Tag Archives: 2012 election

REMEMBER ROMNEYHOOD,By Louise Annarino,August 7,2012

REMEMBER ROMNEYHOOD, By Louise Annarino,August 7,2012

 

Ronald Reagan took office as 40th. president of the United States in January 1981. By the close of his term in 1989 he had slashed domestic spending, reduced aid to cities by 60%, slashed public service jobs and job training, reduced funds for pubic transit benefiting cities while retaining highway funds benefiting suburbs,halved the budget for public housing and Section 8 and sought to eliminate housing assistance to the poor causing a steep increase in homelessness,widened the gap between rich and poor,(wages for average worker declined and home ownership rate fell),deregulated the Savings and Loan industry (leading to corruption,mismanagement and collapse of S&L’s requiring $100 billion government bailout) and attempted to dismantle legal services for the poor. (see more at http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html )Reagan told us as Romney,Kasich,Mandel and Ryan now tell us that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. President George W. Bush tried Reagan’s strategy and failed, just as Reagan did. Why would we expect Romney to achieve a different result using the same strategy?

 

I was a supervising attorney of the Senior Citizen Unit for The Legal Aid Society of Columbus during this time. I handled a caseload of 200 open cases, 350 altogether; and supervised another attorney with an equally large caseload, two paralegals, and a secretary. Our goal was to assist clients over 55 whose income fell well below the poverty line set in the 1950’s. Our cases involved consumer fraud, public benefits,medicare and medicaid,food stamps,hospital and medical bills, wills and powers of attorney/guardianships, housing, banking, land-lord tenant issues, mental health and a multitude of other legal issues. One cut made by President Reagan resulted in the deaths of three of my clients, and extreme suffering for hundreds of others.

 

President Reagan talked code to bigots,racists and economically advantaged white Americans in an attempt to stigmatize the poor, gut anti-poverty programs,and justify his tax cuts. “During his stump speeches while dutifully promising to roll back welfare, Reagan often told the story of a so-called “welfare queen” in Chicago who drove a Cadillac and had ripped off $150,000 from the government using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards and four fictional dead husbands. Journalists searched for this “welfare cheat” in the hopes of interviewing her and discovered that she didn’t exist.”(see more at http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2004-06-20/the-real-economic-legacy-of-ronald-reagan ). Reagan would have loved the interenet and used it along with political ads just as Mitt Romney does today – promising to roll back or privatize government benefits, requiring drug tests of welfare recipients, describing members of NAACP  as people who want free stuff from the government, falsely accusing President Obama of simply mailing out welfare checks to people unwilling to work. Working with Republican and Democratic governors HHS recently issued a memorandum allowing states to apply for waivers for TANF work requirement so long as the more flexible state project “demonstrates attainment of superior employment outcomes in lieu of participation rate requirements.” This is typical Obama pragmatism. If the state can demonstrate a different plan moves more people from welfare to work, HHS will be flexible and grant a waiver. Romney’s assertion is a complete distortion meant to appeal to voters who believe in welfare queens, or as Romney might state “big bucks” unwilling to work, a clear racial-code slur.(see more at http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/07/13165243-dubious-claim-behind-romney-welfare-attack?lite).

 

I dread where Romney’s distortions to justify tax cuts might lead us; and, how many Americans will suffer and even die as a result of old,failed policies. President Reagan ordered the Social Security Administration to remove all current disability recipients from active rolls, and require each one to reapply for benefits. He was certain that too many were fraudulently claiming to be disabled. He saw a welfare queen behind every bush. The actual fraud rate for welfare benefits at the time was 1/4 of 1%. Yet, American voters were told the rate was so high, every recipient was a suspect. So suspect that every SSD and SSI recipient was terminated. Those terminated lost a monthly income and medicare or medicaid coverage, and food stamps. They had no where to live, nothing to eat, could not see a doctor or go to the hospital, ran out of life-saving medications. Disability recipients are the most fragile among us.

 

My staff immediately filed new applications, and appeals of termination, for each client in our open and closed files. We posted flyers at community centers, senior centers and elsewhere offering our services. Many fell through the cracks. We also filed appeals for termination of low-income housing, evictions, food stamps and medicare or medicaid. We negotiated with landlords, doctors, pharmacies and hospitals begging patience until our cases could be heard. Most of our clients tried to hang on so long as they could. Others were too proud and disappeared into the streets. Others became so depressed they committed suicide. Three of my clients died simply because they lacked medication,food,medical care, and housing. I recall one phone call from a case manager at The Franklin County Welfare Department happily informing that finally (after 5 months) he was restoring my client’s food stamps. He thought I would be grateful and happy but I was crying. He asked why, “ Mr. X died yesterday from complications from diabetes and malnutrition. You are too late.”  Every single appeal I filed was granted. Reagan was dead wrong;too wrong, and too many dead as a result.

 

At the same time, Reagan announced he was eliminating Legal Services Corp. which funded legal aid societies like mine nationwide. He was frustrated that government was paying lawyers to appeal denial of  government benefits. My annual salary at the time was $12,600. Average salaries for lawyers in the private sector was $65,000. Congress reauthorized Legal Services but Reagan vetoed the funding bill. Staff agreed to work without pay, give up management positions and not replace those who gave up and left the agency until funding could be restored. I found a live-in position at a rooming house with no pay but free rent, installed soda machines in basement to pay for my bus transportation to work, and took an evening and week-end job as a toy store clerk to pay school loans and buy food while handling an ever-increasing caseload and grieving for my clients who were being so unjustly maligned and hatefully treated so that taxes could be cut and military spending increased by President Reagan. Now, Mitt Romney, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and Senate candidate Josh Mandel wants a repeat performance. They pit voters against President Obama and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown,using the same disingenuous statistics and history.

 

Remember the Alamo! Remember Pearl Harbor! Remember 9/11! I ask you to remember Reaganomics, Trickle Down Economics, Bush Tax Cuts, and now Romneyhood. We cannot allow politicians to prey on false fears when we have something real to fear. We must never forget that code messages stoking race-baiting, homophobia, and misogyny with lies and distortions will lead to death and disaster. I wish I could have saved those clients.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

99 BOTTLES OF BEER ON THE WALL,By Louise Annarino,July 30,2012

99 BOTTLES OF BEER ON THE WALL, By Louise Annarino,July 30,2012

Political ads once were pieces of artful rhetoric. Remember “A Town Called Hope” extolling the virtues of presidential candidate Bill Clinton? Most ads were likewise lovely to watch, whether one supported the candidate extolled or not. They were inspirational, clarified a candidate’s position and beautifully if not nicely done. Even the infamous nuclear explosion reflected in the iris of a child picking flowers as an attack on presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was lovely to watch. It was consider-over-the top because it exceeded the extant of Senator Goldwater’s stance on nuclear armament, and was quickly pulled from the market having been shown only once. But once was enough to create an image of a man willing to lead Americans and the world into nuclear armageddon.

Just once, we were exposed to an ad which distorted and demeaned a candidate. Once was too much for television executives who pulled the ad because of public outrage and dismay. Today, political ads of distortion and outright lies are repeated ad nauseatum like the song “99 Bottles of Beer On The Wall”:

 

99 bottles of beer on the wall,

99 bottles of beer,

Take one down.

