Wisconsin: You may have another option…

The pro-union protests in Wisconsin have been inspiring. I’ve been looking for something that the union supporters could use to gain the upper hand in this battle.  I ran across this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_George_(Wisconsin_politician)

• “In November 2003, George was recalled from office,[3] because of corruption charges”

Which led to this…

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/LRB/gw/gw_13.pdf

• “Reasons required for recall of local officials. A recall petition for a city, village, town, or school district officer must contain a statement of a reason for the recall which is related to the official responsibilities of the official for whom removal is sought. No reason need be provided for other offices.” [emphasis mine]
• “Signature requirements and time limits. Recall petitions for state, judicial, or county officials, or members of Congress or the state legislature, or district attorneys must have valid signatures of electors equaling at least 25 percent of the total vote cast for the office of governor in the last preceding election.”

The “total vote cast for the office of governor” in 2010 is 2,133,144 –   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_election,_2010

Therefore if union supporters could gather enough signatures (at least 533,286) they could mount a recall challenge to GOP State Senate seats that won narrow victories in 2010:

-Leah Vukmir (District 5)

-Van Wanggaard (District 21)

-Pam Galloway (District 29)

Even the credible threat of such a recall could sway their vote on this highly visible issue.

This Is Still OUR Moment

It’s been a tough week. We have had worse. Nov 2000. Nov 2004. Sept 2001. Yet we are still here. A little bruised and worse for wear but never broken..and always wiser. This has been a minor set back and we have precious little time to linger on it. Enough already!!

The greatest threat to the Progressive movement in America at the moment is US, the “disenchanted” Progressives. Because “enchanted” is just where we were a year ago, feeling vindicated, heady with victory, and full of hope. In reality, progress is much more grounded and balanced. That is where we need to be today and for the foreseeable future. To that end:

-Lets re-evaluate our use of social media. It is a very good grass roots tool. We need to get back to that.

-Hate and vitriol are NOT Progressive…and it clouds judgment. Before we Tweet/RT/Post consider, “How does this advance the movement.”

-Let us cease perpetuating defeatist memes among ourselves.

One year done, three to go. This is still OUR moment.

Mysterious Ways..

2010. Another year, another 44 thousand un-insured Americans dead. But, hey, at least its not in my back yard.

God Bless American corporations

…and the GOP

…and 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices

…and Massachusetts

…and no one else.

Amen

@Stranahan

This is in response to a specific discussion that I was having with @Stranahan that the MA election outcome was a direct result of the lack of transparency during the HCR negotiations. The contention was that Candidate Obama promised public negotiations (on C-SPAN) for HCR and that the White House “backroom negotiations” with the pharmaceutical industry reneged that promise resulting in the loss of the Democratic seat in MA. I strongly disagree with that assertion as it was represented in the discussion.

The agreement, which was negotiated in the Roosevelt Room adjacent to the Oval Office, was that Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) pledged $80 billion dollars in cost savings over 10 years in exchange for the White House not pursuing a proposal to import cheaper drugs from Canada and Europe or a policy of government price setting for Medicare Part D (the drug program for seniors). PhRMA also agreed NOT to run any ad-campaigns in opposition to HCR and instead underwrote the multi-million (not taxpayer) dollar ad-campaign in support of HCR. Neither the White House or PhRMA shut the door on future negotiations to further reduce the price of prescription drugs. This negotiated agreement was completely appropriate to the scope of healthcare reform that the Democrats were attempting to get through Congress. It gave members of Congress a negotiated agreement in hand to take back to their constituents during the Summer recess and one less 700lbs-gorilla to fight. Even with it, many Democratic town hall gatherings were dominated by a boisterous, inflammatory minority organized by the GOP and Conservative extremist.

