has undone three previous Supreme Court rulings and extended the full rights of a person to any and all corporations. Justices Roberta, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy made up the majority, while Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Stevens dissented. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, Justice Stevens the dissenting opinion.  

                What was at issue in that particular case were the restrictions places on corporations, both for profit and not, as well as unions by election rules passed in 1907 and mirrored in the Campaign Reform Act of 2002.  Those two acts stated that all corporations and unions could make donations through their PAC’s only. They were also prohibited from publishing ads on television, radio, or the internet specifically targeting a candidate, within 30 days of a Primary Election or Nominating Convention or 60 days of a General Election. Corporations were also strictly prohibited from spending funds from their general treasury for the proposes of campaigning for a specific candidate, the money spent could only come from their respective PACs. With this ruling the Supreme Court has basically dynamited the dam.

                As stated, the ruling grants the full rights of a person, specifically the full right of free speech to corporations and unions. With this granting of full first amendment rights all restrictions on the amount of money that can be spend during a campaign, as well as when, and where that money can come from are removed. There is however a distinction to be made. Since Corporations and Unions are now defined as persons under the law they are subject to the same restrictions for campaign contributions as any individual citizen. Corporations and unions may only donate $108,000 per election cycle to any candidate or candidates’ campaign fund. The removal of restrictions that is at issue here applies specifically to political speech. Political speech in this case is defined as advertisement, television, radio, and internet. While individual candidates will not benefit directly in terms of expanded donations of campaign funds, they will benefit indirectly in the form of massive ad buys by interested third parties both for them and against their opposition.

                The implications here are staggering.  Take this as an example. In the closing weeks of October a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives if running ahead of his Republican opponent in Michigan.  The Democrat is pro union and has the full backing of the UAW. The Republican has vowed to introduce legislation limiting the power of unions. General Motors decided that it’s in their interest to support the Republican and insure that he wins because a weaker UAW means more profits for GM. As such, GM spends 25 million dollars (theirs, not bailout money)  on an attack add and a Pro Republican add in the two weeks before the general election.  This same scenario could be played out in reverse, with the UAW spending millions on ads just before the election to help a candidate the support.

                    The most dire consequences could come in 2012 during the Presidential Election. In 2008 the length and amount of money raised and spent by both campaigns were staggering. Now envision this, the nightmare scenario.  During the primaries on the Republican side, a little known member of the House of Representatives makes his campaign about tax cuts for the highest earners, corporations, and removing all federal regulations on corporations. No Department of Transportation regulations on trucks, trains or airplanes. No OSHA regulations in the work place. No regulations on what chemicals may and may not be used. All Federal regulations removed so that corporations were completely free to operate as they wish. Think of what would happen to his campaign if Corporations seeing the ability to operate without restrictions collectively spent $500 million in advertisements.  Liberals and Conservatives can disagree on what amount of regulation is a good thing, but we can all agree that corporations should not be able to use lead paint on children’s toys, or that asbestos should not be used in schools. With the rules now rewritten, any company, or group of companies, can funnel unlimited finds into advertisements for candidates whose positions best fit them, making them beholden to them for their reelections. Think of the possibility in our lifetime, of the President of the United States owing his election to hundreds of millions in add furnished by big oil, or the Banking Industry. We could see the day when the President could be a wholly owned subsidiary of Citi Group, or AIG, or SEIU, or the AFL-CIO, or Bank of America. All of those are terrifying, that every Senator, ever Governor, every member of the House of Representatives, and even the President could be bought and sold, elected and replaces like any other commodity. The voice of the average citizen would become a pale hum in the background to the overpowering chorus of the corporation. The transformation would be complete and this would be the government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, the people be damned.