Pass it around.

98 bottles of beer on the wall.

(repeat with 1 less bottle until no more bottles are left and end with)

No more bottles of beer on the wall,

No more bottles of beer,

Go to the store and buy some more,(KOCH Bros. et al)

99 bottles of beer on the wall.

The internet messaging of lies is even worse. At least the possibility of vetting an ad or disclosure exists within broadcast and print news departments.The internet is unfiltered. The race-baiting, homophobic, misogynist attacks against President Obama, his staff, appointees, and supporters goes unchecked.

I recently received an email message from a childhood friend with the same old attacks (i.e. Muslim foreigner,baby and jobs killer, hates business, caused recession, brings terrorist infiltrators into government, stupid liar and cheat) against President Obama with a new twist. At top of the page was a photo of suit-clad smiling white man claiming he was a classmate of the president’s at Columbia and knew Barry well, and who knew the items in content of piece used to attack were true. At the bottom was a Snopes link which he asserted proved the truthfulness of the email content. My friend pointed this out to me since I had on several prior occasions disproved her attack emails by replying with the facts to dispute her specific allegations, and often used Snopes as secondary source since she found it hard to believe my research data from NYT, London Guardian, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, LA Times, historical texts, US Constitution, specific laws and regulations etc. I checked the Snopes link. The question Snopes agreed to answer was “Is this person the source of these allegations?” The answer was “Yes, this person is the source of these allegations.” The truth meter read “true”. What!

I answered my friend that the only truth was that the man who claimed to tell these lies did tell these lies. That does not make lies true! This person asked me two years ago to NEVER send her any political information, nor my blog articles since she hates politics. I never send her a thing until she sends me a pack of lies. Then, I reconstruct each issue, provide her factual data and point out the mistruths. I honor every persons right to their own opinion; but, no one is entitled to their own facts! How can one answer such idiocy? Her behavior is not based on a search for truth so we can each make an informed decision with the needs of all sides considered; it is simply a need to be right and justify her hatred for President Barack Obama.

What is so disturbing is not simply the ads and e-mail/facebook messages themselves, but the willingness of people to share demeaning and untrue attack ads with no effort on their part to check for truthfulness. I can appreciate that not every voter is a political wonk, not many have the time to fully explore issues or candidates, and very few take the time to research before forming an opinion. What I cannot accept, what I refuse to accept, is that these voters believe their opinion is so sound as the opinion of the voter who does explore policies, records and world views of each candidate. It is not. They are not of equal weight. The uninformed opinion has less value. It is often wrong. It is often based upon lies and distorted reality. It is worthless.

I de-friended a person on FB yesterday after she began posting increasingly racist imagery on poster cartoons attacking President Obama, baby-killer comments and other derogatory attacks. I had repeatedly pointed out her racist content over the past weeks. I once asked her why all of her posts were anti-Obama and none pro-Romney. To all of which I received no response. I chalked up her behavior to ignorance, not ill intent. Yesterday, she posted another hate-filled photo attack. I ignored it at first. Later I saw her friend had commented with a question, “ But, who can we vote for? I could never vote for Obama whom I hate with a passion.” She replied to her friend, “I don’t know, but I hate him too much to vote for him.”  Those comments explained a lot. I have had enough of hate and hate merchants. They sell hate. I don’t think they can consciously admit why they are acting so, because at the deepest level they really do know why. We all know why. We just are too polite to mention it. I am not so polite; the reason is racism.

What happened to the American voter who sought to learn the voting record of a candidate, wanted to understand a candidate’s policies on various issues and why a candidate espoused those particular policies? What happened is that those Americans in either party are demeaned along with the candidate they support. They are called names: Obmanoids, Romneyites, babykillers, feminazis, even N*****lovers. This is unacceptable in any America past or present. Racism seems to trump acting with American value behaviors. We fought a civil war over this already.

What happened to American voters who believed in playing fair in order to elect the best candidate? What happened to the American voter who would rise in outrage over lies and distortions? Who would not tolerate attacks from either party on constitutionally protected race,creed,color, or religion? Where are these Americans? Where is a press corps, news executive, ad executive who refuses to air outright lies as political ads. Where is the journalist whose follow-up question challenges the lie which has just been told? Who refuses to allow a false premise as the basis of a response? Who can look a candidate in the eye while asking the question? Who can frankly challenge racist comments? Who can ask why being Black in America disqualifies every action taken by our president?

Racism is at the core of my understanding of what is going on here. It is not a means of avoiding valid attacks on our president, who has never claimed perfection, who only does the best he can with faint support by his own party and extreme refusal to participate in governmental action of ANY kind by the Republican party. Racism; not pure and not simple.

It is painful to watch newspersons obsequiously ask questions they know will not be answered, while Romney smiles with superiority. The smile is not one made in response to a good joke, or as a punch line on himself as President Obama often uses in response to uncomfortable questions. It is a smirk and a grin responding, “I’m not tellin’ and you can’t make me. Na, na, na, na,na na!” This same “na,na,na” attitude is heard coming from the mouths of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner; from every republican House Committee Chair. Have you been watching? Are you listening? “I can hang you from a tree in a political ad any time I choose. Na, na,na,na.na.na!” Oh, it is clear what has happened to American politics, and why there is so little public outrage.

I understand such intransigence by a candidate and his party supporters, supported by subliminal racism, makes it difficult to report the truth. But not impossible. I dread to imagine the softball questions posed to candidates in upcoming debates. I hope the debates won’t be just another round of 99 bottle of beer on the wall. I need a drink!

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

THE FOOLISHNESS OF POLITICAL ADS THE AMERICAN WAY, By Louise Annarino, July 24, 2012

THE FOOLISHNESS OF POLITICAL ADS THE AMERICAN WAY, By Louise Annarino, July 24, 2012

 

Hey, everybody plays the fool, sometime 

Use your heart just like a tool, listen baby 

They never tell you so in school, I wanna say it again, 

Everybody plays the fool  – Songwriters: K. WILLIAMS, R. CLARK, J.R. BAILEY

 

 

No one plays the fool better than Americans. Where would we be without the ability to believe so wholeheartedly in the unreality of reality TV? Perhaps the bachelorette does believe, as she tells each family of her five finalists, that she thinks she is falling in love with their son/brother. But do we follow along so blindly that we believe it? Does anyone really believe survivor castaways are ever in danger while being followed night and day by a camera crew? And if anyone believes that a culture which produced Michelangelo, Galileo and me also produced shallow summers at the Jersey shore, I am insulted.

 

We suspend disbelief when watching a fictional production. No human bodies are autopsied on forensic cop shows. We choose to adopt an air of disbelief. But, do we choose to suspend disbelief when we watch broadcast news? Are we such fools as this? No. Since the news contains so much, if not more, entertainment as hard news we are to be excused for confusing the two. Herein lies the dilemma. We are foolishly confused between what is real and what is not. We have been in training by Ad Men to live in suspended disbelief for many years. We are told we are on a destination for truth when we are really on a path to buy the goods we are being sold by business and politics alike.

