Lean Years January 29, 2010March 16, 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE I never attended the opening of a highway before, and technically, this one opened Wednesday, so if there was a ceremony, I missed it. But it now takes just two and a half hours to drive from the San Jose, Costa Rica, airport all the way to Paradise Breezes.* I am watching the sun set into the Pacific as I type. The bridges are no longer scary or one-way – they are brand new. The highway has red and yellow reflectors. The free broadband at PB seems to be working fine (if you’re reading this, something must be working); and – oops, there goes the sun. * Full disclosure: I own a piece. JEREMY GRANTHAM: SEVEN LEAN YEARS Well, he’s horrifyingly smart and generally right (and writes so engagingly). If you want a first-class financial overview and predictions for the years ahead, don’t miss a word. STATE OF ThE UNION: REAGAN’S FIRST Peter Kaczowka: “As to Obama blaming the previous administration for our woes, let’s see what REAGAN said in his first State of the Union. The speech is a study in whining and kvetching: ‘In my inaugural address last year, I warned that the “ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks or months.” ’ … ‘Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that is only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe. They are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, spend and spend.’ … ‘The situation at this time last year was truly ominous.’ … ‘The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion dollar debt.’ [Reagan fixed that, it was $2.6T when he left office].” STATE OF THE UNION: OBAMA’S FIRST Did you watch? If not, balance your laptop on the handle bars of your treadmill and click here. Everyone (I repeat) will see it through his own eyes. To mine, it was filled with grace, good will, intelligence, quiet determination, and hope for the future.
Good Will and Intelligence January 28, 2010March 16, 2017 STATE OF THE UNION Did you watch? If not, you can now. Everyone will see it through his own eyes. To mine, it was filled with grace, good will, intelligence, quiet determination, and hope for the future. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO FIX OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM One of the areas the President addressed was the need to reform our financial system. He might not agree with everything in this analysis from John Hussman, but most of it is spot on. THE REPUBLICAN RESPONSE “All Americans – unless they are gay – should have the opportunity to find and keep meaningful work, and the dignity that comes with it,” intoned the newly elected Governor of Virginia, offering the official Republican response. Well, okay, he did not literally add “unless they are gay,” but Republicans vote overwhelmingly against extending employment nondiscrimination laws to cover LGBT Americans, which amounts to much the same thing; and John McCain issued an immediate statement disagreeing with the President’s call for lifting the ban on our “finding and keeping meaningful work, and the dignity that comes with it,” in the military. Speaking of which . . . GENERAL SHALIKASHVILI Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when “don’t ask/don’t tell” was enacted, he yesterday issued this statement: Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts about the Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces. When I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my support of the current policy was based on my belief that implementing a change in the rules would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders at the time. The concern among many at that time, was that letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was seen as a useful measure that allowed time to pass while our culture continued to evolve. The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. I believe that it has. Recently, Army Secretary John McHugh said that “The Army has a big history of taking on similar issues [with]…predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out.” His conclusion echoes substantial scholarly and official military research which finds that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would not jeopardize readiness. Studies have shown that three-quarters of service members say they are personally comfortable around gays and lesbians. Two-thirds say they already know or suspect gay people in their units. This raises important questions about the assertion that openly gay service would impair the military. In fact, it shows that gays and lesbians in the military have already been accepted by the average soldier. Additionally, at least twenty-five foreign militaries now let gays serve openly, including our closest ally, Britain. Although we lead rather than follow these militaries, there is no evidence suggesting that our troops cannot effectively carry out the same policy change as those nations did. In 2008, a bi-partisan panel of retired General and Flag officers carefully reviewed this matter for a year and concluded that repeal would not pose a risk to the military’s high standards of morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment, or retention. Interestingly, an increasing number of active-duty officers who have reviewed “don’t ask, don’t tell” indicate that the policy, not the presence of gays, is detrimental to the armed forces’ need for skilled personnel who are able to serve without compromising their integrity and, by extension, that of the armed forces as a whole. As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military. It is time to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow our military leaders to create policy that holds our service members to a single standard of conduct and discipline. ☞ The gay thing was only half a minute in a 71-minute speech, which was a reasonable ratio when you consider the enormity of the other challenges we face. Do try to find time to watch the speech if you haven’t already.
Semi-Circle, Semi-Conscious, Semi-Literate Semi-Annual, Semi-Precious, Semi-Serious, Quasi-Modo . . . January 27, 2010March 16, 2017 ENGLISH Shouldn’t it be the Western semisphere? The Southern semisphere? Think about it. HEALTH CARE Dave N.: “Nicoletta’s dilemma was heartbreaking. Almost all of us have or will have ‘preexisting conditions.’ I have had skin cancers and my wife has leaky heart valves and small foramen (causing pinched nerves). Luckily for us we have health insurance through her former employer. However, I can relate this anecdote. We were in New Zealand in 2003, I think it was, and she developed bronchitis (another of her chronic problems, she has it right now, in fact!). Not only did the clinic treat her for free, even though we were just tourists, but the medication they gave her (unavailable in the US even now) was the best she ever has had for the condition before or since. She was back on her feet in a day. We even tried to pay, but there was no mechanism for us to do so! Although I think that the current healthcare bills are deeply flawed, and the political process is even worse, I think something needs to be done. The current system is a disaster for many people, and ‘merely’ a pain and/or painful for the rest of us. You will love this quote by Bill Gates: ‘Governments will always play a huge part in solving big problems. They set public policy and are uniquely able to provide the resources to make sure solutions reach everyone who needs them. Markets don’t serve the poor in some important sectors, like health, because the poor can’t afford to pay.’” TALL POLITICS Craig Daniger: “I voted for Bush – twice. I know the Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. The lawyer in New Zealand has too much time on his hands. And the taller candidate theory is garbage. Roosevelt won 4 times in a wheelchair.” ☞ Well, then, that’s that. But for what it’s worth . . . Roosevelt was 6’2” and didn’t campaign in a wheel chair; and my point, in any event, was more general. I guess I should have said “the more attractive candidate” or “the more likable candidate” instead of “the taller candidate.” Still – being annoyingly argumentative – I note that the taller candidate apparently does more often win: 27 to 18. (I’ve adjusted for Gore, who won the popular vote. I’m not suggesting that Scalia, Thomas, et al, base their votes on height.) David Morrison.: “You write: ‘I’m angry that Wyoming’s half a million residents have as many Senators as California’s 36 million – what idiot came up with that?’ It was James Madison, actually.” ☞ Our shortest president, by far. SOTU It’s 9pm Eastern time on all the major networks. Be there or be square.