The possible demise of healthcare reform is not due to lack of transparency. In fact, it is the scope of the proposed reform and public visibility into the day-to-day procedural politics (specifically) in the Senate that will probably be its ultimate demise. To be clear, with a few exceptions, Progressives and moderates would most likely be satisfied with the provisions of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) that passed in the House of Representatives. Yet with a popularly elected 59 member majority in the Senate, the People watched as 41 corporate-owned Senators stripped a good bill of everything the public really wanted in it. It is clear to many of us why this is possible, but it had a devastating effect on the morale of many people who have been entertaining the thought of a “robust public option” since Spring of 2009. The Democratic Party and the White House allowed expectations to be set too high for a reform bill of this scope. This does not mean that the public should have been denied visibility into the process, it means that the scope of the bill should have been significantly reduced.

Candidate Obama promised healthcare reform from early in his campaign. But the housing-market meltdown was an opportunity to justify taking all big ticket bills off the agenda and to focus on the economy and helping the American people get through the financial crisis. The Administration could have offered 6-months of full Medicare benefits to the unemployed as a part of the extension of unemployment benefits. The tax-increase to fund it could have been passed by budgetary reconciliation. Over time, this benefit could have been amended to cover the working un-insured, or those with pre-existing conditions. As the recession continued, the White House could then turn its attention on the pharmaceutical industry to lower the cost of prescription drugs for all Medicare recipients.

All this is, of course, speculation after the fact and will do nothing to change the outcome of the special election in Massachusetts. For Progressives the outcome of that election does not change the political landscape. Progressive Democrats did not have a super-majority in the Senate before this election. Now that the illusion of this advantage has been vanquished, it is time for Progressives in Congress to seize the day and step up. To that end, here are three recommendations:

- Initiating Progressive policy should preclude the appearance of bipartisanism

- Realize that many of the people you are trying to help have a short attention span and are easily distracted

- Keep it simple, stupid. Get good, simple framework policy passed and amend it later



For Progressives: A Lesson from History

In 1934, in the midst of the Great Depression, Dr. Francis Townsend conceived a plan to improve the quality of life for America’s impoverished elderly and stimulate consumer spending. His plan, known as the Townsend Plan, would create a federally funded pension program that would disburse $200 monthly to all Americans over the age of 60. Revenue generated by a new tax on all business transactions was designated to fund the plan. Recipients of the monthly disbursement would be required to spend the entire amount on consumer goods and services. Townsend’s goal was to create millions of new jobs by stimulating consumer spending, thus increasing the demand for goods and services, while encouraging older workers to retire.

The Townsend Plan had immense popular support across the nation. Pressure began to mount on both the Democratic Party congressional majority and the White House Administration to enact it and other federally initiated programs to help lift America out of the Great Depression. Whether or not these programs were economically or politically feasible was of little concern to the generally public as the unemployment rate remained above 10% while the ranks of the under-employed continued to swell. As a direct result of the rising popularity of the Townsend Plan and after months of Congressional debate the Social Security Act was passed and signed into law on August 14, 1935.

Townsend advocates were bitterly disappointed with the Social Security Act. Social Security disbursements were not scheduled to begin until 1942 and the monthly benefit amount was to be a fraction of the amount suggested by the Townsend Plan. Unemployment and pension benefits were also limited to commerce workers, excluding a large number of occupations such as railroad workers, agricultural labor, and government employees. In fact, a substantial majority of the employment definitions for qualified workers in the Social Security Act favored occupations held by white male workers, while those occupations most frequently held by women and minorities were excluded from benefits.