 

When the gunman entered the Aurora, Colorado theatre clad in body armor many believed he was part of the show. We have become so inured to the blending of reality and fantasy entertainment that we no longer are able to distinguish what is a game of misperception or the rhetoric of disinformation from factual reality. This confusion is rampant throughout our media world, where so many of us, including our children, spend a great deal of our time. Whether a video game transports us to an artificial world, a movie promotion stages a fantasy experience to enhance the movie-going experience itself, or a music video stages a mock-up of its lyrical message we eagerly go along with the unreality. This is not simply foolish;it is dangerous.

 

Such persuasive unreality feels real because it is used to touch our hearts. It speaks to our feelings, not our thoughts.  And yet, it pushes our thoughts to accept the feelings as real. The bachelorette and her viewers feel her love, and we all believe the feeling is real. The survivors and their viewers feel their fear, and we all believe they are afraid.and when real threats appear in our lives, we too often do not recognize them until it is too late. We fought a war in Iraq because of our inability to recognize a lie.

 

Creating a shared feeling, even among fools, is a powerful rhetorical tool. As we watch political ads, read internet messages, even read blogs we must remember how easily we fall prey to the feelings they compel in us. We should use our hearts just like a tool, and not be played like fools. As President Obama reminds us, “We are better than that.” They do not tell us this in school, so I just wanted to tell you this.T

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

REPUBLICANS SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES RE: SMALL BUSINESSES, By Louise Annarino,July 14,2012

REPUBLICANS SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES RE: SMALL BUSINESSES, By Louise Annarino, July 14, 2012

 

My first small business was collecting newspapers and magazines from the garbage cans along the alley running beside our house when I was first old enough to pull a wagon. My Mother watched me and my brother as we trudged along pulling our load across the street to Mr. Schombarger’s junk yard. We placed the full wagon on the scale built into the roadway after the heavy trucks had cleared;then, climbed up the steps to the loading dock to watch the weight register on the huge scale above our heads. “Remember the numbers”, Mr. Schombarger would remind us. Next, we ran down the steps to empty the wagon’s contents into a bin provided by a worker, and pulled the empty wagon back onto the scale. “Okay, kids, come up and watch the numbers again”,said Mr. Schombarger, as he weighed the empty wagon. Subtracting the numbers gave us the weight we would be paid for our load. We were rich! Our business kept us in penny candy from Mrs. Rowe’s corner store every night, with an ice cream cone once a week, and if we saved our money, an occasional comic book. Whenever we needed more money we collected more paper. We were our own market.

 

I also ran errands for neighbors for ten cents (to Mr Van’s or Mrs. Rowe’s neighborhood groceries), for a quarter for a trip to the A&P uptown; cleaned woodwork and washed windows, a quarter; and helped with babies, free service. When I was 12 I began babysitting for $1 per child per night.

 

My brother had a paper route. Being a girl, I was not eligible for a route. He graciously offered me a chance to make some cash. If I delivered all his papers and made his route collections I got to keep 10% of his salary. I fell for the scam. I loved working, and getting around the sexist system firmly in place. Women still work the same jobs for less money. Some things never change. Ask Lily Ledbetter.

 

I once earned enough money to take my entire family to the New York World’s Fair for a full week by making fondant-rum candy shaped and decorated like small pieces of fruit. My father noticed my experiment, took the dish to his restaurant the next day and came home with 35 orders. Every day after school for months I made 30-50 dozen candies, placing 12 on each milk glass bowl lined with green Easter grass. Seeing the World’s Fair was a dream come true. Running a small business is in my blood. My dad and uncles had a small business for 38 years, The Center Cafe. It is daunting, calls for daring, and is plain hard work with long hours.They are our country’s economic lifeblood.

 

Everyone agrees small businesses are the engine driving America’s economy. Small firms of less than 500 employees make up 99.9% of America’s businesses. (see more at  http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/small-business-resources/how-many-small-businesses-are-there.html). Of these, 96% have 50 or fewer employees.(see more at   http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/small_businesses.htm Only 3% of small businesses earn more than $250,000 per year. Approximately 70% of the wealthy don’t own a small business. Obviously, the wealthy 2-3% don’t want the amount they earn above 2% to lose overgenerous tax breaks. But they argue a different story.

 

Despite these facts, to president Obama’s announcement that he would ask Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for incomes below $250,000, Mr. Romney replied this is an unacceptable and burdensome tax increase on small business,never mentioning the impact on his very large business income. Congressional Republicans expressed their opposition stating that many small business owners report their business income as personal income. But, as the president correctly points out the tax increases is only on the amount earned over $250,000; and, it affects 3% of small businesses. Under the president’s plan 98% of households and 97% of small businesses would receive a tax cut. (see more at New York Times (7/10/12)

 

The factual distortions of Republican leadership, including those of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) and House Leader, Rep.John Boehner (R-OH) each of whom should know better, do not serve the country well.  If the tax cuts expire for earnings $250,000 and up, the deficit could be reduced by $700 billion over the next 10 years. (For more, see Extend Bush Tax).

 

Yesterday, the Senate Republicans blocked The Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act using the filibuster to keep a vote from even reaching the floor. The bill gave business tax credits up to $500,000 for boosting payroll,thus hiring more workers. It gave a 1 year extension a 100% rate under which businesses can claim bonus depreciation tax deductions on capital investments to install new equipment, open more manufacturing lines etc. (see more at (http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/senate-republicans-block-small.php). The bill was estimated to create  nearly 1 million jobs, 650,000 in small mom and pop operations by use of a cap. Next week, Republicans are expected to block a bill which would give tax breaks to firms returning overseas jobs to the U.S. and raise taxes on companies that off-shore. Certainly, Mr. Romeny can’t be happy about the impact such a law would have on his off-shore ventures.

 

The rational given by Republican for blocking the bill that it was overpolitical underscores the true reason for blocking a bill which would move forward the country’s economic recovery…to block President Obama’s re-election at the expense of small business growth and more jobs here in the U.S.  While decrying the lapse of tax credits to earnings above $250,000 because of their distorted claim of a negative effect on small business, while blocking bills in support of small business is the height of Republican hypocrisy. Using the filibuster to play political games is immoral bully-behavior and we must call them out for such irresponsible and destructive behavior towards this country and its people’s welfare. The president has the bully pulpit; but,the Republicans are simply bullies who attack each of us to get to him. (see more at http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/republicans-filibuster-small-business-bill-block-job-creation/6dlhw1l?from= ).

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

ROMNEY VS. BIDEN AT N.A.A.C.P. CONVENTION,By Louise Annarino, July 12, 2012

ROMNEY VS. BIDEN AT N.A.A.C.P. CONVENTION, By Louise Annarino, July 12, 2012

Mitt Romney knew to whom he was speaking at the N.A.A.C.P. convention. He spoke to the moneyed-base of the republican party. He did not expect to win the support of the civil rights group with his “self-deportation” policy. Apparently, he would have been a proponent of the “back to Africa” movement  to solve the “problem” of slavery decades ago. Nor did he expect his attack on Obamacare to meet with applause. And, of course he knew the members of an organization which fought for civil rights and faced police dogs and water hoses, beatings-bombings-lynchings, and the murder of its icons would not sit quietly while he called the first African-American president a failure who betrayed them. He had to know his comments would fall like boulders into a sea of opposition. What he did not know is that his policies are racist. Not only his policies, but his very presence.

