Category Archives: Government

Yes, Virginia, There Is Corruption.

Posted on by

The now almost daily revelations of deceit and corruption by Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell are a smorgasbord of everything wrong with politics. Indeed, it seems everything that could go wrong has gone wrong in Virginia.

McDonnell accepted $145,000 from Jonnie R. Williams, Sr., the owner of a Virginia-based nutritional supplement company. In addition, he and his wife have reportedly accepted favors and gifts amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. In return, McDonnell allegedly offered unparalleled access and support to Williams. For example, McDonnell offered to host a launch party at the governor’s mansion for Williams’ product. And, according to new allegations, McDonnell helped Williams arrange meetings with other state officials.

Clearly, this is an example of government for sale. In any state, at any level of government, such activities meet the definition of influence peddling.

What makes McDonnell’s actions all the more astounding is that, by pushing a law requiring a vaginal ultrasound for any woman considering an abortion in Virginia, McDonnell made himself the center of attention. Could he really be so greedy and arrogant that he thought he could hide his corruption despite such attention?

Obviously, the answer is yes.

McDonnell has become a poster boy for governmental corruption. As such, he should immediately resign. And, if the allegations can be proven in court, he should spend a considerable time in prison where he, too, may learn what it’s like to be forced to accept an unwanted invasive procedure.

Only Crimes Issa Has Exposed Are His Own.

Posted on by

For more than two years, Congressman Issa has been digging under rocks to find dirt on President Obama and his administration. He has claimed that his investigations would prove that the federal loan to Solyndra would expose a “sweetheart” deal for one of Obama’s political contributors. Instead, he proved that the loan process was well underway during the Bush administration.

Issa claimed that his investigation into Fast & Furious would show the president or, at least his Attorney General, ordered ATFE agents to allow gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels. What he proved was that, out of frustration, a single unit of the ATFE allowed guns to “walk” in hopes of them leading to cartel leadership.

Most recently, Issa claimed that an investigation would show that President Obama, or his campaign, ordered extra scrutiny for Tea Party groups seeking non-profit status for their political operations. What Issa proved is that a self-professed conservative Republican agent in Cincinnati used search terms to learn more about the groups, and that those search terms included Tea Party, Patriots, and 9/12. They also included words like Democrat, Blue, Progressives, and Liberals. (I can attest to this because I’m a member of a Democratic group targeted, and I filled out the paperwork myself.)

Instead of proving that these “scandals” led to the White House, Issa proved that there were no scandals at all! Indeed, all he has accomplished is to prove otherwise. He has also caused writers like me to look into his sordid past. On doing so, I learned that Issa was twice indicted for Grand Theft Auto. I also learned that he quite likely torched his own business shortly after increasing the insurance by more than 400 percent!

It appears the only reason Issa is so determined to prove crime by others is to damage a presidency, ingratiate himself to other members of his own party and to rationalize his own past.

Egypt’s Morsi = America’s GOP

Posted on by

When asked to explain the removal of President Mohamed Morsi, Egyptian leaders said that Morsi had offered no plan; no vision to solve the nation’s problems. Instead, he focused on consolidating the power of the Muslim Brotherhood and instituting Sharia law.

In many ways, his actions paralleled those of the GOP in the US.

Like Egypt, we have millions of unemployed. We have tens of thousands of recent college graduates with no jobs; not even any prospects of jobs. We have millions who, despite working full-time jobs, live in poverty. Our infrastructure is crumbling around us.

So how are Congressional Republicans dealing with these problems?

Like the Muslim Brotherhood, they are focused on consolidating power. In Republican-controlled states, they are gerrymandering Congressional districts to ensure their re-election. They are pushing through laws to limit the voting rights of minorities. And they are instituting their own form of repressive, antiquated laws to control women’s bodies; to control who may marry; to pick economic winners and losers.

The GOP has offered no legislation to address our growing number of problems. No jobs bills. No plan to rebuild infrastructure. No plan to help workers earn a living wage. No plan to break up our growing number of monopolies. No plan to deal with climate change. No plan to control healthcare costs. No plan to take the corruption out of politics.

The GOP’s only vision is to obstruct the plans of President Obama. If anything, that makes them worse than Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Abolish The IRS?

Posted on by

Tea Party favorite, Sen. Rand Paul, is featured in a TV commercial calling for viewers to sign a petition to abolish the IRS. Paul and his fellow Tea Party parasites are capitalizing on what they falsely call an unconstitutional attack on conservatives to get what they really want…a flat tax.

The flat tax is a horrible idea that has long been pushed by the wealthy and conservatives. It doesn’t sound bad; you just total up the income you received for the year and pay a flat percentage of that income. No accountants or tax preparers needed. But since everyone would pay the same percentage, the flat tax would be a huge victory for the wealthy and an unprecedented attack on the poor.

