There's Nothing Extreme About the "Lefties" in Public Office

Unlike their colleagues at the opposite end of the political spectrum,    I'm not aware of a single liberal --- or, if you prefer, progressive --- intent on trashing our government,  despoiling the world economy,   and thereby creating widespread misery.    Instead,   they're doing their level best to preserve and,  whenever possible,  strengthen the social safety net.   This much is true at all levels of government:  federal,  state,  and local.

Fortunately,  President Obama and the Democrats didn't give in to the Tea Partiers and their compatriots as they did in 2011.    Yet still,  during the sixteen days that much of government operation was  frozen in place,   plenty of damage was done.  

Consider this:   Issued-oriented polls --- mainstream ones --- consistently indicate that there's majority support for the following items:   Job creation,  more funding for education,  maintenance and strengthening of Social Security and Medicare,   tax fairness,   and shrinking the military budget (without hurting active-duty personnel and veterans).

The most consistent sponsors and supporters of such legislation are the House and senatorial progressives.  Seriously!   Yep,  good burghers such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders,  and Congressfolks Keith Ellison,  John Lewis,  Raul Grijalva,  and,   until this year,  Dennis Kucinich,  whose seat was gerrymandered into nothingness by the Ohio state legislature.

A lot of Americans don't like being politically labelled,  and that's understandable.   The Gallup organization periodically fields an attitudinal survey,  asking respondents to define themselves  ---  as liberal,  moderate,  or conservative.   The majority consider themselves moderates.  Because the term "liberal"  has a long history of being stigmatized,  I believe that a lot of older respondents prefer to label themselves as "moderates",  even if they share values and priorities with self-described liberals.

At least one survey combines this data  under one cover:  The General Social Survey,  funded by the National Science Foundation and fielded once a year by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago.  (For instance,  how self-described moderates,  libs,  etc.  feel about specific issues).   It's not available on-line,  but should be accessible at most public and university libraries.   

Admittedly,  I haven't given myself a chance to eyeball it,  but I'm convinced that the data would affirm my perspective ---  that as a nation,  we really care about each other and believe in social justice.    

Unfortunately,  many --- far too many --- of our elected officials  don't reflect those values.   Let's try to fix that in 2014!

(Also scope out a related post on this blog dated 1/23/13:  
  "Liberalism:  As American as Apple Pie").
      


   

Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership: Another Deal Under the Radar

Earlier today,  I watched a recent video from the archives of Moyers & Company,   an excellent public affairs program hosted by the seasoned journalist Bill Moyers.  (He never misses).   His guests were two well-regarded bloggers with backgrounds in business and economics:   Susan Webber (who uses the penname Yves Smith)  and Dean Baker.


Apparently,  both guests have,  through reliable Obama administration contacts,  been privy to some of the contents of a trade bill that's  being ramrodded through Congress:  The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  (In more genteel circles,  this process is known as "fast tracking").    130 members of Congress have appealed for some transparency regarding this measure.   But apparently,  they're being  sloughed off.   Interestingly,  the folks involved in this appeal span the political spectrum from progressive Alan Grayson to Tea Partier Michele Bachmann.

Regardless of motive,  their mutual concern is justified.   Supporters of the TPP live on both sides of the aisle as well.
What's unsettling about this pact,  as well as its predecessors,   the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),  is that they were crafted by and for corporate interests.   No one else was ever allowed a seat at the table  --- labor advocates,  environmentalists, or community activists.  (H. Ross Perot,  who ran a spirited independent presidential campaign in 1992,   warned us of the consequences of an enacted NAFTA:  a "giant sucking sound"  of jobs leaving the US for friendlier environs [read low-wage].   He turned out to be prophetic).

Twelve nations have signed onto the TPP:  The US,  Canada,  Mexico,   Peru,  and Chile,  as well as Japan, Australia and New Zealand.   Rounding out the dozen are Malaysia,  Vietnam,  Brunei,  and Singapore.   With the exceptions of Mexico and Vietnam,   none of the listed nations (as far as I know) appear to have an extensive history of factory labor abuse.   The maquiladoras  that once caressed the Mexican border with the US are largely history,  as corporate poobahs discovered that overseas labor was even cheaper.