How can I say his very presence is racist? Because he gave the impression, through his own body language and tone, and the publicly made and well-played talking points used to paint him as brave for going into the sea of blackness, i.e. “We have to give him credit for even attending this event.” Why does he deserve credit for making an appearance and asking for the vote of African-Americans? He wants to be president. Why does he deserve credit for going before this group?  Did we say he deserved credit for appearing before any white group? What is he afraid of? More politically important, what does he want us to be afraid of? He is playing on our own fears, the fears of white Americans of all things black and of African-Americans in groups. Oh, we easily offer, “I have a friend who is African-American”, but how comfortable are we as a lone white person in a black group?

I don’t ask these questions lightly. I spent years on college campuses, among the defamed by Mr. Romney liberal elite, watching students, faculty and administrators separate along racial lines in campus dormitories, study halls, cafeterias, fraternities and sororities, parties and social events at all levels. And, I notice white people move near the emergency call button when a group of African-Americans enter an elevator. I notice white waitpersons avoid taking the orders of African-Americans in certain restaurants. I notice African-American children disciplined by white lifeguards for running at the pool, as a group of white children run past the scene. I notice a white car dealer mistaking an African-American customer in a business suit arriving to pick up his new Lexus for the part-timer newly hired to wash cars. I notice white co-workers inviting everyone but African-American co-workers to week-end party. Even my noticing this last incident is tinged with racism. Why would I think African-American co-workers would want to party with people who treat them badly every day of the week? Do I, like Mr. Romney, expect credit for noticing? Being a white racist is a role with strong cognitive dissonance.

Day after day, in small ways white people don’t even notice, our racism shines through. it is a constant struggle. And Mitt Romney’s advisers know it. When they say “give him credit” we respond positively to Romney. Why? Because we want credit for fighting our own racism. We feel wronged when someone like me alleges racism is an issue in this election. We cannot admit our racism even to ourselves, especially to ourselves. But, we will never overcome it by hiding from it;it will only make us vulnerable to race-baiting like that we watched from a candidate who braved appearing before the N.A.A.C.P.

No one gave Senator Joe Biden credit for appearing before the N.A.A.C.P. Why not? He presented himself differently. He did not anticipate anything special. He came as an equal. He came with a commonality of interest which transcends race, yet addresses  the results of racism. He did not view his presence as a gift deserving of thanks. He came with thankfulness and respect. There was a moment when his tone seemed obsequious, when he shouted out to his friend “Mouse”,but Senator Biden was no stranger within this group. Long ago, Joe Biden faced his own racism and embraced his responsibility to address the results of racism. Joe Biden is a member of the N.A.A.C.P. The lovely thing about sincerely reaching across racial boundaries is the generous acceptance one is given. Senator Biden was well received. Mr. Romney could have been well-received had his appearance been sincere. Given his true motivation, his appearance, with only three sets of boos, was very generously received.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THAT CURTAIN: SEC.501(C)(4) AND THE 2012 ELECTION,By Louise Annarino,July 10, 2012

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THAT CURTAIN: Sec. 501(c)(4) and the 2012 Election, By Louise Annarino, July 10, 2012

We live in the Land of Oz these days; not the movie, but our very lives, Is anyone out there listening to Dorothy’s lament? She has suffered through terrible storms, as have we: climate change, unfunded wars, 9/11 attack, bank fraud, mortgage melt-down, economic recession/depression, privatization and de-regulation, destruction of the middle-class, erosion of a safety net, attacks on public servants,women, immigrants and union workers. She fears she has lost all. She sees no clear future. The American Dream seems to be merely that, a dream. She simply wants to find her way home, home to the familiar where she feels safe, where she awakes from dreams with the ability to make them happen. Unfortunately, like Americans today, she does not realize she has the power within herself to find her way.

One person finally listens to her; but only when he realizes he can benefit from bringing her within his fold.He opens the door to Oz, invites her in,and promises her exactly what she wants. She falls for the mirage created by a Karl Rovian version of a “very nice man” but “very bad wizard” who uses tricks and deceptions to build a false idea that Dorothy and her buddies must risk all, and take on the formidable Wicked Witch of the West, an enemy he fears and has been unable to contain, before he will help her go home to Kansas. He fully expects she will not survive the ordeal; thus, he is no danger of having to make good on his promises. A typical political operative.

But Dorothy, again like Americans, is determined to succeed with the help of her stalwart friends. It is her willingness to put every concern aside and throw a bucket of water on Scarecrow whom the witch has set afire, which melts away the witch, and her threats. Dorothy saves herself, her friends, the entire city of Oz, even the Wizard himself.

When Dorothy returns to Oz the Wizard plays games with her three compatriots:the Cowardly Lion is given a badge for courage, the Scarecrow is given a diploma for his brains, and a ticking clock to the Tin Man for a heart. Each of these qualities are already present within the characters, but like Dorothy, they have been unable to recognize this fact on their own.

In a memorable scene while Dorothy awaits word from the wizard regarding her return home, her dog Toto pulls back a curtain revealing a man turning gears on the machinery which has created the lie that is the Land of Oz, the lie the people of Oz have also fallen for. He shouts into his microphone, “Pay no Attention to the man behind that curtain.” The wizard sees his power crumbling, and Dorothy sees the truth. She confronts him with such conviction, not allowing him to pull the curtain closed again, and he admits his flawed humanity.  If only we had journalists, politicians, and jurists so brave as Toto, so fearless as Dorothy, so willing to pull back the curtains and reveal truth.

Perhaps we do. Despite the fact that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is slow to act, and probably will not do so before 2012 election, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee filed a formal complaint this week against three social welfare groups, charging them with willful violation of federal election law: Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies,Americans for Prosperity, and 60 Plus Association. THese organizations hid behind the curtain provided by section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, which grants them tax exempt status for social welfare work and allows donors to remain anonymous. Public policy is often written into the tax code. In the case of 501(c)(4)s all funds collected are deemed to serve a social welfare purpose which would likely save the government tax dollars which would otherwise need to be spent to assure the public welfare tasks performed by the  organization.

What are these organizations actually doing? Buying political attack ads against specific Democratic candidates. Crossroads (Rove and former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie) has already spent $25 million on ads attacking President Obama, and plans to spend nearly $40 million (Rove’s Crossroads GPS) attacking Democratic senatorial candidates. Americans for Prosperity (David and Charles Koch) has poured $1 million into Ohio to defeat Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, attacks only Democratic candidates, and has chapters in at least 38 states.(see more at http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=Americans+for+Prosperity.) In 2009, Rachel Maddow opened the curtain on 60 Plus Association (Pharmaceutical Industry) disclosing its ties to the GOP, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the lobbying group Bonner & Associates.  (see more at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=60_Plus_Association) Social welfare? Welcome to Oz.

To anyone willing to pay attention to that man behind the curtain it is clear the major purpose of such groups is federal campaign activity, political benefit not social welfare. Therefore, they should not be treated as 501(c)(4) organizations but as political committees, and their donors must be disclosed. Then, each of us, like Dorothy and her companions, will be able to see the truth behind the messages, tricks, distortions and lies that are Oz; and, find our way home. As a result of CITIZENS UNITED, President Obama has for the first time accepted donations from PACS and SUPER PACS, but not from a 501(C)(4) organization. He refuses to draw a curtain over our eyes. His donors are disclosed, along with his tax returns, and bank balances. Is the Mitt Romney behind that curtain? He may be a very good man but he is a very bad wizard.