The very conservative Heritage Foundation recommends that the tax rate be set at 28 percent. It would eliminate payroll taxes, estate taxes, excise taxes and taxes on savings. It would give a modest tax credit to the poor. The only other tax deductions would be for higher education, gifts and charitable deductions.

Of course, the poor and modest income households don’t make enough to have savings. So eliminating a tax on savings only benefits the wealthy. Likewise, only the wealthy would benefit from eliminating estate taxes. The wealthy would certainly benefit the most from the charitable deductions. And since the top marginal tax rate is now 39.6 percent, the flat tax would give those making $400,000 and up a tax cut of 11.6 percent!

The real effect of the flat tax proposal would be to dramatically cut taxes for the wealthy and raise taxes on those who can least afford it.

The flat tax is just another Trojan horse concocted by conservatives to benefit their wealthy masters. It would move even more of the tax burden onto the middle class and make the plight of the poor utterly hopeless. A better idea is to rid our current tax code of the deductions, tax shelters and subsidies created by conservative politicians to help their campaign contributors avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

A flat tax will simply help them avoid taxes altogether.

Since no one actually likes paying taxes, the IRS has few friends. Yet, without the IRS, who would track down the thousands of tax cheats? With no enforcement, thousands more would be encouraged to avoid paying taxes. And, though a flat tax may sound like a good idea, if it ever happens, the American dream will become a nightmare for all but a very few.

What’s Wrong With The US? Connect The Dots.

Posted on by

It’s probably self-evident, but our government is no longer of the people, by the people and for the people. A more accurate description would be of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

But how did we get here? How have a few powerful multinationals and one percent of the population usurped power from the vast majority of the people? In order to fully understand this, all you need to do is connect the dots.

  • We have allowed a few large corporations to create virtual monopolies, often with the help of government subsidies. These corporations buy out, squeeze out and drive out small businesses.
  • The CEOs of these corporations sit on each others’ Boards and approve each others’ compensations.
  • A portion of CEO compensation is based on the companies’ productivity and share price. That means the CEOs strive to cut costs (employee benefits and salaries) while increasing the price of products and services.
  • Once corporations achieve maximum productivity and profit with US employees, they are encouraged to offshore jobs in order to further reduce labor costs and employee benefits.
  • As corporations expand around the world, it becomes easier to stash profits offshore in order to reduce their tax burden and further increase profits.
  • These increased profits and compensation allow corporations to “invest” millions in the political campaigns of those who will support corporate interests.
  • The campaign contributions by corporations and corporate leaders leads to a massive increase in the cost of running for office, driving away those who might represent ordinary working people.
  • Corporate-financed Political Action Groups and associations, such as the US Chamber of Commerce spend additional millions to support corporate-friendly candidates.
  • Once the corporate-friendly candidates are sworn into office, they pass legislation that benefits their contributors.
  • Corporations and industries finance large lobbying efforts to further impact legislation resulting in large government contracts and subsidies.
  • Eventually, the corporate-friendly politicians nominate and approve judicial appointments that make the courts more friendly to corporate interests (see Citizens United v FEC, Buckley v Valeo and Bowman v Monsanto).
  • Politicians, with help from the courts (see Shelby County v Holder), undermine the voting rights of minorities and others who oppose them. At the same time, they wage war against the poor by cutting education, unemployment benefits and food stamps. They allow corporations to steal their savings, even their homes without repercussions.

We can take back our government, but it won’t be easy. It starts with election finance reform that takes the massive amounts of money out of political campaigns. It ends with politicians who, in the interests of ordinary people, are willing to break up “too big to fail” corporations as President Theodore Roosevelt once did.

Media Should Call A Filibuster A Filibuster.

Posted on by

For four and a half years, Senate Republicans have made unprecedented use of the filibuster. Intended to protect the minority, the filibuster historically was used only as a last resort to prevent tyranny by the majority.

It was an extreme measure to be used in extreme circumstances.

But in the hands of Mitch McConnell and his cohorts, the filibuster has become business as usual. It has been used to block most of President Obama’s nominees to federal courts. It was used to try to block the Affordable Care Act. It was used to block nominees for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It was used to block the appointment of the head of the National Labor Relations Board. It was used to block the appointment of Elizabeth Warren to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau she helped create.

And that’s just scratching the surface of procedural abuse by Republicans. Many nominations are blocked in committee through anonymous “holds.”  In Obama’s first term, there was an incident in which former Senator Jon Kyl stood on the Senate floor and, as each nominee’s name was read, repeated “I object” 70 times. As a result, our federal courts are horribly understaffed.

The irony escaped most in the media when, a short time later, in eulogizing Judge John Roll who was killed in the attack on Rep. Gabby Giffords, Kyl waxed eloquently about how Judge Roll took on extra caseloads because of the shortage of federal judges.