Propaganda Works – And So Does the Italian Health Care System January 26, 2010March 16, 2017 Mike Koltak: “Propaganda works better than you think. The major reason ‘America’ and especially ‘Middle Class America’ is opposing health care (and many other issues), is that the Republicans have a better marketing department than the Democrats.” ☞ Mike is referring to last week’s Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to, essentially, buy the House and Senate even more than they already do, and he offers this fascinating article from USA Today on how effective advertising really is. In short part: [P]sychologists have shown that people respond far more readily to propaganda, otherwise known as advertising, than they are willing to believe: • Just giving medical students pens with a drug’s name on them made the students significantly more favorably disposed toward the medication than otherwise, despite their immersion in classes aimed at letting them rationally evaluate drug benefits, found a 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine report. • Remember shaking hands with Bugs Bunny at Disneyland? Roughly a third of people presented with a fake ad depicting a visit to Disneyland that featured a handshake with Bugs later remembered or knew the meet up with the ‘wascally wabbit’ had happened to them, according to a 2001 University of Washington study. Even though Bugs is owned by Warner Brothers and verboten at a Disney facility, so it couldn’t have happened. • In a famous 1951 experiment led by Swarthmore’s Solomon Asch, 76% of people conformed at least once to what they heard other people arguing was the correct length of a line on a scale right in front of their face, even though it was plainly wrong. The people arguing for the incorrect measurement were all plants, but overall, 33% of participants went along with the group, even though they were spouting nonsense. A follow-up study in a 1955 Journal of Abnormal Psychology report found even under anonymous conditions, about 23% of people preferred to believe what people were saying about the line rather than the evidence in front of their own eyes. “If you are inclined to believe that people do all their thinking rationally, then you might accept that more information is better, and that eventually the good information will drive out the bad,” says journalist Shankar Vedantam, author of the just-released The Hidden Brain: How Our Unconscious Minds Elect Presidents, Control Markets, Wage Wars, and Save Our Lives. “Unfortunately, there is a small warehouse full of research showing it is an error to believe we live according to reason. Rather we make decisions with our unconscious.” ☞ Which brings me back to my earlier assertion, that “the taller candidate usually wins,” which some of you found offensive but was my shorthand for: the electoral decision process is not entirely rational or well informed. E.g., 70% of Bush voters – including Sarah Palin, we learn from Game Change – believed Iraq attacked us on 9/11. THOUGHTS FROM MILAN: HEALTH CARE Nicoletta: “I am an American who lives in Milan. I came here 10 years ago to work as an independent contractor in IT for banks. Over the last few years I have developed metastatic breast cancer and have been treated by the excellent Italian health system, rated the second best in the world. It is a big LIE what some say that the European (and Canadian) health systems are second rate. I have gone thru two surgeries (one very complex brain surgery), chemotherapy, radiation surgery, a complex set of tests every three months, all with the most up to date technology and excellent doctors. The system isn’t perfect, higher taxes (of course), and a bit more bureaucracy, but it is worth it. Never was I asked to pay a penny out of my pocket and I’ve always been made to feel that I, the patient, comes first. The system is very compassionate and humane. I’m feeling fine now and have been cancer free for an entire year. Now here’s the thing. For the last few years I have really wanted to return to my home town of Chicago, my parents are aging, I have a chronic disease and really want to be with family, and I want my son to grow up in America. But, I CANNOT GET HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE I HAVE A PREEXISTING CONDITION. The only way is to give up my small business and become an employee of some company, something I don’t want to do. So even though I can afford to buy my own insurance, I just remain in Italy and wait for the system to improve. I love my country and really believe that we can do better! We need universal health care! We really need to make this clear to everyone that will listen. Shout from the rooftops. We need universal health care! We need universal health care! We need universal health care!” THOUGHTS FROM DOWN UNDER: DONE IN Miles Jaffe, Harvard College, Yale Law School, is a retired attorney who winters with his wife in New Zealand. Lots of sheep, little to do but think. And here is what he thinks: THE REPUBLICAN HEIST By Miles Jaffe I, like millions of others, watched the eight years of GWB government, appalled by its errant policies, incompetence and greed, but, I confess, I entirely misunderstood the plot. This was not the gang that couldn’t shoot straight; this was the most highly competent group of bank robbers since the Lavender Hill Mob. They not only robbed the bank. They changed the bank so that even under new management, it would not detect future heists. Moreover, the bank would not have the ability to redesign its security, nor to undo changes that make future heists themselves a part of the bank’s business itself. The Bush Administration succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. While leaving the opposition in control, it created “favorable” economic and political circumstances that even its most clever architect, Karl Rove, could not have intended. I, of course, am aware of the “starve the beast” theory that holds that Republicans have run up huge deficits intentionally to make “Liberal” domestic programs “irresponsible.” This is only a tiny fraction of the scheme. I owed this revelation to Thomas Frank and the publication of his recent book: The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule. The mass firing of federal prosecutors, the placement of industry insiders in posts that regulate those industries, “the pallets of shrink-wrapped cash ‘misplaced’ in Iraq,” the outsourcing of traditional government work to private contractors and the broad practice of awarding contracts without bids, are the products not of incompetence but of deliberate, core conservative policies. This was not the “flood of mismanagement as part of a culture of corruption” as Democrats might have it, nor was it the product of a “few bad apples,” as Republicans might suggest. “This spectacular episode of misrule has coincided with both the political triumph of conservatism and the rise of the Washington area to the richest rank of American metropolises.” The Bush Administration not only rewarded its