(see more at http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/campaign_finance/index.html) and http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/politics/democrats-want-fec-to-restrict-donor-shielding-groups.html?_r=1&ref=campaignfinance)

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

DOJ FIGHTS TO PROTECT TEXAS VOTERS,By Louise Annarino,July 9, 2012

DOJ FIGHTS TO PROTECT TEXAS VOTERS, by Louise Annarino, July 9, 2012

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” … Thomas Paine

For over 20 years I worked the polls, taking a vacation day off work to help others vote. I considered it a civic duty. When I moved to Upper Arlington from Athens I started at the bottom again, sent from neighborhood to neighborhood to fill-in as needed. Within a few years I was posted to my own precinct, a republican precinct. The presiding judge was therefore  Republican. I had been a presiding judge when posted in Democratic precincts because as an attorney, and after so many years working polls, I understood the ins and outs of election law. I recognized many of the voters. In primaries, they self-identified as Democratic or Republican voters in order to vote in their party primary. The republican judge consistently refused to issue provisional ballots, make name changes or address changes, or redirect voters to proper voting location to Democratic voters. When I intervened to do so I was told only she had authority to do so. I reminded her of the law, ignored her directive, and proceeded to assure every voter was helped to cast a valid vote within state and county guidelines.

She repeated this behavior at the following election. I reported our disagreements in our problem reporting booklet, for each voter she attempted to disenfranchise. I wanted a record indicating the validity of the voter’s right to cast a vote, and the need for my intervention to assure that vote was counted. Later, I discussed this presiding judge’s behavior with the Board of Elections trainer. She promised to look into the matter. Nothing changed. Following the next election, I not only documented the problem within the reporting problems booklet, I also wrote a letter documenting each charge against the presiding judge, and sent it to several parties, including the Board of Election and the Democratic Ward Leader who assigned me to that polling site. I called numerous times to review the matter with him. Each time he promised the matter would be looked into. The next election, there she was again, smiling at me as she told a Democratic voter  they could not vote since they had moved, instead of doing an address change and redirecting and/or allowing a provisional ballot as the situation required. She made it clear she was not going anywhere, nor was she going to change. Voter fraud by appointed or elected officials is the real threat to our democracy. This is why each polling site has persons from each party working together, to keep one another in check, and to protect voters. This is why tallies are taken throughout the day and posted in the front windows where anyone who wants to check can see what is happening. This is why exit polls are so important, to measure against the posted vote tallies.

It was in Florida 2000 that we saw so intimately how party operatives can corrupt the popular vote, when republicans delayed and challenged every vote, forcing recounts that would have gone on long after the US Supreme Court declared George Bush the winner of the Florida presidential campaign, pushing him into the White House. “The reality, therefore, is that Mr. Bush’s victory in the most fouled-up, disputed and wrenching presidential election in American history was so breathtakingly narrow that there is no way of knowing with absolute precision who got the most votes. After all, there is no perfect way to decide which disputed ballots should be counted and rejected.”(see more at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12ASSE.html and http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/) Clearly,close elections are more easily subject to fraudulent manipulation, and less easily challenged.

This is the same year that tapeless electronic voting machines  which could be hacked and manipulated reared their ugly heads. MAnufactured by companies which poured millions of dollars into the Bush campaign. This is the type of fraud we must guard against. This is the real threat.

Everyone can agree that voter ID is not inherently wrong. But It is wrong when it disenfranchises voters; and we have a system in place to assure only qualified voters can cast votes and that only those votes will be counted. It works so well there is no evidence of meaningful voter fraud by voters. Dead persons on the rolls? Sure. Dead persons voting? No. Voter ID adds nothing to help eligible voters; it does disenfranchise eligible voters. In Texas, SB 14 requires voters to show one of short list of government-issued documents, excluding Social Security, Medicaid, or student ID cards. Gun licenses, however, are acceptable. 

Texas‘ own records estimate “a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification.The DOJ found more than 600,000 Texans will be disenfranchised, most minority voters. Social security card? older voters disenfranchised. Student ID? students disenfranchised? Medicaid card? Poor and disabled disenfranchised.

Today, Texas will defend the law against Attorney Holder’s Justice Department, claiming it is needed to prevent voter fraud. “But the San Antonio Express-News reported that fewer than five ‘illegal voting’ complaints involving voter impersonations were filed with the Texas Attorney General’s Office from the 2008 and 2010 general elections in which more than 13 million voters participated.” (see more at http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/06/512245/texas-voter-id-law-which-accepts-gun-licenses-but-not-student-ids-challenged-in-court/). Texas is one of more than 2 dozen states the DOJ is investigating in order to protect the right of eligible voters to cast their ballots.

What can you do? Help neighbors, friends, relatives, and community organizations identify voters in need of ID, help them obtain the ID, update yours and their voter registration with name or address changes, then get them to the polls to vote. If the margin between candidates is small, voter fraud by officials and parties is easily manipulated. Only if the margins are fairly large can such subterfuge succeed.

Help at the polls,as a poll worker, a poll watcher. Start now and attend local Board of election meetings;let officials know we are watching them and recording their comments and activities. MAke it difficult for them to disenfranchise ANY voter.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University College of Law (see more at http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/truthaboutvoterfraud/) after exhaustive study has determined that voter fraud simply does not exist. Yet, an orchestrated movement to end that which does not exists has taken off thanks to a well-financed disinformation and legislative action campaign. The 2012 reelection of the scary black man is justification enough,it seems. The only believable explanation some people have for how he was elected in the first place is rampant voter fraud. These same people don’t believe racism exists despite hundreds of years of factual data; yet believe voter fraud exists despite no evidence. This movement is not about election reform. It is solely for election manipulation by denying qualified voters opposing one party’s candidates their right to vote. In evidence: Pennsylvania State Rep.Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) listed recent GOP accomplishments during his speech to Republican Central Committee members, including this one: “Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. Done.” See video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87NN5sdqNt8  “If you have to stop people from voting to win elections, your ideas suck,” responded Pennsylvania Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery.

We must protect every voter: Democratic, Republican, Independent, or Libertarian. We must protect all voters or no voter is protected. We do not fear the vote of our opposition. We know President Obama’s ideas  are good ones. We believe he can win this election.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

WE DON'T DO THINGS BY HALF, By Louise Annarino, July 6, 2012

WE DON’T DO THINGS BY HALF, BY Louise Annarino, July 6, 2012

It is 7:35 AM. It is 75.3 degrees; humidiity 87%; heat index 80.2 degrees. We expect records to be broken a second day in a row, with high temperature of 100…or more. Who knows anymore? Yesterday, Columbus broke the record high temperature set in 1911. We are now accustomed to reading 100 degrees on our car and home thermometers, no matter what the official figures are. We trust it will be too hot to care if the weatherperson hits the mark or not. It will be hot. Too hot. That is all we know.