The Case for Building

                The healthcare reform debate is still as contentious as ever in Washington and around the country. There is a rumor that a deal on that legislation is close at hand. Whichever way that vote goes the conventional wisdom is that it will have an effect on the forthcoming 2010 midterms. The contentious nature of this legislation, it appears, is having a great effect on the special election in Massachusetts to fill the seat long held by the late Ted Kennedy. From what I have seen however, healthcare is what people are talking about, JOBS is what matters. In the elections that have been held since the 2008 Presidential Election Republicans have logged wins in two Governors races. I will grant you that both of these races were against rather lackluster Democratic opponents. What is telling about both these races is that the Republicans that won did not run on social issues, nor did they run on opposition to healthcare, they ran on jobs, and both carried the day. This November the winners will be decided by who makes the best care for putting America back to work. Jobs will rule the day. The best way to get America back to work, forget giving money to banks, and forget the stimulus fund as its written, start building now.

                America’s infrastructure is in a truly sorry state. The last large scale federal infrastructure project was the Interstate Highway system during the Eisenhower administration. Dwight Eisenhower left office in 1961.  Inside the United States there are approximately four million miles of roadways, of which 47,000miles are highways.  All of us have spent some time driving the highways, and we see the condition that they are in. What almost no one is aware of is that the concrete that was used to build those highways and bridges under ideal circumstances was meant to last fifty years. If anyone wondered why there is a obstical coarse of potholes every winter, and roadwork seems to dominate every bit of decent weather it’s because those 47,000 miles of highway and hundreds of thousands of miles of other roads are completely warn out. Much of that road work that snarls traffic and adds to the aggravation of the day is part of the patch and pray system, Departments of Transportation patch the road where needed and pray that work holds and nothing else goes wrong. This is only sustainable for so long. In St. Louis a section of I – 64 was so worn out that there was no way to repair it and have it safe for public use.  The entire section was closed, torn down, and completely rebuilt. Now, this may not seem to be a pressing issue, given all the others that dominate the news cycle, but bare this in mind, there is an old saying, commerce moves at the speed of a truck. Truck traffic is expected to double in the next 30 years and the American road network is not capable of handling the increased traffic. Meanwhile, countries in Europe, and especially China, are placing a huge emphasis on improving their infrastructure to be competitive in the 21^st century.

                If roads are in a terrible state, some cities have a sewer system that is all but a disaster area. Many cities have what is called a single use sewer system. In a single use sewer system one system of pipes handles storm water, drainage. Then, there is a separate set of pipes that handles sewage. Drainage is diverted into bodies of water, or carried through manmade canals and underground piped to natural bodies of water. Sewage is diverted to a treatment plant and after being processed is discharged back into the water supply.  Many older American cities, again, as an example St. Louis, have a double use sewer system.  These systems handle drainage and sewage together. During a moderate to heavy rain sewage can be discharged along with rain water. During a heavy rainfall, that can mean tens of thousands of gallons of waste entering the water system untreated. Of further concern is that what it comes to infrastructure funding, sewage systems are usually far down on the list.  The problem is because sewer systems aren’t pressurized, waste, that is highly corrosive, sits in pipes for a long period of time and eats away at the concrete and steel pipes. Smoke testing in any gives residential neighborhood often reveals thousands of leaks where raw sewage is leaking into the soil.

                The one part of the national infrastructure that everyone takes for granted, and causes untold havoc when it fails, is the power grid. Demand on the national power grid is always increasing yet we are dealing with an ever aging system. While many countries have started moving the bulk of their power lines underground where they cannot be affected by weather, almost all of our power lines are above ground. Further, the bulk of the power grid is run on terminals that use technology that people deemed obsolete for Television sets over three decades ago.   This is particularly disturbing when you consider how a tree making contact with a power line caused a cascading failure that plunged much of New York and part of Canada into darkness a few years ago. Had there been a more modern system in place that could have transferred power to other lines at a faster pace it is fair to say that that block out would not have been nearly as severe as it was. There are those that are predicting that if the capacity and the quality of the power grid is not addressed then in the next 20 years major cities could face brown outs (the intentional turning off of certain power grids) during peak demands, usually the hottest days of summer.