But here's something to consider:   the TPP is still a work in progress.   Policy honchos in Indonesia (the world's fourth most populous nation) and Thailand  are receptive to clambering on-board the TPP bandwagon.  Both nations also  maintain policies that are tolerant of oppressive working conditions.  (The presence of Indonesian sweatshops have been well-documented by Oxfam).

I campaigned vigorously for the president and have no regrets.  Furthermore,  I recognize that Obama and the majority of Democrats have expressed a far greater concern for social and economic  fairness than most of their Republican counterparts.    Occasionally,  they succeed in acting upon those concerns:  consider the Affordable Care Act.  As flawed as it appears to be,  it's a vast improvement over the alternative,  which for a lot of folks was nothing.

Based on what's known about the TPP,   it should merit more public attention.   It seems to be  a work in progress with open-ended provisions,  such as enabling admission of additional nations with dicey labor history.   If the corporate universe continues to call the shots without any meaningful counter-balance,   the world-wide race to the bottom will continue to gather momentum.  

Touch bases with your reps in the House and Senate;   urge them to defeat the TPP.    There's a great,  bearded adage:  "A stopped clock is right twice a day".    Even a stopped clock that happens to be named Michele Bachmann.

Potatoes Aside, the Redskins Need a Name Change

I recently read a well-reasoned column by conservative commentator  Charles Krauthammer.    While I rarely agree with his political perspectives,  he has always commanded my respect as a journalist.   

In last week's syndicated column,   he made a compelling case for changing the name of the Washington Redskins.  The team's owner,   Dan Snyder cites "the long and proud history surrounding the Washington Redskins that goes back generations."    He maintains that no malice or prejudice was ever intended  by using the name "Redskins"
and cites the team's 80-year history.  

But Mr.  Krauthammer states that "words don't stand still.   They evolve."  He cites as an example the manner in which the term "Negro"  is no longer considered acceptable "unless you've been asleep for the past fifty years."   So he suggests that we honor "changes in linguistic nuance"  and agree to a name change.   He offers as a substitute the name "Skins"  as in "shirts and skins pickup basketball teams".   I dunno.  What would the logo look like?   Some super-buff,  bare-chested dude with bulging pecs and biceps?   ---  and maybe a set of fangs,  with dripping saliva?

I had actually considered another alternative:   keeping the name,   but changing the logo in honor of The Redskin Potato.    Hey,   it's heart-healthy and full of protein!    Just one li'l fly in the ointment:   the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)  beat me to the punch. An article on PETA's webpage promotes this suggestion along with a tidy graphic of a masterfully-cooked,  meticulously-presented redskin potato  ready to be dined on.

On second thought,  most football fans probably aren't vegetarians.   They  crave mmmeeeeaaattt!!!  And blood 'n gore 'n raw guts!    So scratch the redskin potatoes gambit.

Hey,  I got it!   The perfect name,  especially in the wake of recent political upheavals  in The Nation's  Capital.  ***The Washington  Shutdowns!***

There ya go!

Don't Feed the Loafers!

Petty meanness rules!

Here we are;  it's Day 2 of the federal shutdown.   Not only that,  but just up the road a piece,  we'll be bumping our collective heads on the debt ceiling.  Apparently we've succeeded in electing a bunch of heartless,  mean-spirited human beings who've made their sentiments abundantly clear:  They don't give a damn about folks who are struggling to survive.

Maybe enough voters will come to their senses in 2014 and send some of these monsters home.   Here's one sample of pure meanness:  Tennessee Congressman Steven Fincher (R -  8th).   He was among the majority of House Republicans to vote for deep cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),  which provides food stamps to needy households.   Over 40% of SNAP households include at least one wage-earner.   Seniors and folks on disability account for most of the balance.

Yet Mr.  Fincher  insists on citing the following biblical passage:  "Those unwilling to work shall not eat".  He went on to say that caring for the poor is "something Christians might do,  but not with government money".  (Charities do great work,  but have never been able to help more than a fraction of those in need,  especially in stressful times).