Yesterday, I spent almost 2 hours at the Columbus Zoo with my teenage nephew. The temperature was 100 degrees; heat index 110. We don’t do things by half. The heat has made our judgment faulty. We had left a WATER exhibit at COSI to see how the animals were faring at the zoo. We forgot we are human animals. We thought ,for once, the polar bears might be in the water instead of sleeping on the rocky outcropping in their display area. Only one was on display, sleeping on the rocks with water to swim in mere inches away. The water was too hot. We are saving polar bears from global warming’s melting polar ice by placing them near water too hot to swim in at the zoo. Nice save.

We walked slowly, from mister to mister, viewing animals much smarter than ourselves, curled motionless in shady nap spots while we walked the sun alive on the pavement beneath our feet. The heat has made us stupid. The misters lost moisture before the beads of water could touch our faces. It was too hot for water to last.  Consider that it is too hot for water to last, too hot for H2O to stay beaded together until our bodies can use it for sustenance or comfort. The WATER exhibit at COSI explains water’s use and effect, and the threat of its loss . We saw COSI’s message played in real time at the zoo. It is an uncomfortable reality that water is being superheated beyond our ability to access it for human use. The polar bears already know this.

We don’t do things by half. Would that we could. Then,we could survive. But, we are made stupid by the heat. Our judgment is faulty. We don’t do things by half, even when our survival depends upon it. There are some whose anger with our president’s willingness to do things by half ,which he can do no other way, clouds their judgment of his abilities, his motives and his wisdom. Their over-heated rhetoric only makes a successful economic recovery less assured. His first half may have pleased no one on the far right, nor on the far left. But, it is those of us in the middle half who understand his many accomplishments, with half a Congress in support, half in opposition:

– Cut payroll taxes for all Americans,putting $40 per paycheck back in the pocket of the typical Ohioan.

– In Ohio, the manufacturing sector aded more than 33,500 jobs in last 2 years, while President Obama works to end tax cuts for companies shipping jobs overseas and lower tax rates for companies which manufacture goods in America.

– Created over4.1 million privates sector jobs, 123,000 in Ohio over the last 2 years.

– Rescued the U.S. auto industry, protecting 848,000 Ohio jobs and over 1 million jobs nationwide. US auto industry is once again #1 in the world.

– Created or extended 18 tax cuts for small businesses – the drivers of economic growth.

– Strengthened medicare, saving 185,000 Ohioans an average $512 on prescription drugs.

– Expanded access to preventive care with no out-of-pocket costs to 2.1 million Ohioans, including 559,000 children and 797,000 women under age 65.

– Stopped insurance industry practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions for  643,000 Ohio children.

– Expanded health care coverage to 82,000 young adults by allowing them to stay on parents’ health care plans until age 26.

– Required Insurance companies who failed to spend at least 80%-85% of premiums collected on health care to return an average of $127 to 3.4 million Americans who paid for their own insurance. Over $1 billion dollars will be paid back nationwide.

– Reduced our dependence on foreign oil to lowest level in 16 years. Domestic oil production is at an 8 year high, natural gas at an all-time high, and renewable energy from wind and solar has more than doubled.

– Helped Ohio produce 9 times more electricity from wind in 2011 than in 2010.

– Signed VOW to Hire Heroes Act, providing tax breaks to businesses hiring returning veterans.

– Brought Iraq war to honorable end, and is working towards same goal in Afghanistan.

– Brought 2/3 of Al Qaeda’s leadership, and Osama Bin Laden to justice.

– Ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

– Doubled funding for Pell Grants. Signed into law a tax credit up to $10,000 over 4 years to help middle class families afford tuition.

– Supported 12,500 teachers and school staff jobs in Ohio 2009-2010, reducing burden on local school districts.

The list of accomplishments made by doing things by half – with the support of half the Senate, half the House goes on and on. We are out of the hole and moving forward after years of digging the hole deeper under Republican leadership. We Americans don’t like doing things by half. But, when we must do so, it is good to have a president who knows how to do so effectively. Hopefully,  more progressive Democratic candidates will be elected to the US House and Senate more fully supporting President Obama during his second term. Don’t like doing things by half? Then, vote for Sherrod Brown for US Senate. Vote for the Democratic candidate in your congressional race. Vote for Barack Obama. Don’t let the heat of Republican attacks distort your ability to think straight and move the country forward.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

IS IT REAL OR FICTION? By Louise Annarino

IS  IT REAL OR MERELY FICTION ?

Louise Annarino

June 26,2012

When presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared “Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets. Human beings my friend” 1, he was combining two fictions: political argument and legal principle. He made the statement to explain why he would not reduce the deficit or protect social security and medicare by raising taxes on corporations. His economic policy has always been based on a long-ago disproven “trickle down” theory, and is consistent with the above comment. Theoretically, if one becomes rich off corporate success one does not need social security nor medicare.

But a theoretically consistent analysis does not mean the premise of the theory is correct. One must ask, how many Americans will achieve such success? How many Americans are given “golden parachutes”2 when they are fired or severance packages designed to maintain their employed-level lifestyle when they retire?3  Not public employees! Yet, Romney sided with Wisconsin Governor Walker and Ohio Governor Kasich in decrying the excessive retirement benefits available to public workers.4 Governor Kasich and candidate Romney share another commonality; their pursuit of personal wealth resulted in reduction or loss of pension and retirement benefits for hundreds of thousands of workers: In Kasich’s case, Ohio public employees including state workers,teachers,law enforcement and fire personnel; and, in Romney’s case workers in companies his equity firm salvaged or savaged.

Courts have used the concept of legal fiction since ancient Rome. “This jargon refers to the law’s ability to decree that something that’s not necessarily true is true. It’s somewhat like a person in a discussion agreeing to accept an opinion as fact for the sake of argument in order to move the discussion along. Legal fiction helps to move proceedings along.”7 Corporate personhood is one such legal fiction.It is employed simply to determine the legality of corporate agreements (contracts) and business proceedings. However, we all understand that this is FICTION and not REALITY. Therefore, it is incumbent that such a discussion tool be used judiciously by our courts. Corporations have super-human qualities which must be constrained when using the legal fiction of personhood.

How do courts use legal fiction? Not always with judicial restraint. For example,In CITIZENS UNITED the U.S. Supreme Court recognized corporations as “persons” entitled to the 1st. Amendment political speech protections of human beings, opening a floodgate for unchecked billions of dollars of corporate donations. Last week in KNOX v SEIU “The five conservative justices, led by Justice Samuel Alito, and two concurring liberals,…held that, from now on, non-members have to specifically tell the union to take money out of their paychecks for political purposes; that is, they have to opt in.6,8 It makes sense that an individual worker cannot be forced to donate to a political effort he does not support. Unions allow workers to opt out of such political funds. Now, workers must opt in. This change restrains union efforts to effect political change on behalf of its members. Must corporations likewise now seek approval of each investor before donating to political candidates, campaigns, PACS, and SUPERPACS? Or, does corporate personhood override the 1st. Amendment rights of investors? Why are unions treated less like persons than corporations? Whether one agrees or not that the Supreme Court used this fiction judiciously in CITIZENS UNITED, courts ought to at least use it consistently. Stare Decisis, another legal term, requires such consistency. If such a shareholder challenge should come before the court it would help answer any question one has regarding the politicization of our highest court. Can you imagine a campaign finance system where investors must opt in before corporations can make political donations?