Seventy-five years later, America now finds itself at a similar crossroad. Bankruptcies and home foreclosures due to medical expenses are on the rise, adding to the financial struggles of the middle-class and working poor and thus magnifying the effects of the housing market crash. Progressives and Liberals have a plan to raise the quality of life for America’s un-insured and under-insured by creating a federally funded health insurance plan that would cover all Americans that could not afford private health insurance coverage and put downward pressure on the cost of medical care for all Americans. Revenue from a tax on premium private health insurance policies and a progressive tax increase on incomes above $500K/year would be used to fund the White House’s Health Care Reform Plan, which includes a Federally administered health insurance option for qualified recipients generally referred to as the Public Option. A Public Option plan has popular support across the nation and pressure is building on the Democratic Party majority in Congress and the White House Administration to enact it alongside other federal initiatives to help lift America out of our present financial recession. The political feasibility of these programs are, again, of little importance to the general public as the unemployment rate has risen to 10% nationally while the ranks of the un-insured and under-insured continue to swell due to the ever rising cost of medical care. As a direct result of the popularity of the Public Option plan and after months of debate, Congress is on the cusp of passing a Health Care Reform bill. Public Option advocates are bitterly disappointed with this bill.

There are obvious differences between the two scenarios, but the substantial similarities suggest a road-map for one potential outcome. In America today, Social Security and unemployment benefits are politically respected, protected institutions that provide a much needed lifeline for many beneficiaries. The inclusiveness and effectiveness of the Act has been greatly expanded since its initial enactment in 1935. Between 1939 to 1996 the Social Security Act was amended 17 times and, ironically, the last major amendment and expansion of the Social Security Act was signed into law in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan, a staunch conservative.

To put it succinctly, as Progressives we must begin to realize that change requires, at its very minimum, and agreed upon starting place. Radical change may be the goal but in American politics, gradualism is the norm. The Great Depression was a window of opportunity for the passing of the Social Security Act. At any other time in the 20th century it would most likely have failed. The window of opportunity for Health Care Reform is NOW, and any hesitation on our part may postpone health care reform into the far future once again.

As an intellectual exercise, consider this: Senator Joseph Lieberman (I – MA) in conjunction with conservative, pro-corporate Democrats has severely weakened the Health Care Reform currently being considered by our Democratic Party majority in Congress (with a super-majority in the Senate). If we cannot encourage radical change in a Congress controlled by a party we consider our ally, what might a Health Care Reform bill, negotiated by the GOP during a recovering economy, look like?

Pause

The political climate around health care reform is dark and gloomy. This condition is being fueled by the instantaneous and continuous mass communication of our growing frustration with the give-and-take political process. Anger, for lack of a better term, hangs thick in the air. A reflective pause, however, may yet reveal the silver lining in these clouds.

First, consider what we stand to gain from this Bill: No more pre-existing conditions. Health insurance that is accessible (if not immediately affordable) to freelancers, self-employed, contractors, etc. But what may be the most important thing that will come out of this is a formalized ‘Affordable Access to Health Care Act’. It will institutionalize our access to health care as a fundamental service that should be accessible to (thus affordable for) all citizens. This is why the Right is fighting so hard to bury this Bill by any means necessary. Neither the Right, Left, or Middle will ever be able to put that genie back in the bottle again.

Significant challenges will remain past the actual signing of an Act, however . The systems to facilitate and monitor the implementation of the ‘Act’ are not all in place. There will be mistakes, false starts, and wrong turns in the process. The “Act” will need to be re-visited and modified over time to make it more effective. This is where we, as Americans, are going to have to do something that we are not accustomed to doing in our generation: We need to stay aware, involved, and engaged in the incremental modifications long past the celebrations (if any) of the signing. We CAN NOT wipe our hands of this and leave it for the corporate influenced politicians to implement and maintain unattended. We have to remain ever watchful for proposed amendments to (or proposed legislative action designed to weaken) the ‘Act’ via line items on other seemingly unrelated bills. We have to stay involved by constantly monitoring the progress of implementation of the provisions in the ‘Act’. We must stay actively engaged with the political leadership, locally and nationally, and continuously hold them accountable to fulfilling the provisions of the Act through adequate funding and public and transparent oversight. And we must keep doing these things far beyond the term of this Presidential Administration.