This congressman,  who along with his family operates a prosperous 2,500-acre farm (about 4 square miles),  has no qualms about suckling the government titty himself.   His business has benefitted from well over $3 million in federal farm subsidies over the past decade,  according to the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Tennessee's Eighth District,  which covers the westernmost tier of counties above Memphis,   has a long,  bearded tradition of electing socially conservative Democrats.   I would like to believe that local Democrats could field a worthy opponent for Mr. Fincher in 2014:  someone with a much more humane interpretation of the Bible;   a candidate who'd  appeal  to everyone's better nature.   Most voters in that district do not share the Fincher Family's good fortune,  and probably know folks who are struggling  ---  and may even be on food stamps.

Not to be forgotten is Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan (R - 1st),  the Ayn Rand acolyte and self-anointed budget maven whom Mitt Romney chose as his running mate.   According to Mr. Ryan,  SNAP is "a hammock that lolls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency".

Many seemingly moderate Republicans are decrying the shutdown and fear for their own political futures.   Understood.   Yet they continue to support measures that shred the social safety net,   such as the food stamp cuts.

The Dems need to retrieve 17 seats next year in order to re-establish a House majority.   If the Tea Party nutcakes continue to hog the limelight,   maybe  just maybe it could happen!

Obamacare & the Expansion of Medicaid: a Sure Lot Better than What We Had (or Didn't Have)

It's not my intent to trash Obamacare (a.k.a.,  The Affordable Care Act or ACA).   Provisions already in effect really have made health care more affordable and accessible for many Americans.    But other families and individuals are still out of the loop.  While insurance carriers can no longer impose lifetime caps on their policy-holders,  or reject them for pre-existing conditions,   there's precious little control over the premiums that carriers can impose,  at least for now.

The state-coordinated insurance exchanges scheduled to kick in next year,  with mandated coverage and available subsidies may help a lot.    But judging from  what I've understood, the various plans will probably be more expensive and cumbersome to administer than the single-payer option.  With its near-total reliance on private-sector health insurance providers,  the system is still very much profit-driven.   Conversely,  universal health care would be tidier  and less costly to maintain.  It works reasonably well across the pond.  (In Germany,  the carriers are non-governmental,  but also non-profit).

Another potential obstacle:  the coverage mandate for businesses with more than 50 employees.   Having just been postponed for a year,  it's now scheduled to take effect in 2015.   I've read mixed reviews about this measure and honestly don't know what the impact might be.  (The vast majority of domestic businesses don't come close to approaching that 50-employee threshold,   yet a few growing enterprises could  conceivably roll over that hump).

In the meantime,  many congressional Republicans are still obsessed with their compulsion to repeal the ACA in its entirety.   It's what now,  their 41st attempt?   The Republicans have been aided in their effort to hobble Obamacare by an organization called the National Federation of Independent Businesses  (NFIB).    (Despite the name,  the NFIB is funded largely by four very generous donors,   who account for well over three million dollars of their war chest of several million).

Last year,  the  NFIB was the lead plaintiff involved with a Supreme Court appeal to trash the ACA:  National Federation of Independent Businesses vs. Sebelius.   This effort didn't succeed;  a 5-4 majority,  including Chief Justice John Roberts,  upheld the individual mandate.  However,  Justice Roberts switched his position in regard to Medicaid expansion.

The individual mandate remains intact,  but individual states now have the right to opt out of expanded Medicaid coverage for their poorest residents.   (These are folks whose income is too low to qualify for the exchanges.  Without Medicaid expansion,  they'd remain unprotected).   It appears as if over 20 states have rejected it outright,  while another few are still deliberating.  This,  despite the fact that the new Medicaid recipients would be fully funded by the federal government for the first two years.  Beyond that time,   the states are expected to kick in small, but increasing increments until they're capped at the rate of 10% in 2022.

Because many state budgets are in the red,   fiscal hardship could be cited  as an excuse for some states to deny their residents desperately needed Medicaid coverage.   Changing the terms of such coverage to full federal funding for the foreseeable future might be worth considering. 

Thereafter,  any state legislatures still refusing to accept Medicaid expansion would be doing so for buck-naked ideological reasons.   The only rights really being compromised would be those of the folks denied decent health care.  

Just a thought.