As politicians move to raise money and seal the deal with voters, one can merely hope the misleading conflation of legal fiction with political fiction will stop.Mr. Romney’s corporations are people comment sounded a false note; and, it may be why his comment was greeted with such disdain. Despite his intentions, It just sounded wrong to average citizens who could care less about legal fiction while dealing with real life. Most of us would agree with Elizabeth Warren’s political commentary, that corporations are not human beings, despite a legal fiction used solely for judicial argument.7 Mothers don’t tuck-in corporations. Fathers don’t shoot hoops with them. Voters don’t vote for corporations; they vote for a man or woman who understands their reality and will not harm them. The rest is fiction.

  1. .http://technorati.com/politics/article/video-mitt-romney-says-corporations-are/  Romney made these remarks at the Iowa State Fair in August, 2011.
  2. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/golden-parachutes-21-ceos-landed-100m-plus/ So-called golden parachutes are contractual provisions that compensate executives, if they are terminated without cause.
  3. http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/economy/romney_taxes/index.htm  Romney “is still pulling in millions from Bain Capital, a private equity firm he founded in the mid-1980s and retired from in 1999.Of course, it’s common for retiring executives to walk away with big retirement packages. But Romney pays only a 15% tax rate on his take, unlike executives at corporations, who typically pay 35%.Why? Because Romney was a partner in a private equity firm and some of the money he still receives from Bain — $13 million over the past two years — is “carried interest.”
  4. http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Romney-Finds-Soul-Mate-in-Walker-s-Assault-on-Workers-Retirement-Security “Romney’s focus on pension cuts isn’t surprising. After all, in his role as corporate raider and takeover king at Bain Capital, workers’ pensions were often the first thing to go.”
  5. http://www.examiner.com/article/huge-lehman-brother-payouts-report-recalls-ohio-gov-kasich-s-time-at-the-firm “Former Congressman John Kasich clearly was not a banker, but he found a home at Lehman nonetheless. As a one-time Ohio State Senator and then as a Congressman for 18 years, Kasich had easy access to many doors. Among them were doors to Ohio pension funds.According to published reports at the time, Kasich opened doors for Lehman Brother’s private equity department and investment officials at the Ohio Police & Fire Pension and the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System in 2002. Kasich made the case that Lehman would be a good broker for real estate and other investments.Lehman Brothers losses at Ohio pension funds.When all was said and done, after the nation went spinning into what is now called the Great Recession, the Ohio Treasurers office, which acts as custodian but does not invest pension monies, calculated that the funds had a combined $480 million loss in market value solely from Lehman investments. Other sources, using different calculations, said the direct losses were closer to $220 million.”
  6.  http://mnlabor.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/how-the-supreme-courts-knox-v-seiu-decision-could-dismantle-union-security-around-the-country-news-politics-alternet/ “The public sector union contract has to cover all the workers in the agency, not just card-carrying members– and  all the workers benefit from the resultant pay raises, health benefits, pensions and other goodies. So non-members are expected to contribute something to the direct cost of negotiations. (Workers who don’t support the union shouldn’t get to enjoy the better pay and working conditions that their union colleagues fought for, but employers haven’t historically been willing to pay people less for NOT being union members. They much prefer to bribe, cajole and threaten workers to reject the union.).Public sector unions have been major political players, too (see: Scott Walker’s targeting of Wisconsin’s public employee unions).This is partly because fundraising for politics has been relatively simple: with everyone’s full knowledge and ample notice given (called “Hudson notices”), a percentage of both members’ and non-members’ funds could go toward political work. Anyone could opt out of this political fund, and their money would be reimbursed.”
  7. http://www.examiner.com/article/elizabeth-warren-educates-mitt-romney-explaining-why-corporations-are-not-people “Mitt Romney tells us in his own words, ‘I think corporations are people.’ No, Mitt, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs,” Ms. Warren said. “Learn the difference…And Mitt, learn this,” she continued as she strongly delivered the night’s best line, “We don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.”
  8. http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/knox-v-seiu.html Service Employees International Union (SEIU) represents 1.8 million people in health care and public service. Non-member public employees are required by California state law to pay SEIU a “fair share fee” to defray the costs of union representation on their behalf. To that end, each year SEIU sends its non-members a notice, as required by the Supreme Court, which informs non-members of their fair share fee and of their right to object to paying non-chargeable expenditures including money spent for political advocacy. Those fees are calculated based upon expenses during the previous year and do not take into account unforeseen expenses.In 2005, SEIU issued a valid annual notice informing non-members of the percentage of their dues which would be allocated to union representation and gave them 30 days to opt-out of paying amounts associated with non-representation functions. The notice stated that dues were subject to change based on actual costs. A month later, SEIU imposed an emergency temporary assessment fee to defend against attacks on union plans and charged non-members who objected to the increase the percentage set forth in the initial notice as the amount associated with union representation. A group of nonmember state employees in California challenged this practice in a class action suit against SEIU.Employees claim that SEIU’s failure to send out a supplemental notice when the union imposed a special assessment violated employees First and Fourteenth Amendments rights by forcing non-union employees to subsidize union political activities. SEIU counters that its notice was constitutionally and legally sufficient because the Supreme Court has recognized that the notice did not require an exact determination of the yearly expenditures, but merely a good prediction based upon the previous year’s audits. The Court previously recognized the impossibility of anticipating expenditures at the outset of the fee year and that once the union sent the original notice it need not send a second notice speculating how a fee increase might be spent. The district court found for the employees, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that a temporary fee increase did not require an additional notice.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

DON'T PUSH HUMPTY DUMPTY OFF THE WALL by Louise Annarino

DON’T PUSH HUMPTY DUMPTY OFF THE WALL

Louise Annarino

June 25, 2012

Democratic republics in the West did not emerge in full blossom overnight; nor will they in the East. The seeds of power within people must be planted in good soil and be kept moist despite periods of drought. Those who feed the country’s growth are ever in danger of being choked by weeds. Egypt’s journey, and that of other nations seeking some form of democratic republic, is our own.

As we watch the Egyptian military generals write and rewrite laws to secure their power base in the face of shared power with a president and parliament not of their choosing, let us recall the first parliaments in England which were made up exclusively of the privileged few, heirs to the original land barons granted fiefs by their king for military service to protect and defend his crown, and more importantly, his crown jewels. The king was loath to part with his landholdings which generated his wealth. The barons agreed to supply a percentage of crops, minerals, forest, game and resources to the king in exchange for permission to act as lord over the serfs who were attached to the land, and to  supply troops whenever called upon to do so by the king. In this way, both the king and his barons grew excessively wealthy. Sound familiar?

In 1215 King John agreed to the Magna Carta, the great charter, which gave legal rights to the Barons and Earls and mandated that the king listen to them and follow their advice. Before the Magna Carta the king called a parliament at his whim with no legal obligation to follow the barons’ advice. The Magna Carta granted no rights to the serfs; but, merely became a tool of the landed gentry (who had personal armies supporting them) to control the king in order to protect their own interests. Sound familiar?