Despite all of this, the national media all but refuses to acknowledge abuse of the filibuster.  In most cases, the reporters don’t even mention the word. Instead, they say that the bill “failed to gain the 60 votes needed,” that the nomination “fell short of the necessary votes,” that the measure “failed to meet the procedural requirements.”

The failure is really that of the Republican Party and the media! The Republican Party failed to serve the interests of the American people. And the media failed to accurately report the Republican’s abuse of the filibuster! Maybe it’s because reporters have just tired of using the word. Or maybe they simply don’t know how to spell it.

Keep that in mind the next time you hear or read a story about a bill or nomination that is blocked in the Senate. The Senate rules only require a simple majority of 51 votes to pass legislation or to confirm nominees. The hurdle of 60 votes for any measure is the result of Teapublican obstruction, no matter what the media says.

What Egypt Reveals About US Foreign Policy.

Posted on by

In one of the most ironic foreign policy twists of all time, Egyptian journalists are reporting that a majority of Egyptians now link the US with the Muslim Brotherhood and deposed President Mohamed Morsi.

No, it’s not because President Obama is the socialist Muslim Teapublicans think him to be. The reality is much less interesting. It stems from our undying belief in democracy, and the fact that Americans equate democracy with freedom. But, as we’re learning, democracy does not always lead to freedom, and it doesn’t always represent the will of the people.

Egypt is a great case in point.

When Morsi was elected president, it had less to do with his vision for the future of Egypt than the fact that his Freedom and Justice Party representing the Muslim Brotherhood was more organized and more powerful than the opposition parties. After all, political parties had not previously played a large role in Egyptian government because Egypt had never before held democratic elections. Nevertheless, the US felt it necessary to embrace Morsi after he won election.

Once Morsi gained power, he ignored the economic issues of poverty and joblessness that led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. Instead, Morsi focused on consolidating power in order to ensure that Freedom and Justice Party candidates could not be defeated in future elections. He also took steps to replace the current legal system with Islamic law.

To that end, Morsi reinstated the Islamist-dominated parliament that was disbanded by the Supreme Constitutional Court. He then ordered the return of legislators elected a year earlier, a majority of whom are members of his own party or other Islamist groups. Morsi objected to a constitutional provision that would limit his presidential power and announced that any constitutional amendments restricting the president’s powers would be annulled. And late last year, he issued a declaration purporting to protect the work of the assembly convened to draft a new constitution from judicial interference. But, in effect, that declaration immunized his actions from any legal challenge.

By this time, most Egyptians had had enough. But the Obama administration, like so many of the administrations before it, felt it had little choice but to continue to support a democratically-elected president. So we continued to provide billions of military aid to Egypt.

Now the US is left in a very awkward position.

US law dictates that we cut off military aid to any nation that removes a democratically-elected leader through a military coup. Yet one can easily argue that the Egyptian military was directed by the will of the people. And if we do cut off military aid, we risk alienating the military leaders, the most powerful political force in Egypt. Furthermore, it would lend more credence to the notion that we support the Muslim Brotherhood over the will of the people.

We likely wouldn’t be in this dilemma if our foreign policy put more emphasis on humanitarian aid versus military aid. For decades, we have continued Cold War policies of providing weapons to nations (including those run by brutal dictators) that support our corporate…er…national interests. At the same time, we have tended to ignore the health and welfare of ordinary people.

The resulting void is too often filled by terrorists and militant organizations.

Such organizations have endeared themselves to ordinary citizens by building schools, mosques, water treatment plants, medical facilities and other things that directly benefit a majority of the people. That helps them more easily recruit members and enables them to draw a stark contrast with the US. And when these nations inevitably erupt in political turmoil, our own weapons are often turned against us.

Why do we continue such bone-headed foreign policies? In a word, money. Selling weapons to governments that support our multinational corporations is very profitable for our military-industrial complex. Building infrastructure and creating jobs…not so much. Moreover, economic disparity and poverty provide a ready source of cheap labor for multinational corporations in search of places to send our manufacturing jobs.

Grand Old Party Of Hate.

Posted on by

After last year’s failure to elect a president, you would think that the GOP would stop trying to be the stupid, anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-poor party.

You’d be wrong.

Confirming that the Tea Party Parasites are firmly in control of the GOP, red states across the country are refusing to expand Medicaid making it difficult for the working poor to get access to healthcare. Many states are also using bullying tactics and tricks to pass legislation that not only takes away a woman’s right to choose. The same legislation is forcing women to pay for ultrasounds they neither want nor need; to eliminate women’s health clinics; to limit women’s access to contraceptives.

Already this year, Speaker John Boehner has stated that he will not bring forward the Senate’s immigration reform bill. GOP legislators are, once again, trying to suppress the voting rights of minorities. And GOP legislators and congressmen are still trying to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

What all of these issues have in common is that they are attempts to deny rights to individuals.