buddies with policies favoring oil, with no-bid contracts to its friends: it created a fiscal situation that makes private outsourcing a necessity in the future. The bank is open for business and the large corporations will be first in line using their strong elbows to prevent major competition. As almost a sidelight, Frank points to an ironic aspect of the scheme: not only have the conservatives devised ways to reward their corporate supporters. They have developed a political process in which the participants (talking heads, news outlets, lobbyists) themselves become rich. Conservatives, formerly bored by or indifferent to politics and to life in Washington, can now participate in politics as entrepreneurs! Politics has become like oil: a fecund soil for profitable businesses. (See Fox News) Thus conservatives are drawn to Washington to influence government while in and out of power, making Washington, as Frank notes, America’s richest city. Frank concludes: “The ruination they have wrought has been thorough; it has been a professional job. Repairing it will require years of political action.” Even the Iraq war has done yeoman service in keeping the bank open for future corporate plundering and government incapacity. It has increased the power and importance of the military but more importantly, right out of Orwellian fantasy, it has created conditions for the “Long War” to which Republicans are so devoted. It has established in practice the Orwellian ideal of a war that has no ending and can never be evaluated. And who benefits from an endless war? And what institution is crippled by its continuance? Then one might talk about the closure rules in the United States Senate where we now have learned that states with 11 percent of the population can control 41 votes to prevent any significant policy change. And perhaps the final nail, the ultimate product of the Bush Administration: The Supreme Court five member majority in last week’s ruling in Citizens United has invalidated restrictions on corporate political speech. The Chief Justice has given up all claims to taking a narrow approach to matters coming before the court. Under his leadership, the Court has stretched its reach to throw out 100 years—if not 200 years—of distinguishing between human and corporate political speech. Even Karl Rove did not dream of this, I presume. So the conservatives have taken the money and left the bank, leaving the bank both destitute and encumbered with endless, unchangeable obligations. And upon looking back at the bank, these same conservatives are venting their feigned anger at the inability of new management to rebuild the structure, not even acknowledging their role in its incapacity. And the final irony: the other bank customers are angry at new management and apparently oblivious to the existence of a heist. Some of us might ask, with reference to Frank’s earlier book, What’s the Matter with Kansas, what’s the matter with America?
Game Change; Get Tough; Sign a Petition Chemoembolization January 25, 2010March 16, 2017 GAME CHANGE UN. BE. LEAVE-ABLE. Wait until you read this book. To think John Edwards got as far as he did. Appalling. And there’s plenty in the book about everybody else. On so many pages, you are watching the events we all saw from our side of the TV screen, only now you’re seeing them from the inside. I don’t think there’s much risk of your putting down Game Change once you start reading. But don’t, because near the end you get to the parts on Senator McCain and Governor Palin. I think even if you voted for them – and it’s worth noting that nearly 60 million people did – you may feel more than a little relieved they did not win. Take the financial meltdown. Remember? When Senator McCain temporarily suspended his campaign to come to Washington to assert his leadership? This was not some silliness about Obama’s not wearing a lapel pin or McCain’s shouting obscenities at his wife – this was a true crisis that came close to wrecking our world. The authors recount those events from the inside and then (page 393) offer the perspective of one of the insiders: Jim Wilkinson, a long-time Republican operative, served as [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson’s chief of staff during the crisis, and his impression of the candidates could hardly have been clearer. ‘I’m a pro-life, pro-gun, Texas Republican,’ said Wilkinson. ‘I worked all eight years for Bush. I helped sell the Iraq war. I was in the Florida recount. And I wrote a letter to John McCain asking for my five hundred dollar contribution back . . .’ To his amazement, Wilkinson determined that he would be voting for Obama. FRANK RICH: TIME TO GET TOUGH Really. ALAN GRAYSON: HAS A PETITION ‘The same five judges today who have overturned 103 years of settled law and relied upon no precedent to do so,’ says the Florida Congressman – ‘these are the same judges who gave us George Bush for eight years. They have their own agenda and it`s time we stopped pretending otherwise. The Supreme Court has become utterly politicized and the result of that is what you see here today. … Today, the court, in effect, decided only corporations have constitutional rights. This will lead to a drowning flood of money from corporations in exchange for favors. And it basically institutionalizes and legalizes bribery on the largest scale imaginable. Corporations will now be able to reward the politicians that play ball with them and will be able – they will be able to beat to death the politicians that don`t.” Read more; sign his petition? DCTH So Thursday, I suggested this as a possible third egg for our speculative little drug stock basket. It had closed the night before at $5.37. Friday, it dropped to $4.61. “I think DCTH was down Friday,” guru offers, “because ONXX’s Nexavar showed no statistical benefit in a 400-patient trial when given with or without chemoembolization of the liver in liver cancer. Chemoembolization is a kind of precursor to DCTH’s procedure – it adds high dose chemo plus a chemical to block the artery so the chemo is forced through the tumor. However, eventually the chemo ends up exiting the liver via a vein. Thus, there is a limit to how much chemo you can give with this procedure. The DCTH method can deliver 20 to 50 times higher doses of chemo than can chemoembolization. It’s really amazing. Chemoembolization shows some shrinkage of the tumor in 20%-40% of patients with melanoma metastatic to the liver. DCTH shows 20% complete disappearance and 60% partial shrinkage – a MUCH more dramatic result. The data are due out in April and I feel as confident as one can be at this stage that they will show the success that ONXX did not.” ☞ But one never knows, so – as usual – bet no more on this than you can truly afford to lose without recrimination. I can live with their canceling Dirty, Sexy Money. I can live (barely) with paying $1.50 for a hotel newsstand pack of Dentyne Ice if I’ve forgotten to take one of my 90-cent packs from home. But your recriminations? Tomorrow: More reason to get tough.
Oh, That Supreme Court January 22, 2010March 16, 2017 But first . . . Yesterday I suggested that our country had actually made a lot of progress – albeit not as much as many of us would have liked – and promised to elaborate today. For all our enormous challenges, there is a lot to be encouraged about and a lot to be proud of: 1. America’s standing in the world has been restored. Most of the world now once again respects our leadership, is now once again rooting for us. That takes only a few words to say, but is a huge change to believe in. 2. Our stewardship of the environment – and thus the future habitability of our planet – has taken a sharp turn for the better. As noted here a few days ago, the Natural Resources Defense Council begins its just-released 6-page report card: ‘The Administration has done more in its first few months to protect our air, water and communities than we’ve seen in the last decade.‘ 3. An educational ‘race to the top’ has begun. ‘Stunning,’ writes the tough-minded Democrats for Education Reform. ‘We don’t know how else to put it. . . . . What is stunning is the tremendous wave of edu-political reform which has been unleashed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan and the Obama administration in such a short time. The president was swept into office by a strong demand for change. But who would have guessed that in less than one year we would be looking at such significant coast-to-coast policy changes at the state level.’ 4. Our Energy Secretary is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who is seeding innovation at an unprecedented pace. President Bush’s first choice for this post had, as a Senator, co-sponsored a bill to abolish the Department of Energy. 5. We are on the brink of historic health insurance reform that, as argued in The New Yorker‘s lead piece I linked to recently, is much better than most of us realize: Jonathan Cohn, the New Republic‘s health-care correspondent, calls the bill ‘the most ambitious piece of domestic legislation in a generation-a bill that will extend insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans, strengthen insurance for many more, and start refashioning American medicine so that it is more efficient.’ Paul Krugman calls it ‘a great achievement.’ Princeton’s Paul Starr, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning history ‘The Social Transformation of American Medicine,’ calls it ‘the single biggest measure on behalf of low-income Americans in more than forty years.’ All acknowledge it’s not even close to ideal – largely because the other side would never dream of allowing the sort of single-payer system (with uniquely American overlays) that so many experts agree would give us the most bang for the buck. And maybe now the Republicans will keep it from happening at all, as they have tried to thwart so much other progressive legislation, decade after decade . . . from Social Security to Medicare to the minimum wage . . . from health coverage for kids to closing the gun show loophole to extending hate crimes protections to gay victims . . . from tobacco regulation to the Family and Medical Leave Act to the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. And on and on. But I still think we’ll get health care done, and that, once the public sees what it is, it will get higher marks. And that once the progress has begun, the Obama team will build on it through enlightened administration and additional legislation. 6. And there’s so much more – from lifting the ‘global gag order’ and passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act . . . to restoring science to its rightful place and accelerating the stem cell research rather than impeding it (that change alone could one day save your life or free your child from paralysis or spare your parent from Parkinson’s) . . . to a long list of steps toward LGBT equality . . . to reforming predatory credit card practices . . . to giving the FDA authority to regulate the tobacco industry . . . to appointing a progressive Supreme Court Justice . . . to averting a Depression. (Surely that last is worth a mention. Clinton handed Bush ‘surpluses as far as they eye could see.’ Bush handed Obama a cataclysm.) With so much NOT yet done, and progress so maddeningly difficult, it’s easy to take a lot of this for granted or focus exclusively on the negative. But I would urge you not to. On the matter of the Court alone, it’s easy to forget that, had so many of you not dug so deep and worked so hard in 2008 to elect this team, we would have been sunk for a generation. John McCain made his intentions clear, and they left zero wiggle room: ‘I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail,’ Senator McCain told one audience, ‘that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible].’ Justice Stevens, who turns 90 this April, might well have been replaced by a 50-year-old hard-right Republican; not to mention the one or two other progressive votes President McCain might have had the opportunity to flip. Many of you kept that from happening. You elected a leader of world-class talent, vision, commitment, judgment and temperament – whose popularity remains high for good reason. Now – in a terribly difficult environment – he needs our continued help making the most possible progress toward the goals most of us share.* *In case you want to pitch in, and so long as you’re a U.S. citizen (and not a Federal lobbyist), click here. Through the magic of modern technology, I’ll see within minutes that you’ve helped and rush to say thanks. AND SPEAKING OF THE SUPREME COURT Here is one take on the Court’s 5-4 decision yesterday: Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections By Greg Palast | Updated from the original report for AlterNet Thursday, January 21, 2010 In today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as “natural persons”, i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President. The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that’s already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and “bundling” of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers. The Court’s decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates. I’m losing sleep over the millions – or billions – of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation’s U.S. unit; or from the maker of “New Order” fashions, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation. Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC’s federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA. But under today’s Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias. Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding. Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court’s new rules, progressive list serves won’t stand a chance against the resources of new “citizens” such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by “street names.” George Bush’s former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued the case to the court on behalf of Citizens United, a corporate front that funded an attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson’s wife died on September 11, 2001 on the hijacked airliner that hit the Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I contacted Olson’s office to ask how much “Al Qaeda, Inc.” should be allowed to donate to support the election of his local congressman. Olson has not responded. The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to “mega-corporations” owned by foreign governments. Olson offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea. Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles. Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums through each of these “unnatural” creatures. And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy. In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama’s visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama’s health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha! The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, “Who are these guys?” We’ll never know. Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision in Citizens United. We’ve been there. The 1994 election brought Newt Gingrich to power in a GOP takeover of the Congress funded by a very strange source. Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing races, Democrats had fallen victim to a flood of last-minute attack ads funded by a group called, “Coalition for Our Children’s Future.” The $25 million that paid for those ads came, not from concerned parents, but from a corporation called “Triad Inc.” Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the ultra-right-wing billionaire Koch Brothers and their private petroleum company, Koch Industries. Had the corporate connection been proven, the Kochs and their corporation could have faced indictment under federal election law. As of today, such money-poisoned politicking has become legit. So it’s not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns while hidden behind corporate veils. And if so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs. ********* Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.” Palast investigated Triad Inc. for The Guardian (UK). View Palast’s reports for BBC TV and Democracy Now! at gregpalast.com. ☞ And here is a more mainstream take on the decision – namely, a statement by the President: ‘With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington – while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.’ THE CASE OF ‘PERFECT V. GOOD’ I would not be my annoying self if I did not blame my friend Ralph Nader for all this. Had he not insisted on perfection (himself) – had he been willing to accept compromise as is so often required in the real world, settling for the merely good (Gore)* – the country would have been better off in so many ways I must physically restrain myself to keep from listing them all, and limit myself to just this one: instead of Roberts and Alito we would have had moderate, progressive Justices, and virtually all the 5-4 cases against us, like the one above, would be 6-3 cases in the other direction. So let’s not Nader ourselves again, allowing our frustration over the need to get 60 votes for much of what we want to lead us to give up or drop out or demoralize each other. The way to help make things better IS to help. Sign up as an OFA volunteer, and/or pitch in to my little footnote above, and/or simply spread the word: the glass is half full. We need to keep filling it. *I think Gore is way, way more than merely ‘good,’ but I’m trying to channel Nader’s mindset here, or the mindset of the 97,488 Florida voters who apparently thought Nader was better. MORE TALL POLITICS . . . I recognize a lot of you are coming from an entire different place. I think it’s terrific that you take the time, nonetheless, to consider an alternate point of view. Thanks for the continued feedback, some of which I hope to post next week.
Tall Politicians January 21, 2010March 16, 2017 PHARMA BASKET If you did take a flier with the basket of three speculative stocks suggested here . . . DEPO, DYAX, INCY . . . and if you did take some or all your profit in INCY as suggested most recently here . . . then guru suggests you might want to replace it with a new third egg (or, leg, if your basket is stool-shaped): DCTH ($5.37 yesterday). As always, only with money you can truly afford to lose. TALL POLITICIANS John Cutrer: ‘He won because he’s handsome and taller? Are you serious? You may not think this election was about Obama’s massive expansion of the government’s role in our lives, but consider that Massachusetts overwhelmingly votes Democrat and, moreover, this was the hallowed Kennedy seat. And you still think Brown won because he was tall and handsome? I have to think if your argument is true that the Republicans would have seized on the idea of running tall candidates years ago, the Democrats would have responded, and we would all be governed by basketball players now.’ ☞ Finally, electeds we could look up to. But c’mon. Without discounting the anger out there (I’ll get to that), let’s turn it around. Imagine Brown had been aloof, had chosen not to stand outside factories on cold mornings shaking hands, had taken a week’s vacation shortly before the election, had not known who the Red Sox stars were – and that Coakley had done all the retail politics stuff with warmth and humor and passion. Would Brown still have done so well? My guess is: no. I didn’t say non-policy factors like these were the only reason he won; I just suggested they might have been part of it – as I think they surely were. Certainly, lots of people voted for Brown for the reasons you cite. But quite a few traditional Dems stayed home because they’re frustrated and angry the President hasn’t pushed for more government involvement – e.g., single-payer health care or ‘the public option’ or ‘Medicare for all’ – not because they wanted him to shoot for less. Katya: ‘I’ve been voting almost exclusively Democratic since I’ve been eligible to vote and I find your remarks extremely inappropriate and degrading to the whole voting/democracy process. Coakley’s loss (and it was her loss, not Brown’s win) was about the inability of Democrats to govern despite having majorities in both chambers and the presidency. The Democrats must learn to govern more effectively and they must rethink their approach to healthcare, including not only broader coverage, but tackling the hard issues like interstate competition, tort reform, removing the sponsorship of employer-based coverage, etc. Yes, this would go against their lobbyists, but that is the only right thing to do.’ ☞ I agree with a lot of this, including the need for some reasonable tort reform; but would note, first, that neither Obama nor the DNC accepts a dime from federal lobbyists – McCain did and the RNC does. It would be great if Congress, too, removed federal lobbyist money from the process. But while it’s there, it’s there, which adds to the difficulty of getting good legislation passed on its merits. So the irony is – second – that electing Martha Coakley would have made it easier for the President to govern effectively, while electing Brown has made it harder. This is particularly true because the Republican goal appears to be Democratic Waterloo. I’m angry, too, but not at the Obama Administration. I’m angry that Wyoming’s half a million residents have as many Senators as California’s 36 million – what idiot came up with that? I’m angry that the opposition party has shattered all records for use of the filibuster, basically requiring 60 votes for anything; and that it would take 67 votes to change that rule – but I don’t blame Obama for that. I’m angry that gerrymandering has so polarized the House of Representatives; and that decades of right-wing talk radio has so polarized and demagogued a large portion of the electorate. I’m angry George W. Bush turned ‘budget surpluses as far as the eye could see’ into the largest budget deficits the world has ever known – by far – having won office by promising a tax cut ‘the vast majority of which’ he knew would go to people at the top yet claimed would go to ‘people at the bottom’ … and by advocating ‘a humble foreign policy’ knowing all the while he would be looking for an excuse to take us to war with Iraq. (Just ten days into his presidency, and long before 9/11, Iraq was the only topic on the agenda of his very first National Security Council meeting.) I’m angry that the Secretary of the Treasury in 1974, in the wake of OPEC, looked me in the eye and told me that, yes, ‘everybody knows’ we should be phasing in an annual hike in gasoline taxes (using that revenue to lower income taxes) – a policy that by now would have made all the difference in the world – but that we couldn’t do it because, he said, any talk of raising taxes would be political suicide. (Imagine: at 10 cents a gallon added each of the last 35 years, gasoline would now cost here about half what it does in Europe; yet in the meantime we would have cut our income tax rates to reward work and investment even as we would have dramatically increased our fuel efficiency . . . which in turn would have reduced our dependence on foreign oil, reduced our balance of trade deficit, strengthened the dollar, made our families more prosperous, our environment less burdened, our auto industry thrive.) I’m angry that tens of millions of voters can be misled into thinking it was Iraq that attacked us on 9/11. I’m angry that Charles and I are denied equal rights. I’m angry that we weren’t tougher or smarter during 2000’s Florida Recount and that rightwing Justices molded their opinion to their politics. I’m angry that regulation was not brought to bear on ‘liar’s loans’ or derivatives and that Wall Street was given leave to operate at leverage ratios of 30 to 1. And don’t even get me started on how angry I am at Joe Lieberman. But the point is, the Obama Administration inherited all this. And the opposition – which cheers when we lose our bid for the Olympics – wants to see him fail. So to my friends who are angry that we haven’t made as much progress in this first year as we had hoped – although we have actually made a lot (see tomorrow’s column) – I say: keep the faith. Now is the time to redouble our support of the Administration, because the stronger its hand, the more completely it will be able to achieve the goals we all share. And to my friends who think the anger abroad in the land means that we should do less rather than more, I respectfully suggest that this anger is rooted not so much in any specific economic analysis as in: the devastation of job loss; justified alarm over the economic hole we’re in; and the difficulty of having to make do on wages that shrank in real terms throughout the Bush years even as multi-millionaires saw giant annual bonuses and giant tax cuts. So to them I say: try to find some faith. The President and his team get it. And it is the Democratic Party – which gave us Social Security and Medicare and the minimum wage and Americorps and the GI Bill and the Family and Medical Leave Act and worker safety regulation and the S.E.C. and the F.D.I.C., almost all of which the G.O.P. opposed – that truly looks out for ‘Joe the Plumber,’ even to the occasional discomfiture of the moneyed elite. Have we done enough? No. Is one of the reasons for this that the opposition has done all it can to keep us from doing enough? Yes. Filibuster after filibuster after filibuster. Steve S.: ‘I just want to share my perspective on the Scott Brown victory. In a word, fairness. Our team has not aggressively asserted and convinced the nation that our President’s agenda is about restoring fairness in the economic and social welfare of the nation. Main Street believes nothing has changed. Bankers are back at it, government jobs won out over private sector job creation through the stimulus bill, etc. (A second stimulus bill is needed for private sector job creation exclusively focused on education, technology investment, and infrastructure.) President Obama and our Democrats have already delivered on equal pay for women, but you would never know it happened. The essence of health care is about fairness (elimination of precondition exclusion, cost control, etc.). Unfair credit card practices have been outlawed starting next month. I could go on. We just need to get out in front setting the tone of the debate. Main Street needs to see and feel our passion for fairness. I continue to believe in what we are trying to do and you can count on me for my continued support.’
A Year After Inauguration January 20, 2010March 16, 2017 David H.: “If Martha Coakley loses, it will be because Obama and her fellow Democrats lost if for her. Thanks to the bank bailout, the healthcare give-away to the insurance and pharma companies, the escalation in the middle east, etc., it appears that the democrats are managing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!” ☞ Could it have anything to do also with her not knowing who Curt Schilling is or with her opponent’s good looks? I would like to believe the electorate thinks mostly about policy issues and integrity; yet if that’s the case, why does the taller candidate usually win? As to the rest, and the frustration many of us feel at the pace of progress (frustration shared, I feel certain, by the President himself), consider the following that’s making the rounds of the Internet, compiled by (the rather prolific) Professor Robert P. Watson: THE OBAMA RECORD (January 20, 2009 – December 31, 2009) Robert P. Watson, Ph.D. Lynn University There is a lot of misinformation circulating on talk radio, at town hall meetings, in the blogosphere, and around office water coolers about President Obama not accomplishing anything in his first year in office. It is time to set the record straight with a list of Obama’s initiatives for 2009. Ethics • Ordered the White House and all federal agencies to respect the Freedom of Information Act; Bush era limits on accessibility of federal documents have been overturned • Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible • Placed limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House • Placed limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration • Signed a measure strengthening registration and reporting requirements for lobbyists • Ordered that lobbyists must be removed from and are no longer permitted to serve on federal and White House advisory panels Governance • Held many more press conferences and provided the media with far more access than his predecessor • Held more “town hall” events to inform and engage the public than previous administrations • The White House website now provides information on all economic stimulus projects and spending, along with an unprecedented amount of information on our government • Ended the Bush era practice of circumventing established FDA rules for political reasons • Ended the Bush era practice of having White House staff rewrite the findings of scientific and environmental regulations and reports when they disagreed with the results • The Obamas did not use the $100,000 authorized (to all First Families) for the refurbishment and redecoration of the White House’s private living quarters; they paid for it out of their own pockets • The Obamas reused Christmas ornaments from previous White House trees rather than buy new ones • Limited the salaries of senior White House aides (salaries cut to $100,000) • Urging Congress to return to the pre-Bush practice of “Pay-Go” (whereby each dollar of spending is offset by a dollar in cuts or in revenues) National Security • Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane (which wasn’t even used in Iraq/Afghanistan) and other outdated weapons systems • Closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay • Attempting to house terrorists at a new federal “super max” facility in the US • Cut the expensive missile defense program, saving $1.4 billion in 2010 • Cancelled plans to station anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic • Replacing long-range, expensive missile systems with more efficient smaller systems • Increased US Navy patrols off the Somali coast in response to pirating • Established a new cyber security office and appointed a cyber security czar • Ordered the first nation-wide comprehensive cyber threat assessment Iraq & Afghanistan • Began the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq • Authorized the use of more unmanned warplanes/drones (Predator, Reaper, etc.) in Iraq/Afghanistan • Authorized the deployment of 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, which had been pending for months during the previous administration [March 2009] • Changed the US military command in the Afghan conflict • Tasked the Pentagon to reorganized US policy in Afghanistan; 30,000 additional troops are being deployed, the US is prioritizing the training of Afghan forces and civil government while developing agriculture and infrastructure, aerial bombing has been limited, etc. • Ordered the Pentagon to send additional helicopters to assist marines and special forces in Afghanistan • Increased special forces searches for, and unmanned drone strikes on, Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan • Ended the Bush era “stop-loss” policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date Military & Veterans • Ordered that families of fallen soldiers can have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives back in the US • Ended the Bush era “blackout” imposed on media coverage of the return of fallen US soldiers; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier’s family • Ended the Bush era “black out” policy on media coverage of war casualties – full information is now released • Ordered better body armor to be procured for US troops • Funding new Mine Resistant Ambush Vehicles (needed because of susceptibility of hummers to roadside explosives) • Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel • Improving housing for military personnel • Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses • Ordered that conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other neglected military hospitals be improved • Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military (initiated by Bush but abandoned after the war in Iraq began) 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force… this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc. • Ended the Bush era practice of awarding no-bid defense contracts • Improving benefits for veterans as well as VA staffing, information systems, etc. • Authorized construction for additional health centers to care for veterans • Suspended the Bush-era decision to purchase an expensive fleet of Marine One (helicopters) from foreign sources • Ordered a review of the existing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military Foreign Policy & International Relations • Closed the Bush era “secret detention” facilities in Eastern Europe • Ended the Bush era policy allowing “enhanced interrogation” (torture) and the US is in compliance with Geneva Convention standards • Restarted international nuclear non-proliferation talks (Bush withdrew from them) and reestablished international nuclear inspection protocols • Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic • Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions suspended under Bush • Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office • Banned the export of cluster bombs • Overturned Bush era plans to increase the US nuclear arsenal • Authorized the Navy SEALS operation that freed by force the US shipping captain held by Somali pirates • Restored the US commitment to the UN population fund for family planning that was suspended during the Bush era • Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return “home” to visit loved ones • Extended an offer of engagement (free from sanctions and penalties) to Iran through December 31, 2009 (Iran did not accept the offer) • Sent envoys to the Middle East and other parts of the world, reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy • Authorized discussions with North Korea and the private mission by former president, Bill Clinton, to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons • Authorized discussions with Myanmar and the mission by Senator Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive • Renewed loan guarantees for Israel • Signed the USIFTA trade agreement with/for Israel • Authorized a $550m advance for Israel (six months prior to the scheduled date) in order to accommodate Israeli’s economic and financial needs • Continued agreements with Israel for cultural exchanges, immigration, etc. • Spoke on Arab television, spoke at an Egyptian university, and met with Arab leaders in an effort to change the tone of US-Arab relations • Ordered the US to finally pay its dues to the United Nations Economy • Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants…) years of neglect during the Bush era • Authorized the US Auto industry rescue plan and two GMAC rescue packages • Authorized the housing rescue plan and new FHA residential housing guarantees • Authorized a $789 billion economic stimulus plan • Instituted a new rule allowing the public to meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (in as quickly as one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying • Authorized a continuation of the US financial and banking rescue plans initiated at the end of the Bush administration and authorized TARP funds to buy “toxic assets” from failing financial institutions • Signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which provides small tax cuts for 95% of “working families” • Authorized the “Cash for Clunkers” program that helped stimulate auto sales (with the related environmental/energy benefit of getting old, inefficient, polluting cars off the road) • Ordered the closing of offshore tax safe havens (for individual and business tax evaders) • Convened a “jobs summit” to bring experts together to develop ideas for creating jobs • Negotiated a deal with Swiss banks to permit the US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals • Ordered the FDIC to beef up deposit insurance • Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy uses the savings to promote in-sourcing investments to bring jobs back to the US • Convened an advisory board that is looking into simplifying the tax code • Ended the Bush era policy of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from the credit card industry’s predatory practices • Authorized the federal government to make more loans available to small businesses and ordered lower rates for federal loans to small businesses • After former presidents of both parties refused such action (George W. Bush refused four times), Obama placed a 35% tariff on Chinese tires and a few other products such as pipes after China was found to be illegally “dumping” exports below cost • In November 2009, Obama extended unemployment benefits for one million workers • In November 2009, Obama extended the Home Buyers Credit for first-time home buyers and expanded coverage for some existing homeowners who are buying again • Reduced taxes for some small businesses to stimulate the economic recovery Budgeting • Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut federal spending • Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify wasteful spending and practices • Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient (the NPO reports to the director of the Office of Management & Budget) • Overturned the Bush-era practice of not listing certain federal programs in the federal budget (in an effort to hide programs and make the budget look smaller); such “off budget” items are now included in the annual budget • This includes appropriations for war • This includes emergency appropriations Healthcare • Removed Bush era restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research • Offering federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research • Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children • Established an independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare • Reversed the Bush era restrictions that prevented Medicare from negotiating with pharmaceuticals for cheaper drugs; now the government can again competitively bid • Expanding vaccination programs • Issued new disease prevention guidelines and priorities for the CDC • Authorized the FDA to finally begin regulating tobacco • Tasked federal labs to prioritize research on and deployment of H1N1 vaccines • Asked multiple congressional committees to bring forward a healthcare reform bill that attempts to increase coverage and affordability; he supported holding many hearings and town halls on the issue Energy & Environment • Removed a ruling that now allows individual states to enact automotive fuel efficiency standards above federal standards • Offered attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles • Overturned Bush-era rule to weaken the Endangered Species Act • Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government • Ended the Bush era policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions • Signed a measure requiring energy producing plants to begin producing 15% of their energy from renewable sources • The Obamas used LED energy-saving lights on White House Christmas tree • Announced that the federal government would reengage in the long-delayed effort to clean up “Superfund” toxic waste sites • Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production • Proposed a new refuge for Wild mustangs • Cancelled several Bush-era mountain-top removal and mining permits • Reengaged in international treaties and agreements to protect the Antarctic • Asked Congress for energy reform and “cap and trade” • Developing plan to lease US coastal waters for wind and water current energy production • Overturned Bush-era policies that allowed uranium mining near national parks such as the Grand Canyon • Expanded the Petrified Forest National Park • Signed the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act that protects millions of acres of scenic, historic, and recreational lands and trails • Requiring that government buildings and facilities be retrofitted to save energy costs • Authorized studies in several western states to determine how to support large-scale solar installations • Attended the Copenhagen talks and, after the talks were stalled, negotiated an international (voluntary) agreement on reducing carbon emissions and raising funds to assist developing nations in offsetting carbon emissions Rights • Instituted enforcements for equal pay for women (Lilly Ledbetter Bill) • Appointed the first Latina to the Supreme Court • Held the first Seder in White House • Appointed a diverse Cabinet and diverse White House staff • Spoke at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization • Signed the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation that includes acts of violence against gays under the list of federal hate crimes • Reversed the Bush era practice of politicizing Justice Department investigations and prosecutions against political opponents • Allowing some of the 9/11 perpetrators to be tried in federal court • Signed an extension of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Bill to provide federal research and support for treating the disease • Allowed the State Department of offer same-sex benefits for employees Education Policy • Authorized construction funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access in K-12 public schools • Authorized new funds for school construction • Increased student loans • Expanded the national youth service program • Streamlined the federal student loan process to save $87 billion over the next 10 years • Changed the rule to allow students struggling to make college loan payments to refinance their loans • Beginning discussions with Congress for education reform • Initiated a “Race to the Top” competitive federal grant program for states who develop innovative policies • Instituted a “judgment review” allowing families with student loans to petition to have their current financial status determine the loan rather than the previous year’s finances • Launched “Educate to Innovate,” a public/private partnership making $236 million available for science, mathematics, and technology education programs Other Domestic Policies & Initiatives • New federal funding for science and research labs • Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program • Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program • Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness • Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud • Beginning discussions for comprehensive immigration reform • Ordered that funds be released and red tape be streamlined for the ongoing Hurricane Katrina recovery effort in the Gulf Coast • Demonstrated an immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters • Ordered the DEA to stop raids on medical marijuana usage • Ordered a review of existing “mandatory minimum” prison sentencing • Signed an order to limit airport tarmac delays and the time passengers had to sit in the plane/on the tarmac during delays • Restored the EPA to “Cabinet level” status (this was the case under Clinton but not Bush) • FEMA once again reports directly to the president (this was the case under Clinton but not Bush) P.S. A swing set was installed for the Obama girls outside the Oval Office and a garden was planted for the White House’s vegetables and flowers ☞ The reality is, the President was handed an economy on the brink of depression and $10 trillion in Reagan/Bush/Bush-accumulated National Debt. (After World War II we had managed to shrink the Debt from 121% to just 30% of GDP when Reagan took the helm; Bush handed it back to Obama at around 90% – and soaring.) He also inherited an environment where the opposition cheered when we didn’t get the Olympics . . . prayed – literally – for the President’s Waterloo . . . disputed his country of birth, claimed he “palled around with terrorists,” and all the rest. So my own feeling is that we have every reason to be proud of the sea change that has occurred and supportive of the progress yet to come.
Vote for Martha January 19, 2010March 16, 2017 LETTER FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL If yesterday’s brief quotations left you wanting more, here is the Reverend King’s famous letter from Birmingham Jail, dated Aril 16, 1963. Two of my favorite passages: We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America’s destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation – and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. . . . One day the South will recognize its real heroes. There will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. There will be the old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: “My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest.” There will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience’ sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. ANOTHER QUOTE I LIKE This one, from Nobel-Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: There used to be a social contract about the reasonable division of the gains that arise from acting together within the economy. Within corporations, the pay of the leader might be 10 or 20 times that of the average worker. But something happened 30 years ago, as the era of Thatcher/Reagan was ushered in. There ceased to be any sense of fairness; it was simply how much the executive could appropriate for himself. It became perfectly respectable to call it incentive pay, even when there was little relationship between pay and performance. In the finance sector, when performance is high, pay is high; but when performance is low, pay is still high. The bankers knew – or should have known – that while high leverage might generate high returns in good years, it also exposed the banks to large downside risks. But they also knew that under their contracts, this would not affect their bonuses. AD COPY So today we find out whether progress will become even harder to make – if the opposition party is able to win Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat – or whether it will just remain very, very hard. My friend Peter Stolz has written some ads he’d like to have see up on TV for this race, and for pretty much any others. The first would just show all the landmark progressive legislation over the decades that the Republican Party has reliably and reflexively opposed – from Social Security and Medicare to the minimum wage, health insurance for kids, stem cell research, hate crimes legislation, tobacco regulation, and on and on. “The Party of No.” The “G. No. P.” And so on. (His proposed tag line: “Vote Democratic, the party that votes YES for the American People.”) The second would quote Republicans: Voice Over: Here’s what Republicans had to say about the President’s economic plan. Republican Rep. Joel Hefley said: “It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over one million jobs.” Republican Rep. John Kasich said: “This plan will not work…your economic program is a job killer.” Republican Newt Gingrich said: “I believe this will lead to a recession next year.” Republican Dick Armey said: “Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating.” Republican Phil Gramm said: “Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose their jobs because of this bill, and the President will be one of them.” Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad said: The Democrats’ plan “will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit.” Republican Rep. Phil Crane said: It’s “a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster.” Voice Over: The only problem is, all these Republican quotes were from 1993 after President Bill Clinton passed his budget without a single Republican vote. That budget led to the greatest economic boom in world history. Weren’t you better off with Bill Clinton and the Democrats running the economy in the 1990s? The Republicans predictions could not have been more wrong. Yet they make almost word for word the same predictions again today about President Obama’s economic programs. President Clinton left us with a projected $5 trillion surplus . . . (Click here for more predictions of financial disaster that were completely wrong.) And wait! There’s more! Voice Over: Here are a few quotes from Republicans about the President’s economic proposal. Republican Rep. John Taber: “Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people.” Republican Rep. Daniel Reed: “The lash of the dictator will be felt and 25 million free American citizens will for the first time submit themselves to a fingerprint test.” Republican Rep. James W. Wadsworth: “This bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants.” Voice Over: Did you recognize those quotes? Were they from town hall meetings this past summer? From Tea Party gatherings? They sure sound like it don’t they? But actually these are quotes from 1935 when Social Security was proposed and passed by FDR and the Democrats and the entire Republican Party predicted disaster. . . . Vote Democratic, the party that votes YES for the American people.” ☞ If Martha Coakley wins today, progress will be a little easier to achieve. If she loses – whether your issue is health care or education or energy independence, the environment, the Supreme Court, or equal rights – we’ll all just have to roll up our sleeves even a little further.
MLK, Jr. January 18, 2010March 16, 2017 # “We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny… An inescapable network of mutuality… I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. # “If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted or Beethoven composed music or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.’” – Martin Luther King, Jr. #