U.S. Military Action in Syria = More Grief

 The decision whether or not to use military force in Syria is a tormenting one.   Persuasive arguments can be made pro or con.  Ideally,  the disempowerment of Bashar al-Assad would be a cause for celebration  if the political climate was stable.  Atrocities against fellow Syrians committed by his regime appear to be well-documented by organizations such as Doctors Without Borders.  (The United Nations report is still pending).  

Supporters of military action seem to believe that Assad will think twice about committing monstrous acts against his own citizens.   But many skeptics are concerned that U.S. attacks could stiffen his resolve instead,  possibly accelerating the level of his brutality.   Providing military aid to Syrian rebels might have been a viable alternative if they were relatively unified.  But ideologically,  they're all over the map,  ranging from democrats to proponents of organizations like Al Qaeda. 
   
 We'd be going it alone.   Nations initially perceived as compromising a "coalition of the willing" are no longer so willing. The British Parliament has opted out of the coalition by a margin of 13 votes.   Prime Minister David Cameron,  an avid supporter of the effort,   graciously conceded,  declaring that Great Britain would not contribute to a military campaign in Syria. (Some of his critics believe that he shouldn't have given up so quickly). The Arab League seems to be backing away from any commitment as well.   With Security Council opposition from Russia,  the United Nations is also a no-go.

Last year,  Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons constituted a "red line"  which should never be crossed.   In retrospect,  that was probably not a wise statement.   Now,  proponents of intervention state that if nothing is done,  we'll be perceived as weaklings and all hell will break loose.   Well,  all hell seems to be breaking loose as it is.  It's a civil war!   Foreign (U.S.) intervention could very easily add a new dimension to that civil war,  causing it to spill over the borders  (e.g.:  Attacks on Israel and Turkey with the certainty of reprisals).   Is that really a desireable outcome?

Loss of life is tragic and leaves a terrible void for those who survive.   Should it really matter if the cause of death is from toxic chemicals,  missiles,  or bullets?  Or possibly some other method of torture?    (Check out an earlier post on this blog dated 4/26/13:  "The Heartbreak of Drone Warfare").

The last documented attack on civilians with chemical weapons occurred in 1988,  in the Kurdish town of Halabja,  courtesy of Saddam Hussein --- who at the time was still considered our good buddy.  No one objected.   However,  the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),  a non-governmental body,  wasn't established until 1993.   191 nations (including Russia and Iran) have signed the organization's  Chemical Weapons Convention (CPC).   Only five have not;  one of those five is Syria.  

Incidentally,  a napalm attack on a school near Aleppo,  in rebel territory, has recently been reported.   What napalm does to human beings is horrifying.   But our own hands are not unsoiled;  the United States used it on the Vietnamese.   Many of those who were severely burned by napalm were civilians,  including women and children.

One more item to consider:   No one proposed an intervention in Argentina during the late 1970s.   Yet the atrocities committed by the military dictatorship there were well-known.   Their most adamant critics were kidnapped,  bound and gagged,  trundled aboard airplanes,  and dropped into the Atlantic while still alive.   Prior to their abductions,  the victims'  children were snatched away from them,   and forcibly placed for adoption by families that supported the junta.   Again,  no one raised their voices.

The military option worries me for two reasons:

1)  Needless fatalities caused by U.S. attacks could very likely alienate former supporters.   A few might even be driven to seek bloody revenge;   think  Dzokhar Tsarnaev,  the surviving brother charged with the massacre at the Boston Marathon.   He was very clear about his motive,  stating that Americans killed his fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2)  Although Secretary of State John Kerry,  among others,  has insisted that our action would be limited,  what happens if things don't go according to plan?   Is there even an exit plan?  Kerry did state that there'd be no use of ground troops,  but when the subject of unanticipated hypothetical situations was mentioned,  he waffled.
  Alternatives?   There really are no easy answers.  Assad can be tried and convicted in-absentia by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.  An international effort can (and should) be focused on further isolating him.  Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians are in need of humanitarian aid.


In concert with the international community,  that's something we could to be doing.

Rahm Emanuel: "The Education Mayor" & His Love Affair With Charter Schools

I have  never been a great admirer of Rahm Emanuel,  my hometown mayor.   In fact,  I supported one of his opponents,  an independent-minded administrator named Miguel Del Valle during the 2011 mayoral campaign.

It seems as if public schools throughout the nation are becoming public policy makers'  favorite piñata.   In Philadelphia,   state funding cutbacks have forced the closing of 23 public schools.   Yet state officials managed to uncover some miraculous monetary honeypot to fund  a brand-spankin' new prison just north of Philly to the tune of $400 million!

Here in Chicago,   50 elementary schools,  primarily in struggling neighborhoods,  are being shut down.  Programs, especially creative arts,  are being butchered at many surviving schools as well.   It has to be done because we're in dire financial straits,  so they say.   Yet the Emanuel administration  is able to pony up financing for a new sports arena near the McCormick Place convention complex.  This, despite the fact that two other publicly-financed athletic stadiums haven't even come close to paying for themselves:

1)   Soldier Field,  extensively and expensively renovated,             primarily to benefit the Chicago Bears,  who play eight    
          games a year there --- and ---

2)  Cellullar Field
     (nee: Comiskey Park) publicly funded to
      the tune  of $200 million for the owners of the 
      Chicago White Sox,  who for the past few years have
      had their rent payments waived owing to low 
      attendance.   (The team owners were mandated to pay
      rent to the Illinois Sports Finance Authority,  technically
      the owner of the stadium,  assuming that paid attendance
      figures exceeded a  minimum threshold.  Well, 
      that threshold hasn't been met for a while now).
    

At the same time,   bids are being solicited for the establishment of more charter schools,  despite their largely dubious records of success.  The case is often made that the charter schools save the taxpayers money in contrast to public schools.  Maybe so,  but is that really a cause for pride?   First of all,   teachers' average salaries are lower because  they tend not to hang around long enough to accumulate much seniority.   Also,  the charters are able to "cherry-pick"  their students --- generally the least "expensive" ones,  not those with special needs.  Unrestricted enrollment may be mandated,   but they can ultimately drop pupils who don't conform to their standards.  Rejected students are, of course,  shunted back to the public schools.

Here in my home town,  the mayor hand-picks the school board which largely controls policy with precious little public input.   There are seven board members:   a retired university dean,  a retired Chicago Public Schools (CPS) principal,  and five corporate poobahs.  So,  guess whose interests predominate!

Mayor Emanuel's latest appointment is an investment advisor named Deborah Quazzo who,  just incidentally,  sends her three children to the exclusive  Chicago Latin School.  Her firm,  in which she's a managing partner,  focuses on private equity investments in education.  She also sits on the board of a nation-wide chain of charter schools known as KIPP:  an acronym standing for "Knowledge Is Power Program".    (There are five KIPP schools in Chicago.   Nationally,  on average,  KIPP schools do not perform especially well in contrast to average public schools,  and generally well below college-prep public schools).

Anyway,  here's the kicker:   I scoped out KIPP's website listing of employment opportunities.   It features a group photo of racially and ethnically diverse young teachers,  all fresh-faced and hot-to-trot ---  y'know,  like a "big family".  Don't get me wrong,   I'm sure these teachers are very earnest and well-intentioned,   and really do want to make a dent!

But here's what's expected of them.   In return for "competitive salaries and benefits",   they're scheduled to work 50 hours a week:   (M-F  7:30 AM to 5:30 PM).  In addition Saturday "volunteering"  is an option,   but "almost everyone does it".    (Hmm!  What kind of performance review might a "non-volunteer" expect?).   (Personal note:  I've done plenty of volunteer work in my life;  it's  satisfying and life-affirming.   But volunteerism has never been "implied"  as "part of my job").

Decades ago,  labor activists fought ---  and some even died ---  for the 40-hour,  5-day work week.     Yet, dedicated young teachers at charter schools like KIPP,  are being imposed upon to work 50+ hours a week;  it's as if they're not entitled to meaningful lives of their own.  How are they expected to find the time to enrich themselves,  let alone start families?

Some folks might insist that KIPP-type jobs aren't being forced on anyone.   But throughout the country,  public school teachers are being laid off.   So if these dedicated young teachers really want to make their passion a reality,  their employment opportunities  are likely to be very limited.  

More often than not,  after three years at a charter school,  they're done with teaching!