Instead of following their oft-stated goal of limited government, GOP leaders are trying to use the government to discriminate against large segments of our population. And they’ll continue their politics of discrimination and hate until voters make them pay. Not just for a single election year, but for three or four election cycles. Long enough to force a permanent change in the party.

A Divided Nation.

Posted on by

I began this blog several years ago with a post “Why We’re Divided.” The point was that our political divide is not merely the result of differing ideologies. It’s the result of differing “facts.”

Never has that been more clearly demonstrated than by two competing advertising campaigns running on this Independence Day. In my state’s largest newspaper, there is an ad bearing the headline “In God We Trust.” Paid for by a company that is owned by a religious zealot, the ad uses a variety of quotes from our Founding Fathers to support the claim that our nation was founded on Christianity.

A few pages later, there is an ad bearing the headline “Celebrate Our Godless Constitution.” Paid for by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, it, too, uses a variety of quotes from our Founding Fathers to support the claim that our nation was built on the principle of separation of Church and State.

This is a classic example of proof-texting – selectively choosing quotes that support a particular point of view. This technique is often used by the religious to justify actions or beliefs. Religious leaders use verses from the Bible to justify war, to rationalize genocide, to discriminate against gays and others, to ignore – indeed blame – the poor for struggling as the result of policies they didn’t create, etc.

No matter how ugly your point of view, you can find a verse in the Bible, the Torah or the Qur’an to justify an action or inaction.

The same is true when it comes to quotes by our Founding Fathers. As Michael Austin writes in his book That’s Not What They Meant! Reclaiming the Founding Fathers from America’s Right Wing, the Founders were so diverse, you can find a quote from one of them to support almost any point of view. Among the Founders were Protestants, Catholics, Quakers, Jews, Deists, Agnostics and Atheists. There were idealists and slave owners. There were farmers, plantation owners, printers, attorneys, inventors, ship owners and many others.

There were Founders in favor of a strong central government and those who believed the power should reside exclusively with the states.

So which ad is correct? Both of them. And neither of them.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, who authored our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, strongly believed in separation of Church and State. The majority at the Constitutional Convention agreed. However, many of the Founders spoke of “divine providence” and the “principles of Christianity.”

More important, the ads demonstrate the growing divide between Americans; between the Federalists and those who believe in states’ rights; between the devoutly religious and the agnostics; between science and religion; between those who trust government and those who despise it; between the wealthy and the poor; between red and blue; between black, brown, red and white; between the educated and the uneducated; and between those who believe the US is the greatest nation on Earth and those who recognize its faults and intend to change them.

I think it no exaggeration to write that our nation is at a crossroads, more divided than at any time since the Civil War. Independence Day is the perfect time to consider the consequences of such a divide. Committing to compromise and finding common ground are imperative to the future of our nation.

Too Cute By Far.

Posted on by

I don’t know if Edward Snowden is a hero or a traitor; an honorable whistleblower or a self-serving snitch. Those distinctions will be up to history, the public and the courts to decide. But I do know that, if his revelations ultimately show as he claims, that US spying is out of control, he is going about his mission the wrong way.

The initial revelations were really nothing surprising. But they did get the attention of the entire nation and initiated a useful discussion of how much surveillance is necessary to protect us from terrorists. In that regard, Snowden did us all a great favor.

The fact that he obtained his information through lies and deception, however, raises as many questions about his character and his methods as it does about the NSA. And the fact that he is on the run, seeking asylum from some of our nation’s adversaries, raises questions about his motives.

Snowden’s most recent claims are as unsubstantiated as they are sensational. Moreover, they have caused great embarrassment to the US and strained relationships with our allies.

All of this leads me to believe that, if Snowden’s motives were honorable, he would have approached his task in a much different way. Before going public with his revelations, he could have approached Congressmen or Senators to see if he could find a receptive ear. There are many, like Senator Ron Wyden, who would have helped him accomplish his goals in a more effective and legal, but less sensational, way. If that approach wasn’t to Snowden’s liking, he could have had the courage to stay in the US, divulge his information to the press, and continue his quest through the courts, if necessary.

If he found either of those paths too daunting, he could have protected himself by providing all of his information to his accomplice, Glenn Greenwald, as insurance that it would eventually be made public. If his goal is, indeed, to protect the American public, the American people would have his back and prevent any extraordinary consequences. He would have been viewed as the hero he apparently thinks himself to be.

But Snowden chose a more cowardly, sensational path.

As a result, he finds himself trapped in a Russian airport and denied asylum by other nations. If he returns to the US, he will be arrested and spend a lengthy time in jail while awaiting trial. If he travels to most other countries in the world, he will likely face extradition. And any nation that will grant him asylum is likely to be one in which he won’t want to live.

I, for one, will not feel sorry for him. He had other, and better, options.