The long term commitment to making health care reform work for America is ultimately left to us, the public, the People. As parents, guardians, and responsible adults, we cannot hand this commitment off to someone else to manage. The silver lining in the cloudy gloom that hangs heavily over the health care reform discourse is that we, the People, will ultimately be the caretakers of the reform process. The diligence of our scrutiny and engagement in this process will determine the quality of the product in the years to come. To borrow a phrase, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

The Constitution That We Have

There has been an great deal of talk from the political Right-wing about the U.S. Constitution recently. The references to the Constitution increasingly tend to occur in proximity to the phrases “small government” and “free markets”. While the apparent increase of interest in the U.S. Constitution is laudable, the intention of these references seems misguided at best. There seems to be a some confusion on the Right regarding the Constitution that some want vs. the Constitution that WE have.

The powers of the three branches of the Federal Government are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 (Legislative), Article 2 Section 2 & 3 (Executive), and Article 3 Section 2 (Judicial). The Constitution did not define what the “size” of the federal branches should be it defined the limit of their powers with an Amendment process (Article5) and a “necessary and proper” clause ( Article 1 Section 8 ) to expand these upon necessity and approval of Congress.

Wikipedia.org defines free markets as:

A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud… A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system.

By definition the United States has never had a free market economy. The Constitution ( Article 1 Section 8 ) explicitly enumerates a mixed market economy:

The Congress shall have power [...] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To be sure, the framers of the Constitution did create a framework by which the Constitution can be adapted to changing times by the will of the people. Claims that falsely represent its contents for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda are not only disingenuous, but ultimately disrespectful to the memory of the founders and the spirit of the Constitution. It would elevate the level of the conversation for all involved if we based our Constitutional discussions on the common ground of the Constitution that WE have.

Reflections

I wrote this a few days after the Presidential Election of 2008.  Something that “Joy” tweeted earlier today reminded me of it…

“Most of us will remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when the election was called for Barack Obama.  There was some expectation of it. We knew that he was up in the polls.  We may have even done the math to know that after the Electoral Votes for Ohio moved into his column there was no path for John McCain to win.  But the words spoke all of the poll numbers, and the hopes, and the dream into REALITY.  The moment hung suspended in silence for a couple of seconds and then the first of many waves of ecstatic euphoria came crashing in. Some are still riding the euphoric wave, and this is good.  Others are reflecting on the ones that have gone before us that paved the way to this momentous occasion, and that may be even better. But we should not linger on these thoughts for too long. There is much to do, and precious little time to do it.

If you have children then you know how fast the first years can go by; from birth to toddler to the first day of pre-school.  That is all the time that a Presidential Administration has to institute its policies.  It will take an equal (or greater) amount of time for the actualization of the policies to take a measurable effect on society.  Introduce a regionally impacting natural disaster, epidemic, or military destabilization, or (as is more likely) all of the above, and then the two-term limit of any Presidential Administration becomes even more prohibitive to the tangible realization of policy changes.  The platform of the Obama campaign was “Change that WE can believe in”.  Given the relatively short window that the Administration has to achieve that change, a multi-pronged strategy of implementation is needed. While the Obama Administration is working to create the framework within the government on which to build long-term policy changes, WE THE PEOPLE who elected him to Executive Office need to start reworking the framework of our day-to-day interaction with each other. There are a few simple things that WE can do to engage that process:

-WE should all (as individuals and/or as a families) re-examine the practicality of continued indulgence in our culture of consumerism (driven by the tenet to “keep up with the Joneses” even beyond the point of fiscal discipline and responsibility).  We need to spend less, save more, plan for tomorrow, and stop living for the moment. We are just a couple of months into the greatest financial crisis in the history of our country. The new Administration CANNOT undo in two years, what has been in the making for over a decade. Tough challenges lay ahead, and WE need to get serious about making the necessary financial preparations to ride this out.

-WE should proactively increase our community interaction. Let us turn off the television and go out and re-introduce ourselves to our neighbors. We don’t have to agree on everything, but let us all agree to keep talking and listening to each other regularly. Across the country, millions of discussions between neighbors about the issues that impact them personally is bound to produce many more innovative solutions than a single Administration can come up with.

-WE should proactively increase our inter-community communication/interaction. Let us share our stories, challenges, and solutions with others. Whether it be with other members of our church, our co-workers, or online friends. The tremendous success of the Obama/Biden campaign is proof that person to person communication is a powerful tool for change.

Change has indeed come to America. Whether we continue to be instrumental in determining the direction of that change depends on how actively WE choose engage it. Do not wait for the Administration to tell you what they will change and how they will change it, start teaching the Administration what it is in your community that needs changing and show them how it is done. The question is NOT how will this administration help us, but how can the re-empowered (We the) People take responsibility and help ourselves as a community and as a country.”

Getting out of Afghanistan

The counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan is under serious strain. More U.S. troops are to be sent there in the near future to stem the tide of insurgent attacks on U.S., U.N. and NATO forces.  Based on what I’m reading, the war thus far has been mis-managed. A strategic overhaul is needed.  I don’t think that securing the entire country should be the objective. A region should be secured and helped to prosper.  This region will become the template for others to duplicate on their own.  I describe this effort in three strategic objectives:

Strategic objective #1 – Deny the enemy the the Northern Afghan-Pakistan border and abundant food sources while using the natural terrain to protect against large scale attacks by concentrating all U.S troops in the North and North-East region from Mazari Sharif to Jalalabad.

Keep a highly visible and well-supported presence in the border region. Judicious use of observation platforms (UAVs, satellite imagery, etc.) should reveal where the insurgents are crossing the border so that ground assaults could be coordinated and effective with minimal civilian impact. Naturally the military would not be able to attack every group crossing, but knowing where they are would allow intel to pick and choose valuable targets. Somewhat like a counter-insurgency using insurgency tactics.

-Setup large bases (Brigade strength) just outside the major population centers in proximity to large airstrips (Mazari Sharif, Qonduz, Kabul, Jalalabad) that also can be used for local militia and police training.

Larger bases near regional airports would reduce the distance that supplies need to be hauled across the country-side. The U.S. military should actively monitor likely ambush areas along the supply lines and randomly target and eliminate ambush teams (lured by dummy convoys) with ground forces and close air-support.

-Setup smaller bases (Batallion strength) strategically in the regions surrounding Mazari Sharif all along the Northern and North-Eastern borders.  These should be provisioned for sustained engagements against a well armed enemy and serve as the base of operations for hundreds of Squads that would patrol the areas between the bases, the Pakistan border, and along the main supply routes.

-Reduce the primary use of UAVs to reconnaissance platforms. UAV strikes should be limited to close air-support for ground forces.

Strategic objective #2 – Frequent and productive face-to-face contact with individual clans/villages to win and build trust.

-Supplement miltary base food supplies with food purchased locally at market prices

-Teach building techniques and assist with the construction of appropriate shelter (especially for the monsoon and Winter seasons) with indigeneous materials.

Strategic objective #3 – Create an environment where trans-national and non-governmental organizations can work safely with the native population to build social and physical infrastructure enabling

-Access to medical-aid

-Construction of schools

-Massive literacy effort

-Build industrial infrastructure

Creating this environment across all of Afghanistan would require a commitment of resources that the U.S. should not be under taking at this time.  Creating a region where business flourishes and citizens prosper, however, would be a great incentive for the Afghans to take on the defense of their newfound prosperity against the re-emergence of fundamentalist extremism and one that other regions of the country could look to for guidance in governance and rebuilding.

Rules of the Game…

From Federalist No. 1 – First published in the Independent Journal on October 27, 1787 in support of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution as drafted in the Continental Congress of 1787

“And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” -PUBLIUS

 

Two hundred twenty-two years later, and this warning still applies to public debate in the United States today.

 

More to come…