                The answer the countries crumbling infrastructure and the dearth of jobs are simple. Take all of the money from the stimulus, and all money that went to Wall Street, and embark on the largest building projects since the Great Depression. Think of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be created directly and indirectly if the federal government decided to spend $200 billion to completely rebuild the interstate highway system, or $300 billion to build a 21^st century power grid. All of this building needs to be done, or the countries of Europe and Asia will outpace more so than they already have in the race to be competitive in the world economy. Recently the United States announced that it would invest $80 billion in green jobs and building. China, stating that it wanted to be the leader in the green economy, announced that it was inventing $300 billion to do so. The deteriorating condition of the roads alone insures that if we do nothing, in two decades, we will not be competitive in world commerce.  We need to build, and build now to put America back to work, and make sure we can compete with the other countries of the world.

Commenting About Race Does Not Make You Racist

The GOP was on the rampage this past week, calling for the ouster of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid based on published comments he made in private last year. The book, Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, devotes ONE paragraph of several hundred pages to Harry Reid after telling the story about how Reid actively encouraged Obama to run for president. This is what it says:

Years later, Reid would claim that he was steadfastly neutral in the 2008 race; that he never chose sides between Barack (Obama) and Hillary (Clinton); that all he did was tell Obama that “he could be president,” that “the stars could align for him.” But at the time, in truth, his encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he later put it privately.

If you note the passage, Reid’s words were phrases taken out of their original context and placed in a paragraph that supplied a context, accurate or not. They were not said in a public venue, so there can be no independent verification of this implied context. There is no way to judge what was in Reid’s 71 year old mind when he said those words, but even in the middle of the paragraph it is said that Reid’s support for Obama was “unequivocal.” In the paragraph, Reid was referring to the ability of a man to be elected to political office and was referring to one man. He was not denigrating a whole race of people and if his comments were to be forgiven, then they were to be forgiven by one man- Barack Obama. President Obama chose to do that, which should be the end of it. If insulting the president is reason for ouster, then why is Republican Representative Joe “You lie” Wilson or any other GOP member of Congress who has made personal insults about the president, still in office? Obama chose to forgive Congressman Wilson as well, putting the issue to rest.

The GOP have jumped on the remarks, comparing them to the comments made by former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott at Strom Thurmond’s 100^th birthday party that got Lott bounced from public office. They claim there is a double standard; that Reid should be bounced from office as well. Personally, I think it shows how short GOP memory is. For those that don’t remember, Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948 as a candidate for the “States’ Rights” party (http://law.jrank.org/pages/10489/States-Rights-Party.html) . The party’s sole reason for being was to prevent the threatened implementation of the beginning stages of civil rights, including the elimination of the poll tax, anti-lynching laws, desegregation of the military and the creation of the Fair Employment Practices Committee. The party claimed that states had a right to decide for themselves whether or not to implement civil rights or any other such law, which would have permitted Southern states to reject civil rights and to keep their then-current segregation legal and intact no matter what the Federal government did.

 At the birthday party, Trent Lott said these words:

“I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

Lott was bemoaning the fact that a man whose most pressing agenda was the prevention of civil rights, which he and Southern Democrats very actively did in Congress for years afterward, did not become president. He stated that basically we would have been better off if he had been president and achieved his agenda, and that he was proud of Thurmond. These comments were said in a public forum, with plenty of words on either side to provide context. His words marginalized a whole race. Trent Lott and everyone else in Washington, both Republican and Democrat, knew what he said and what he meant, and Lott promptly resigned.

There is no comparison between the remarks of Reid and Lott. If Reid was insulting anyone by what he said, it was the American people by suggesting that we are not as color-blind as we pretend to be and by acknowledging that race is indeed a factor in political elections. I know it is an ugly truth that most would rather not admit, while others will brag about it in public- just look at some of the signs at Tea Party protests. As a white woman living in the South, I can tell you that racial bias still exists, particularly in comments made by whites to other whites in private. Electing a half African-American president did not make that go away overnight.

The fact that Reid chose to point out America’s shortcomings does not make him a racist. If anything, it makes him a realist. Nowhere did Reid offer a negative opinion about the suitability of African-Americans as political candidates or as a race. I’m sure it would make it into the book if he did- after all, sensationalism sells. Instead, he worked very hard both before and after the election to support the President- hardly the actions of a man who had such an issue with Obama’s race as the GOP would have the public believe.

There are some conservatives who see this as the cheap shot that it is and refuse to get on the bandwagon. The conservative commentator George Will, when asked about the subject on ABC’s This Week (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/01/will-not-a-scintilla-of-racism-in-reid-race-remarks.html) , had this to say in a conversation with Liz Cheney, GOP commentator and daughter of the former Vice-President under George W. Bush, Dick Cheney:

WILL:  I don’t think there’s a scintilla of racism in what Harry Reid said.  At long last, Harry Reid has said something that no one can disagree with, and he gets in trouble for it.
CHENEY:  George, give me a break.  I mean, talking about the color of the president’s skin…
WILL:  Did he get it wrong?
CHENEY:  …and the candidate’s…
WILL:  Did he say anything false?
CHENEY:  …it’s — these are clearly racist comments, George.
WILL:  Oh, my, no.

A moment later, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich put the words in a proper context by pointing out that the fact they were uttered reflects on how race does still play a part in politics. He also stated that discussing race and its impact does not make a person racist. I was struck by that because it echoed the thought I was having right at that moment.

Fact is fact. There are no opinions to fact; it just is. And the fact is that racism is alive and well in this country, even if has been swept under the rug. There is no mistake that even though Obama was leading in the polls in many Southern states before the 2008 presidential election, he lost decisively in those states when the ballots were counted. When most whites are publicly asked about race, they will say and do the “right thing” to save face. But behind closed doors and election booth curtains, the attitude and private actions can be quite different. When whites are among other whites in a place where they think their comments or prejudices will be acceptable, they are often free with what they really think and it is not as color-blind as it is in public. I have been privy to this quite often and have honestly been shocked by some of the things I have seen and heard. Yes, we have come a long way in terms of racial attitudes, but we still have a long way to go. African-American friends of mine tell me that racism goes both ways- that they hear negative comments about non-African-Americans when they are among their own race. As I said, racism is alive and well and it is a fact.

The danger of deeming any comment about race as “racist” is that, while it squelches hate speech and calls it for what it is, it also stifles discussion of the facts and uglier truths that hold us back. If we cannot discuss stereotypes, then we cannot dispel them by pointing out where they are wrong. If we keep our discussions general and neutral, then we are ignoring the fringe elements of the conversation that fester and cause prejudice and resentment. In our fear of being “disrespectful,” we are being less than honest with ourselves and our fellow man. In trying to save face, we are erasing the individual faces of others.

Truth can co-exist with respect. Through honest discussion based on genuine concern and inquiry, done without pre-judgment or malice by either party, we can truly begin to look at each other by the merits of our individual character.

Mary Cheney was the one who was being racist in her comments on This Week by asserting that the truth should not be discussed about another person because of the color of their skin. She would treat Obama differently and would speak differently about him than others because of his skin color. Would she accept someone speaking differently about her because she is a lesbian, unless it is her father…? I don’t think so.

Those who dance around race and avoid the truth have far more in common with Trent Lott than they do Harry Reid. Omission is a lie just as much as telling a falsehood is. Racists choose to believe lies in order to justify their prejudice. We all need to look at ourselves in the mirror- white, black, gay, straight, handicapped, young, old, Christian, Muslim- and be honest with ourselves about our tendency to lie to ourselves and others in regard to prejudice in all its forms. I think we will find that we are all prejudiced in some way or another. The question is: are we going to embrace that, be open about it, get the facts and do something about it? When are we going to stop looking in the rear view mirror at past wrongs and turn our eyes and attention to the world we can create in the future? Until we do, nothing will change.