In 1265, following a war between Henry III and Simon De Montfort, De Montfort briefly established a parliament which also included  burgesses, representatives from each county,city and town until Edward I, who killed De Montfort in battle, called is first parliament in 1275 which included churchmen,two knights from each county, and two commoners from each town ( the house of burgesses). Since 1327 parliament set the pattern we know today: House of Lords, House of Commons, Monarch.

It took another hundred years to establish that Parliament’s House of Commons controlled granting money raised through taxation to the king (usually to wage war); and wrote statutes creating the law of the land, replacing the writ to the king for favor system of an earlier day.

Overthrowing the leaders of countries does not necessarily mean more power to the people. It took great Britain several hundred years and a civil war to do so. The United States, copied Great Britain’s lead, replacing the monarch with a president. The House of Lords became our Senate; the House of Commons our House of Representatives. There are those who pressured newly-elected President George Washington to accept the appellation Your Majesty. He insisted on Mister, in a new nation where all men are considered equal. And so we say, Mr. President when addressing him.

The U.S. shortened Great Britain’s time-line: 1776 – Declaration of Independence, 1789 – Constitution and first 10 Amendments ratified, 1789 – Judiciaries Act passed, 1803 – Marbury v. Madison. Hopefully, emerging democracies can shorten the time it takes to become nations of law and not men, and avoid civil war. Building a strong middle class will help.

The industrial revolution which began in the 1500’s with the guild movement solidified in 1760-1850. It is no coincidence that the movement to end serfdom occurred on the same time frame. Prior to industrialization in England, land was the primary source of wealth. “The landed aristocracy held enormous powers [through] the feudal system. However, a new source of great wealth grew from the Industrial Revolution, that which was derived from the ownership of factories and machinery. Those who invested in factories and machinery cannot be identified as belonging to any single class of people (landed aristocracy, industrialists, merchants). Their backgrounds were quite diverse, yet they had one thing in common: the daring to seize the opportunity to invest in new ventures. It was these capitalists who gave the necessary impetus to the speedy growth of the Industrial Revolution.”1

In the United States, the Industrial Revolution made the North economically stronger than the South, which barely maintained a landed gentry system on the backs of slave labor and that of poor white sharecroppers. The bloody rise of labor unions prevented this quasi feudal-serf system from taking root in the North. Despite fighting a Civil War to end slavery, and the efforts of labor unions, we still see vestiges of the old feudal system within our economic institutions, policies and practices both north and south. Since the election of our first African-American president those differences in how we choose to govern ourselves have become more overt. Ohio and Wisconsin, as well as every other state,thanks to ALEC, are fighting to protect unions, not just to protect the unions but to protect all workers from being reduced, once again, to serfdom. 2

In China, Thailand, Guam, Africa and all over the globe multi-national corporations are locking in workers for excessively-long shifts, with little or no pay. Human trafficking in workers, slave or forced labor, is on the rise world-wide in every imaginable  industry including my favorite – chocolate. 3

What is the connection here? It is that human beings seek power over their own lives. Money is power, so they seek money. The reason taxes are a big deal to both Tea Party Republicans and Liberal Progressives, The US Chamber of Commerce and the churches, Wall Street banks and non-profit organizations, Democratic and Republican parties, the upper class-middle class- and poor is because money buys power. Money bought the King. Money bought the Corporations. Money bought the politicians. We all want money because we all value power. Why? Power brings freedom: the freedom from want, the freedom of choice over need, the freedom of association, the freedom to say no just because we want to do so. If we truly believe we are all entitled to be free, then we must also believe we are all entitled to enough money to feel power over our own lives.

When we are without money for too long we feel powerless as a result. It is this feeling of being powerless which brings out our racism, sexism, homophobia etc. Those who feel powerless resent others who seem to be acquiring power. Hidden in our psyche is the racist belief that an African-American has no business being so powerful when white men now feel so powerless. That is the crux of this election. Even Roman Catholic bishops, losing esteem and power over their flocks due to their misogynist attitude toward women and their cover-up of pedophilia within their ranks are fighting for power by attacking President Obama. Even Christian church leaders accustomed to financial power and preaching its attainment as a Gospel truth, which fell apart in the recession, are attacking President Obama. They have no qualms viciously attacking him, trying to knock him off his game. Unfortunately, his game is governing this country we all love.

What can we do? We can stop attacking people who want power, who want money, who want to feel safe; who cannot feel truly free without these things. We all want these things. We all want freedom.

We can stop attacking each other lest we all end up “Humpty Dumpty”. 4  Despite British and American love of freedom, and each country’s Civil Wars to establish equality among all its citizens and clearly unified governance, neither would suggest civil war as a positive step. We can learn from these past divisive periods. History does not have to repeat itself around the globe, nor within our own borders. We can stop being so afraid that we needlessly try to knock one another off the wall. We can recognize that there is enough wealth to share so that all feel powerful and free.

We celebrate freedom in this country without understanding its roots. No banker, no corporate executive, no shareholder, no priest nor bishop, no Tea Bagger, no liberal, no politician, no judge, no citizen will feel free until they feel financially secure. This was the beauty of a strong middle class; it made everyone feel free. It was an imaginable state of being for the poorest citizen aspiring to move higher through education and hard work; and for the richest executive who fell from grace, a safe place to land. Without a middle class, no American feels free.Not the wealthiest, not the poorest, and not the middle class.

To America and to the world a message of freedom: Build and protect the common man’s wealth, the middle class. The BRITISH COMMONWEALTH is a not a fluke. American economic success since the Civil War is not a fluke. Stop seeking to be excessively wealthy; instead, seek to build wealth within the middle class, a commonwealth within and among nations. With commonwealth comes common power. With such a sense of power comes a sense of freedom and peace. The Eurozone is struggling with this concept as I write.

Look at what Britain accomplished. Look at what the U.S. accomplished. Those lessons will serve us well. this is what President Obama has been trying to remind us.  Destroying the middle class destroys our commonwealth, pushes Humpty Dumpty off the wall; and, neither all the king’s horses nor all the king’s men can put us back together again. Life is too fragile for such nonsense.

 

 

1. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/2/81.02.06.x.html

2.http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed 

3.http://www1.american.edu/ted/chocolate-slave.htm “Presently, about 700,000 children and women are trafficked around the world annually. The UN says that profits for this trafficking amount to approximately $7 billion a year (Anti-Slavery International).”

4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty  “In 1648 Colchester was a walled town with a castle and several churches and was protected by the city wall. The story given was that a large cannon, which the website claimed was colloquially called Humpty Dumpty, was strategically placed on the wall. A shot from a Parliamentary cannon succeeded in damaging the wall beneath Humpty Dumpty which caused the cannon to tumble to the ground. The Royalists, or Cavaliers, ‘all the King’s men’ attempted to raise Humpty Dumpty on to another part of the wall, but because the cannon was so heavy ‘All the King’s horses and all the King’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again’. In his 2008 book Pop Goes the Weasel: The Secret Meanings of Nursery Rhymes author Albert Jack claimed that there were two other verses supporting this claim. Elsewhere he claimed to have found them in an “old dusty library, [in] an even older book”,but did not state what the book was or where it was found. It has been pointed out that the two additional verses are not in the style of the seventeenth century, or the existing rhyme, and that they do not fit with the earliest printed version of the rhyme, which do not mention horses and men.”

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS