Tag Archives: Republican Party

January 26, 2014 · 4:54 pm

There is No War on Women,by Louise Annarino,1-25-2014

There is No War on Women,By Louise Annarino

 

There is no war on women. What we are watching play out is an age-old phenomenon of men who fear women’s sexual expression. Whether it is the Taliban, fundamentalist Muslims-Jews-Christians,or Mike Huckabee, the chastisement and need to control women springs from men’s fear of loss of their own control. I refuse to allow their fear to become my burden. I suggest they learn to handle it all, as I must handle my own fears. Their fear, their loss of control, is not my problem; but, they insist on making it so. I don’t call that a war. I call it fear mongering.

 

We use the word war too loosely. We enjoy hyperbole because it grabs our attention,holds our imagination, and allows us to believe we are heroes(another word used too loosely)fighting some grand battle. Anyone who has ever experienced war is insulted by this cavalier use of the word. Anyone who have ever acted heroically is appalled by its frequent use in today’s lexicon. As William Tecumseh Sherman who marched on Atlanta destroying all in his wake said in his address to the Michigan Military Academy in June 19, 1879, “You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!” (Battle Creek Enquirer and News,Nov.18,1933). I cannot use the word “war” to describe anything but war. Fear is not war; and, unless we name what is happening correctly, we cannot address the problem we face correctly.

 

This fear of male loss of control when faced with female sexual expression has biological roots. http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ Men’s brains are structured with less ability to maintain rational thought while in the throes of emotion. Of course they fear women whose brains allow them to cry,laugh,orgasm and think at the same time. Whom should we blame for this? The Hebrews tell a story of the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden. Most of us have at least heard that story a time or two. There are two elements to that story: obedience to the male deity transferred to obedience to the first male, Adam. Who was to be obedient to these male prototypes? The woman. What do fig leaves have to do with the story? They are used to cover up human sexual expression, and thus control sexual expression which becomes sinful when the woman does not obey the man. That is what is going on today!

 

The Hebrews were not the first to tell such a story. Earlier cultures and religious traditions acknowledged the power of female sexuality; some accepted it and used it as an avenue to spiritual awakening a la the Vestal Virgins. Others fearfully suppressed it, a la female genital mutilation. We see vestiges of these practices today throughout our world. It is not only Mike Huckabee and Republican men who fear women. Democrats,Libertarians,Independents and a host of other men do, too. The men who do not fear women are able to trust and appreciate women, able to understand the biology of male/female differences without feeling inferior, and able to see diversity as an enriching experience,not one to be feared. There is that word “diversity” which too many of us fear. Such men exist within all political parties and religions.

 

Although I do not see such fear of women as merely a Republican issue, one must acknowledge that the Republican Party platforms have opposed Affirmative Action,our ONE effort to practice diversity; while the Democratic Party platform has embraced diversity.The Republican Party platform opposes women’s right to birth control and abortion,to freely manage her health needs to freely express her body’s sexuality; while the Democratic Party has embraced a woman’s right to choose how she uses her body sexually and how to protect her health. We cannot ignore that these two party positions are different, even though men are the same biological creatures, dealing with the same fears in both parties.

 

As a woman,I am not satisfied with the behavior of men in either party. It is not enough to add women to the mix, when the men make all the final decisions, and too often ignore and disparage our female voices. When women’s only strength comes from a separate women’s caucus, whose leaders are the strongest and wisest and most experienced political activists I know, rather than being hired into positions of political power we know we still have a long way to go. We may have “come a long way baby”,finally being allowed to participate in the race; but, the race officials-funders-judges are still men who too often control our political expression. The words men use to describe their view of women is not the problem. Their fear of women’s full and free use of her power is the problem. Huckabee apologists are busy trying to reframe how to control women as if male manners need fixed. Instead, they should focus on facing their own fears and finding their courage in the face of female power and sexuality.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under COMMENTARY, POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 2, 2013 · 3:53 pm

Lift Every Voice and Sing,by Louise Annarino,3-2-2013

Lift Every Voice and Sing,By Louise Annarino,3-02-2013

“Our minds fasten on that single moment on the bus — Mrs. Parks alone in that seat, clutching her purse, staring out a window, waiting to be arrested. That moment tells us something about how change happens, or doesn’t happen . . . We so often spend our lives as if in a fog, accepting injustice, rationalizing inequity, tolerating the intolerable. Like the bus driver, but also like the passengers on the bus, we see the way things are — children hungry in a land of plenty, entire neighborhoods ravaged by violence, families hobbled by job loss or illness — and we make excuses for inaction, and we say to ourselves, that’s not my responsibility, there’s nothing I can do. Rosa Parks tells us there’s always something we can do. She tells us that we all have responsibilities, to ourselves and to one another. She reminds us that this is how change happens — not mainly through the exploits of the famous and the powerful, but through the countless acts of often anonymous courage and kindness and fellow feeling and responsibility that continually, stubbornly, expand our conception of justice — our conception of what is possible.” – President Barack Obama,February 27,2013

On February 27,2013 in Statuary Hall at the nations Capitol,President Obama in the presence of the family of Ms. Rosa Parks, unveiled a full-body bronze statue memorializing that moment when she brought racism to its knees as she refused to stand, give up her seat to a white rider, and move to the back of a bus. It was not the first time someone had protested a move to the back of the bus, but it was the first time a nation came to her defense through the organizing efforts of the local NAACP chapter, and soon other civil rights organizations. While it is true a single act can change a nation, it can only do so when it galvanizes others to join in that change.

Rosa Parks’ quiet dignity galvanized a nation bent upon change. This is what President Obama has been doing as he charts a future course for our country with the same quiet dignity. This is why we see so much of, and hear so often from, our activist president. It is one reason liberal change agents love him, and conservative change blockers hate him. It is the quiet dignity of an African-American man which they fear, recognizing its ability to galvanize and organize a nation bent on changing the old boys’ club which has benefited heterosexual white men for so much a part of our nation’s history. No one begrudges the right of white heterosexual men to achieve whatever their talents allow them, so long as their doing so is not at the expense of, nor upon the backs of, the rest of the nation’s citizens. It has only become a class war because they used their accumulated wealth to create an upper class in control of  the generation of all wealth.

Facing decades of civil rights demands,this upper class has been breached by a few formerly excluded from the opportunity to join their ranks. Too few of these men and women are willing to rock the boat that keeps them afloat,unfortunately. To their amazement and even horror, one of those allowed in, President Barack Obama, was daring enough to take the oars and chart a new course for the ship of state the upper class had sailed for so many years.

This is why they block his efforts to rebuild America, to create a more a perfect union, to overcome old divisions which separate us not only by race,sex,and sexual preference, but by class. Their efforts to take back the oars failed in 2012 despite a constant stream of racial and class denigration of both President and First Lady Barack and Michelle Obama. The stronger their fear that they have lost control of the ship of state, the more willing they have become to sink the ship itself.

The latest Senate filibuster which prevented the Senate from voting out a bill to stop sequestration and offer the balanced bill proposed by President Obama to: close tax loopholes of the upper class,make targeted cuts which would do the least harm to personal and national economies,invest in job creation and infrastructure,improve and expand educational opportunities,strengthen our national defense efficiently,create green alternatives to an oil-based/war-ensuring future meant the House could not even consider the president’s proposals-could not even consider the new course correction for the ship of state to a safer and a more productive course. Instead, in ensuring sequestration was signed into law, they poked holes in the hull of the ship of state, forcing the country to bail water instead of sailing forward.

As if this is not enough. Rep. Eric Cantor(R-VA) made another shot across the bow yesterday,discussing the republican decision to battle for more cuts when the debt limit maxes out in early March, and government spending for this fiscal year expires at the end of March. His goal is to stop President Obama’s balanced approach and protect the upper class from any affront to the wealthy donors his party now protects at all costs to the detriment of nation as a whole. “I think it is possible that we would shut down the government to make sure President Obama understands that we’re serious,” explained Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, (R-Wash), the fourth ranking Republican in the House. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57563805-10391739/republicans-contemplating-government-shutdown-over-debt-fight/

The self-satisfied smirks of Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell,John Boehner,and Cathy McMorris Rodgers match that of Justice Antonin Scalia whom I mentioned in an earlier post https://annarinowrites.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/basketball-and-voting-rightsby-louise-annarino2-28-2013/. In each case they smirk with gleeful expression when colleagues in the House and Senate and on the court, and governors from their states question their destructive lack of governmental integrity. I know that smirk. In children it is usally acompanied by finger wagging from the ears and the sing-song phrase “na,na…na,na,na.”  it is the behavior of bullies, bullies who would destroy the country so long as it destroyed its first African-American president and his challenge to the captains of the upper class. Who would sink the ship of state when it dared cross into the shipping lanes of the ocean liners and yachts of the upper class? No one with something to lose.

“Why?” we ask, are republicans so willing to ignore the will of the people,to ignore the polls showing the people’s opposition to republican governance and support for the president’s governance proposals ? Why are they sinking the ship of state? Because they are doing so from the presumed safety of the ocean liner’s deck. They have abandoned the ship of state and called a recess. They should recall the Titanic, a ship considered too big to fail. They should recall that ocean liners rely on tugboats to bring them safely into port. But, those on the ocean liners call the world their home now. No longer is America their only port. They no longer curry favor from American tug boats. And so long as they can stay afloat amassing even more wealth in international ports, they feel safe from those of us on land whom they view as inferior because of our race,color,national origin,sex,or sexual preference. These named classses are protected legal classes because they are the classes most under attack.

Persons within these legally-protected classes are most under attack becasue the upper class fears them the most, and has the power and funds to stage an attack against them. A republican has told me that my writing about race as a motivation for the attacks against the president and his positions is my fall-back  position. He is wrong. It is my frontal assault position. It may appear to some as a fall-back since I try to do it with grace and dignity. But we both know refusing to go to the back of the bus is not a fall-back position. And republicans repeatedly tell us that is where our president must sit.

It has ever been my world view that racism is the biggest threat to the  idea of America,and our biggest political threat. If this were not the case, politicians would not so readily use it to attack our president and undermine his leaderhip at home and abroad. Class domination is also a dangerous political tool. Anger at our president is not only based upon racial animus. It also based upon a view of him as threat to the upper class of mostly white men who have bought poltical parties lock,stock and barrel. 

So, what do we do? Lock hands and arms and sing “We Shall Overcome”? Yes, if that strengthens us to organize,speak out publicly in blogs and letters to the editor, speak privately with our neighbors and friends,register and educate voters,call our representatives/senators/governors,donate to causes and poltical efforts which reform the processes which allow the upper class to go to sea and distance themselves from our problems ashore. We must protect voter rights,redistrict gerrymandered states,stop environmental degradation,assure safe food and drugs,improve and cut costs of medical and dental care for every American,protect American workers and create more sustainable jobs paying a living wage,and strengthen and defend public schools. These are actions we can take on a local level. As President Obama said, “Rosa Parks tells us there’s always something we can do… She reminds us that this is how change happens — not mainly through the exploits of the famous and the powerful, but through the countless acts of often anonymous courage and kindness and fellow feeling and responsibility that continually, stubbornly, expand our conception of justice — our conception of what is possible.”

Republicans are currently more fearful than democrats of the power and wealth-making efforts sought by classes previously denied full particpation in the American dream. Their tent is not so diverse as the democratic tent,becasue their policies continue to poke holes in any boat which welcomes diverse passengers aboard ship. Justice Scalia recently explained their position to us: calling others aboard ship creates an expectation of racial entitlement. The more diverse the ship of state becomes, the more willing republicans are to watch it sink with all of us on board.The more willing a man who opposed activist judges his whole life is to become one himself,throwing his integrity overboard. We are not entitled it seems to stay afloat on their seas. So, by our activism, we must remind ourselves and them that “We Shall Overcome.” Let us “Lift Every Voice and Sing.”

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 14, 2013 · 7:03 am

Neither Democrats Nor Republicans Can Afford To Act Like Sheep,Louise Annarino,1-14-2013

Neither Democrats Nor Republicans Can Afford To Be Sheep,Louise Annarino,1-14-2013

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
 Edward R. Murrow  

My first foray into political activism began when I read about apartheid in Rhodesia and South Africa. My eight year old mind was stunned at the racism which was stamped “approved” by the Rhodesian government. Even more shocking was its apparent acceptance by the United States. I had heard about boycotts,and their use to end segregation. Thus,I could not understand why we were a willing trade partner spending millions of dollars in Rhodesia. My father suggested I ask his childhood friend and our congressman, Rep.John Ashbrook (R-OH) about this when he held his next week-end office hours. I made an appointment for the following saturday. At 10 a.m. I found myself dressed in my sunday best outside the door to his office at the Licking County Court House, nervous but serious about getting answers.

Congressman Ashbrook respectuflly overlooked my awkward effort to hoist my short self up into a chair placed before his desk. He did not even smile at the picture of my legs sticking straight out,too short to even bend over the edge of the seat. He took my concerns seriously and respectfully explained the realities of global politics. At that time Rhodesia was the largest producer of chromium, which we sorely needed for miltary and defense industries. He explained why we needed it and what we had to overlook to get it. He agreed that it was a deal with the devil and not to be taken lightly. He promised to put pressure on Rhodesia and South Africa to end apartheid, to seek alternative sources of chromium and other trade items with countries practicing apartheid, and to look for other ways to address the issue of racism.

Every time anyone in Congress discussed an issue realted to my concerns or new related legislation was introduced he mailed me copies of the legislation and or discussion printed in the congressional record. Over the years,until his sudden death while running for the U.S. Senate, we corresponded on a variety of issues. Few of which we took similar positions on. By then I had become a registered Democrat,but remained an appreciative constituent of the ultra-conservative John Ashbrook. I was starting to love politics.

When Sen.John F. Kennedy ran for president I was ten years old. All of my friends,and the nuns at school,swooned over his good looks and were thrilled to support a Catholic candidate. Our religion and patriotism was under attack by democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey during the primary,and I decided to set the record straight. I researched American history,looking for Catholics who had served in government as patriots to illustrate the ill-considered attacks made against Sen.Kennedy’s ability to lead the country without allowing Catholism or the papacy guide his decisions. By the time I was finished I had ten pages of Catholic patriots on my list.

I learned that the father of the U.S. Navy John Barry,the first captain commissioned by the Continental Congress refused 100,000 British pounds to dessert the American navy and captain any British ship of his choosing. He was outraged. John Fitzgerald was General George Washington’s private secretary during the Revolutionary War. The treasurer who held and disbursed funds during the revolution was Catholic as well as two signers of the U.S. Constitution one who a signed the Declaration of Independence. Lafayette and Pulaski were Catholic. Page after page I listed individuals entrusted by fellow patriots to serve and protect the cause of revolution and the establishment of the new government. I mailed the list to Sen. Kennedy and asked him to use it to put Humphrey and others in their place when they used Catholicism to cast a cloud over Kennedy’s ability to lead the nation. I still have the letter Sen. Kenndy sent in response,thanking me for the information. Imagine my surprise a year later when he quoted from my list during the general election debate, when Vice-President Richard Nixon brought up the issue. My Republican Dad was cheering on Kennedy and patting me on the back for a job well done. I was hooked on politics.

It was years later,while an intern at the Ohio Attorney General’s Office the summer between my second and third year of law school that I really began to understand the inner workings of political institutions, and the people who run them. I did not expect politics to intercept law so easily. The tension between the two is a strong undercurrent. Fortunately,most individuals handle it deftly,appropriately, and ethically. Those who don’t are called to account. What amazes me is not that some try to manipulate government institutions,including courts,for political and economic gain;but that so few do so. Also, the ready aceptance of bi-partisan cooperation,until recently,has been quite impressive.

I recall a case in which the state of Ohio hoped for an outcome which would protect the state and state coffers. However, Ohio law dictated a different outcome, unless we could find strong precedent which would allow the Ohio Supreme Court to oveturn Ohio law on the issue before it. The Democratic AG and the Republican-led Supreme Court each knew that the failure of the legislature to change the law earlier had brought the state to this unfortunate impasse. Several interns worked around the clock to find a case strong enough for the court to hang its hat on. They succeeded and the state’s interest,and taxpayer’s interest was served by the court’s final decision. Politics and law at a crossroads is an exciting intersection for a legal intern.

What I abhorred was the quiet assumption that government workers would donate to political parties,increasing their chances of retaining their positions. This was not stated outright. No such request was ever made. But one could see that attending political events,fund-raisers and showing party support bolstered one’s professional standing whether democratic or republican. I decided I wanted no part of politics. I just wanted to practice law and rise or fall on my merits,not on my political contributions.

After law school,I worked for the non-profit Legal Aid Society of Columbus where my focus was on my clients and the law,without the subtle pressure of financing candidates or political parties. I continued to volunteer for candidates,make contributions to their campaigns, knock on doors, stuff envelopes,do lit drops etc. But these efforts were unrelated to my practice of law. When I left the Legal Aid Society five years later to become Associate Director Of Legal Affairs at Ohio University I made sure during my interview that the position would not be a political appointment, and that I would never be asked to contribute to a specific candidate or party. I was assured that was the case.

However, when the next Attorney General was elected he realized Ohio law had not been strictly followed by his predecessors and announced he would do so. Ohio law stated that only the Attorney General could represent a state agency or institution in any hearing or court,before any agency or commission. The hiring of each attorney by state universities would require approval by the Attorney General, and each attorney would be appointed his Assistant Attorney General. I was right back where I had started!

When I met with the Attorney General he agreed that no one from his staff would ever request my political participation in,nor contribution to any political event or campaign. And, he never disappointed me. Nor did he allow my failure to attend such events to color his view of my professional performance and standing with his office. Other attorneys were appalled at my unwillingness to mingle politics and my legal practice. But,I refused to be a sheep and follow the flock. It would be too easy to be eaten by the wolves which surely would appear. It only takes a few wolves to decimate a flock.

When I see what is happening in republican political circles I worry about all those republicans who are fair and reasonable,who seek consensus, who prefer bi-partisan discussion, and who understand that legislation can be improved by listening and learning from the other side of the aisle. They have allowed wolves to come among them in sheeps clothing. Democrats are not immune from such an incursion,especially if they act like sheep. We are watching too many republicans being eaten alive not to understand it can happen to democrats as well. No one in either party can afford to act like sheep.

2 Comments

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , ,

January 10, 2013 · 5:12 pm

NO TED STRICKLAND NOR AFRICAN AMERICANS,By Louise Annarino,1-10-2012

NO TED STRICKLAND NOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS,By Louise Annarino,January 10,2012

 

Sutton, Ryan, Fitgerald. What do they have in common? Each is considered a potential candidate for governor of Ohio. Each is white. The Democratic Party often chides the Republican Party for its lack of diversity. Maybe Democrats should look at the glass ceiling within their own party. Why are no African-American candidates mentioned as potential candidates, now that Governor Strickland has announced his disinterest in the position?

 

It cannot be said that Democrats have no potential African-American candidates capable of serving as governor. There are  several ready to take that position today:

-Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory who has served in both the Ohio House and Ohio Senate, where he served as the Assistant Minority Leader.

-4th term by a landslide, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman, the first African-American mayor of Ohio’s capitol.

-State of Ohio Senator Nina Turner (SD25), who has gained national attention for her strong defense of voting rights and women’s rights.

 

While it is true that racism impedes the election of African-Americans in Ohio, the problem is much more complex. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/11/electing_black_statewide_offic.html No African-American Democratic candidate has been elected to statewide office; but, three African-American Republicans have done so.

 

Democrats must ask, what are we doing wrong? Instead we seem to accept this dilemma as a reason to shy away from promoting African-American candidates for statewide office. U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty is an anomaly, running in a newly-created safe district, perhaps the safest in the state of Ohio. Could she have defeated Senator Portman, which would have required sate-wide support? The Democratic Party must address its own racism, and find a strategy which allows African-Americans to succeed in state-wide political races.

 

The first step is to NAME African-Americans as potential candidates for EVERY position;to APPOINT them to highly visible committee and leadership positions and lead ISSUE promulgation efforts, and elect them as PARTY LEADERS. What we need is affirmative action, not passive acceptance. Democrats cannot continue to take African-Americans for granted as voters, as party members, nor as candidates. Still, this is not enough.

 

The same shortcomings which affect white candidates affect African-American candidates, but with greater impact. Campaigns are won street by street, ward by ward. Most citizens have never met a Democratic ward leader, would not even think to contact that person for assistance. Most citizens make no regular contribution to their County Democratic  Party because they see no day-to-day return for their investment. Outreach is non-existent,marketing haphazard at best. Sharing information within closed party circles has its place but is only a small part of a communications effort. When was the last time the party organized  a community service project? Advertised it as a party effort? First serve, then ask for donations to party coffers.

First Lady Michele Obama recently asked for participation in a Day of Service to honor Martin Luther King,Jr. Could not the Franklin County Democratic Party do something similar? Every month? What are we doing to create an image of a party who cares for each and every citizen across the state? We cannot ask for support from a community which we make no effort to support.

 

How does the Democratic Party advertise what we do accomplish? Yes, it takes money. Are there not enough Democrats with wealth to support specific projects? Using social media is not a panacea. Simply having a web page or Facebook page is insufficient. Newsletters must reach beyond the party faithful. Radio,television,community paper promoting Democrats? Non-existent in central Ohio.

 

Advertising requires a subtle message which emphasizes what the party is doing for Ohioans. The big message should be helping, with a footnote identifying the party as the helper. An example would be signs posted on infrastructure projects explaining what the project is accomplishing for citizens, and thanks to the party candidate bringing the project to the state. Then, Republican Governor Kasich could not claim credit for projects he initially opposed.

 

The party can win over voters whose racism may lessen support for African-American candidates if the party itself has ingrained a sense that Democrats are the community’s strongest supporters. Such passion for the party would benefit all Democratic candidates. In the meantime, African-American candidates must be groomed, promoted, supported and positioned for the next campaign. Past failure is no excuse for doing nothing;it is a reason to learn from our mistakes.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

January 5, 2013 · 3:50 am

TRUTH-TELLING IS NON-PARTISAN,by Louise Annarino,1-4-2013

TRUTH-TELLING IS NON-PARTISAN,By Louise Annarino,1-4-2013

 

It was very difficult for the young recent OSU graduates to find jobs. One young man papered the walls of his dorm room with rejection slips. Others gave up the hunt for professional positions and became sales clerks, bar tenders and wait persons. Many returned to graduate school, piling up more debt, as aid to higher education failed to keep pace with increasing costs.

 

The recession was in full force. A war was ending, soldiers competed for jobs. Too many veterans suffered from PTSD, drug or alcohol addiction, joblessness and homeless. Delayed services by the V.A. and the declining economy complicated their return.

 

Companies were closing research and development departments, outsourcing jobs and off-shoring manufacturing plants. Some argued the loss of small businesses  and replacing local shops with shopping malls was good;t hat economies of scale would keep the price of goods down.Union busting was the new normal. The president himself  approved “scabs” to cross picket-lines,for the good of the airline industry.

 

Small family farms were unable to compete with mega farms;entire farm communities disappeared despite Farm-Aid concerts.Some argued that economies of scale would keep food prices down.

 

Lower income levels created tension between the age groups. School levies were no longer so easily passed. Small schools were combined to create economies of scale, losing the familial feel which had existed in neighborhood schools where every teacher knew every child in the school.Taxpayers resented the extra student perks such as school bands,art and theatre and music programs,and field trips. And, they resented the teacher perks such as summers off.

 

De-regulation was the cause celebre’ of business. Environmentalist climbed into the forest canopy and cut fish nets to protect the forests and oceans, and were snidely called “tree-huggers” and radicals. Ecology was not viewed as real science. Civil unrest by young persons protesting racism,sexism,homophobia and class warfare was contained by military-style response.

 

A few years later a charismatic and popular president was elected and gave people hope that things might change. But by then, many argued that the poor and working poor were really free-loaders looking for government handouts. The president agreed that “government was the problem not the solution” and should be made leaner and meaner,and thus fairer to wealthy job creators whose increased wealth trickled down to the masses.

 

Meanwhile,politicians reframed the focus of the nation from a community working together for the common good  to everyone can make it big. People were encouraged to invest in the stock market,open 401Ks and build a portfolio of wealth. Anyone who failed to make it rich in America just did not work hard enough or smart enough;and was underserving of support by those who did the right thing. We came to view people as big thinkers and doers or small thinkers and doers. Economies of scale were considered good for the social order.

 

The young graduates,with huge education loans and low-paying jobs were told the right thing was to use 1/3 of one’s income to pay living expenses,put 1/3 into savings/investments, and give 1/3 to charity. Doing this would assure a secure retirement and make social security unnecessary. Doing this would assure the poor would be cared for through private charity and make welfare,food stamps and medicaid unnecessary. Young people were told that social security and medicare were unsustainable and too costly, and would not be available when they retired. Elderly were described as free-loaders who felt entitled to government care, depriving young people of a chance for a strong economy in which they could thrive. They were told it was better to create a private retirement investment portfolio on Wall Street with a much higher return than any FICA tax could provide for them.

 

Doesn’t this sound like today’s headline stories? This was happening 35 years ago. This is my generation’s story.We were warned we would have no social security when we were ready to retire. We are now retiring, with social security. The fear-mongering was not true 35 years ago. And, it is not true now. And, thanks to President Obama, we do not see the massive savings and loans/bank failures experienced 35 years ago. Thanks to President Obama we see an increase in manufacturing;an entire auto industry saved and made more profitable, not lost like the steel and aluminum industries were lost 35 years ago. And, thanks to President Obama we do not have high inflation rates as we did 35 years ago.

 

I worry about putting social security on the table while discussing deficit reduction. Social Security has no relevance to the creation or elimination of the deficit. That will be easily explained. But, I expect the old attacks on Social Security will once again be trotted out to misinform and mislead younger voters. It will be framed as a job destroyer, siphoning off money which could be used to create jobs. It will be framed as a scourge on the growth of private retirement portfolios. It will make enemies of young underemployed recent graduates of this generation and those of my generation. My generation will recognize it as a pack of lies,because we have seen the lie exposed over time. But will the young believe us, or those who would lie to get their hands on a big chunk of change.  Investment managers will be tempted to take big risks to make big personal gains, which could leave future retirees holding an empty retirement bag. We now-old young people have watched this happen over and over again. We recognize the game.

 

We are being encouraged to raise this issue with our president,senators and representatives. And, we should do so.  We must also discuss this issue with younger people .This is an issue which should cross age barriers, not create new barriers. This is a chance to make our party stronger and more united. We cannot pass up this chance to strengthen our bonds. The republicans certainly will do all they can to weaken them. After all, they are even willing to default on our debts and throw the world’s economy into chaos, just to destroy social security,medicare and medicaid. This is serious business,and has been for decades.

 

This should not be a partisan issue, but it is. My republican friends will assure me they would never destroy these programs. They will argue that Democrats are no different than Republicans; that even the president says we agree on almost everything, including the need to fix entitlement programs. This is well and good.But we cannot ignore the differences set in stone in each party’s platform. Democrats promise to protect entitlement programs. Republicans promise to eliminate or reduce them. These positions are not the same;they are world’s apart. We must hold Democrats and Republicans equally accountable. Truth-telling is the only way to be non-partisan.

2 Comments

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 4, 2013 · 3:27 am

BOEHNER HOLDS THE GAVEL; PELOSI HOLDS THE POWER,By Louise Annarino,January 3,2013

BOEHNER HOLDS THE GAVEL;PELOSI HOLDS THE POWER,By Louise Annarino, January 3,2013

There are two kinds of power: positional power and personal power. Nancy Pelosi appeared to lose her positional power when she passed the gavel to Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner, who retained his position today.  Pelosi never relinquished her personal power however. And, I would argue she still retains positional power, even without the gavel. It was Pelosi who delivered the votes to pass the American Taxpayer Relief Act. Boehner could not pass it without her. He lacks the personal power to marshall the votes of his Republican members. Pelosi’s personal power among Democratic members is much stronger. Pelosi consistently delivers those votes as she sees fit.

Boehner needs Pelosi. He cannot lead  the entire House without her. He can only follow the minority of fanatics within his party. Pelosi need never follow Boehner; but, she can lead him! Don’t you love it, ladies?

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 4, 2013 · 3:05 am

SIZE DOES NOT MATTER,By Louise Annarino,January 3,2013

SIZE DOES NOT  MATTER,By Louise Annarino,January 3,2012

 

Well, it is January 3rd. and the bills have all been mailed out. As usual, I overdid Christmas. I tried to raise my debt ceiling, but Target and Visa said, “What nerve you have. You bought gifts on the credit we extended to you; and, we expect you to honor your debts. If you don’t pay what you owe, we will ruin your credit.”  Actually, I did not really act so irresponsibly; nor did I have that conversation with my creditors. I am simply illustrating what  it means to raise the debt ceiling. It confuses us because on first hearing the phrase, we think it means seeking a higher limit on our credit line so we can make new purchases. But that is not really the way government finance works.

 

Congress passes a law to create program which costs X amount of dollars,and then authorizes a spending bill to implement the program. It must be certain that sufficient funds exist to pay for the program, because this new programs create new debt. The congressional budget office or CBO scores the bill. President Obama has made it a practice to only seek legislative action scored to stay within the current budget. Previously, we have gotten into trouble because congress, among other bills, authorized a war without raising the funds to pay for it.It was the first time in our history we did not raise a war tax. Instead, congress cut taxes to record lows, when it needed more taxes  not less to pay the billions the war would cost.

 

To cover this up, the war expenses were not included within the federal budget, so the war costs would not appear to create,and later increase, a budget deficit. The cost was hidden in the Pentagon budget,which is why the Pentagon repeatedly returned to congress asking for military spending increases to cover the costs. Who could turn down such a request for “our brave soldiers in the field”? When President Obama took office, he corrected this accounting trick. Some in congress now use this seeming jump in budget deficit as a ruse to attack entitlement programs, calling Obama a socialist/welfare president,destroying our grandchildren’s futures. No, war does that.

 

When a newly passed bill’s debt comes due, if insufficient funds are in the treasury to pay the debt, Treasury issues bonds to raise funds to pay the debt, asking congress to  raise the debt ceiling. Since congress approved the debt, congress should pay the debt to maintain the “full faith and credit” of the United States. Congress should raise the debt ceiling. This sensible approach had not been seriously questioned until Obama became president.Throwing the country into default has always simply  been unacceptable.

 

President Obama sought to increase taxes, AND raise the debt ceiling, AND cut program costs.This is the so-called “Grand Bargain” which Rep. Boehner at first agreed to 18 months ago,  but backed away from when he could not find the enough votes in his party to assure its passage. Instead, congress passed a sequestration bill which brought us to what some called a fiscal cliff. For weeks, Obama sought Boehner’s support and leadership efforts in congress to make a new grand bargain. Again, Boehner could not, or would not do so. Instead Boehner agreed to a reduced increase in taxes, and is holding out on raising the debt ceiling as a bargaining tool to force Obama’s hand and reduce government spending; not by making smart and balanced cuts, but by eliminating or starving government programs previously authorized by congress,and relied upon by our citizens: social security, medicare,medicaid. Now, Boehner tells us he will no longer deal directly with Obama, abdicating his House leadership role as representative of, and intermediary for his party.

 

We know suggested cuts to these programs are meant to cripple them and make them unpopular by making them useless, making it easier to eliminate them altogether. Raising the income cap on earnings for social security would increase FICA revenue and strengthen the program. Raising the retirement age would make it useless to many of our hardest working citizens, many who will die before receiving any benefits, or receive fewer years of coverage. Changing the cost of living formula would hurt older citizens in ways unimaginable to those who need not choose between buying a chicken or filling a prescription.

 

We all know our country is in a tough spot. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would only make our situation worse, and it would leave a long-term, and totally unnecessary blot on the full faith and credit of the United States. Our economy is rebounding,slowly but surely. We cannot afford a congress which is willing to forsake recovery and economic growth under a mistaken belief that the size of the government matters more than the wisdom,purpose and good faith of the government.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 2, 2013 · 4:52 am

NEITHER HISTORIC NOR HEROIC,By Louise Annarino,Jan.1,2012

NEITHER HISTORIC NOR HEROIC,By Louise Annarino,Jan.1,2012

 

The self-congratulatory exclamations of “historic compromise” in the Senate’s 89-8/House’s 257-167 (only 85 House Republicans -“aye”) vote to pass “The American Taxpayer Relief Act” which saves unemployment benefits, secures health care payments for doctors, increases taxes on earned income and taxes on investment income from capital gains above $400-450,00.00, eliminates the unfair alternative minimum tax on middle class families, provide tax cuts for students etc. leaves one breathless. This is not historic nor heroic. These changes have been awaiting action despite bipartisan support for a long time. These changes,like other actions recommended by President Obama, by appointments he seeks as the nation’s chief executive, are opposed because he is opposed. The vow of many Republicans to never compromise with this upstart president stood in the way of an agreement.

 

Vice President Biden,as other vice president before him, was called in by Senator McConnell to broker an agreement.So far as I can tell, he did not broker an agreement which the president had not already suggested. Nor did he call in Biden because he could not work with Sen. Harry Reid (D-NEV). He did so for more nefarious reeasons. He did so because of a lack of respect for a president he alleged failed to lead, could not understand how the economy works,and refused to cut deficits. None of Senator McConnell’s representations are true. President Obama has repeatedly stated his principle has always been to do things in a balanced way, including doing more to reduce the deficit.

 

It appears he enabled Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Representative John Boehner (R-OH) to reach an agreement, without appearing to reach an agreement with the president, without appearing to agree with his balanced approach and his view that government has a role to play in protecting programs the 98% need to help build a middle class. McConnell’s asking for Mr. Biden was a dodge he could sell. It undermined the president’s leadership, and his positional  as well as personal power.

The disdain,even hate, which many in the 112th Congress have displayed toward our president would not have allowed a compromise with an African-American president;but, would allow one with a white vice-president.

 

This strategy was played out during the House discussion prior to the recorded vote in the House of Representatives. Time after time republicans stated that this agreement to concur in the Senate Amendments meant that everyone agreed that the focus ahead was on cuts to those entitlement programs which are the real cause of the nation’s deficit (i.e. social security,medicare,medicaid,Affordable Care Act);some even alluding to an agreed appreciation congress should not raise the debt ceiling. The message being developed is that this historic compromise  presages accession to austerity legislation yet to be introduced. Charges that Obama policies created and increased rising deficits is completely false;yet we will hear it repeated as if an incontrovertible truth, despite every independent study,report,record to the contrary.

 

Senators Levin, Rangel and others addressed the Republican representatives’ misrepresentations of the the bill’s provisions, and pointed out that nothing within the bill would suggest an agreement to cut middle class support programs. The need of republicans congresspersons to save face is obvious, and the need to justify a break from the Republican Party 2013 Platform had to be satisfied; but with outright lies which create false expectations for future negotiations and compromise. This not only pathetic but harmful.

 

Well-heeled funders of primary and general political races are the writers of the Republican script. It is they who block sensible economic policies recommended by the Obama administration. It is not only racism which fuels such seemingly inane congressional behavior, but money and the power it carries. However, it is racism which greases the skids for the money to flow to congresspersons willing to block any government action which reduces their profit margins, increases their taxes, regulates their corporate behavior, and enables a strong middle class to challenge their control over the nation’s assets and wealth.

 

Be prepared for talking points which berate Obama for moving from $250,000 to $400,000, for not including sequestration or other cuts, for seeking to raise the debt ceiling, for refusing to agree with changing the CPI formula for social security and other entitlement program increases, and for a host of other “failures” of this bill. Every one of these arguments is insincere and totally irrelevant,certainly neither historic nor heroic. Their sole purpose is to deny Obama’s right to a victory lap as he signs this bill into law. And worse, to undermine his efforts to protect  98% of Americans from the privileges sought and expected by the other 2%. The game has not changed. Neither has president Obama. Nor should we.

 

President Obama graciously thanked both Republicans and Democrats.leaders of the House and Senate, and especially V.P. Joe Biden.He went  on to discuss how unfortunate and costly it was that a lame duck congress could not agree to a broader plan. He agrees that medicare’s  costs due to irising medical care needs and costs for an increasing elderly population must be addressed. Unstated is how this can be done without harming those who rely on medicare. He stated that he also refuses to have another argument  with congress about raising the debt ceiling, and paying debts we have already incurred. “The deficit needs to be reduced in a way that is balanced…. (with) less drama, less brinkmanship”. He acknowledged the need to reduce the deficit;but not at the expense of failing to invest in research and development of our people and of our economic productivity, and protecting our country’s future.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

December 28, 2012 · 2:14 am

NOT ENVIOUS JUST HUNGRY,By Louise Annarino,December 27, 2012

NOT ENVIOUS JUST HUNGRY,by Louise Annarino, december 27.2012

On January 20, 2012 I wrote the following commentary.Sadly, near a year later, failure to address the issues I discussed are driving the country over a fiscal cliff, created by Republican intransigence and refusal to raise taxes. We may also be about to go over a social justice cliff with far worse consequences for this nation.

“Let them eat cake !” Marie Antoinette purportedly responded when told of bread riots in the streets of Paris; failing to heed the warning that her 1% lifestyle would not sit well with the 99% who were hungry, jobless and hopeless. Americans are hungry, jobless and homeless; but, thanks to the safety net of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and food stamps they are not quite so hopeless nor desperate as those who overthrew the French monarchy. Everyone should be grateful we have a “food stamp president” !

Politicians used to understand that the social contract between the rich and poor was an essential cog in the economic engine of the country; and, the very thing which would allow citizens to amass wealth, without the threat of harm to the nation or themselves. Republicans and Democrats alike passed into law programs to create and protect a strong middle class. It was understood and agreed upon that the American dream was not built on envy, but on the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

The latest crop of Republican congresspersons seem to have forgotten this. The top 1% of investment earners (one cannot honestly call them wage earners) would have 99% of us wage earners believe that reminding them of this social contract is un-American, anti-capitalist, and irreligious.

Now, Republican congressional leaders undermine the Golden Rule, claiming, as men who are right with God, that anyone who oppose their economic and social order policies, must be wrong;and,not only are they wrong but they are evil, which carries the weight of immorality. Asking that the Golden Rule be applied to economic policy does not make the 99ers immoral, unpatriotic socialists, un-American, nor envious.

Years ago, before labor laws, civil rights laws, and a system of public education for all children created a middle class, the working class had to be satisfied with crumbs from the table. Labor unions, civil rights activists, and public education created a place at the table for workers. But now, Governors like John Kasich (R-OH) tell us we are envious when we ask for a menu, question why no food is being served to us, or ask how they arranged to have nearly all the food piled on their plates as it disappeared from our own.  They say we are envious. No, we are simply hungry, hungry for justice.

Today, I suggest it is not a budget deficit which will destroy this country; but, a social justice deficit. President Obama and Democratic leaders are right to insist on continued stimulus spending and safety net protection, and increased taxes on the top 1-2% ; any further efforts to compromise us into starvation will do more harm than good. Productivity, not hoarding seeds, is what puts food on the table.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , ,

December 26, 2012 · 5:00 pm

THE BALANCE OF POWER AND COMPETITIVE COMPROMISE,By Louise Annarino,12-27-2012

THE BALANCE OF POWER AND COMPETITIVE COMPROMISE,By Louise Annarino,December 26,2012

Politics has often been called the art of compromise. Too seldom do we admit politics is the art of exercising power. Congress cannot exercise the art of compromise when the balance of power is so uneven. Our focus at the moment is solely on the failure of congresspersons to compromise on several levels;between the president and Speaker of the House, within the House, within the Senate, within the Republican Party between Teapublicans and Republicans. We should instead focus on the lack of balance within our congressional districts. Until we right that balance, no compromise will be possible. Continuing the dialogue solely on the personal assessment of individual  character illustrated by a willingness or unwillingness to compromise hides the real problem.

In 2010 the Republican/Teapublican victories brought control of the legislature of many key states, in some cases a veto-proof majority. And, 2010 placed more states under the leadership of Republican governors and secretaries of state as well. The 2010 census allowed these states ,including Ohio, to redistrict an imbalance so severe that Ohio’s districts were gerrymandered to form safe seats for both parties. The inability to compromise is the affirmed in these gerrymandered districts. Secretaries of state redefined vote counts within districts,further assuring veto-proof legislatures.

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has no motivation to seek the middle when doing so will have no impact on his re-election in a general election. His seat is safe thanks to the recent redistricting legislation, and Ohio’s failure to overturn that legislation in the 2012 campaign. His threat comes from within his own party;and, not just for his chairmanship, but for his re-election. The threat would come as a primary challenge;one well-funded by the moneyed interests and super PACS supporting the Teapublicans. Tacking to center, seeking compromise, would encourage such an attack.How can he seek compromise?

We must organize around redistricting,and other legislative changes which upset the balance of power for both parties. For example, there is a well-financed effort by Teapublicans to demonize the electoral college,to eliminate it, or change how Ohio calculates electoral votes. Republicans are mounting a quiet effort to change our current system to one which favors the minority of Ohio voters. Now Republicans have more safe districts than Democrats do and they want to allow each district to cast electoral votes based on district wins, rather than casting all of Ohio’s electoral votes for the candidate who wins the majority of all Ohio votes, as is current law.

Republicans realize this could give them short-term gain.However, their control is not absolute and eternal. Should Democrats gain control, the Democratic Party could benefit just as unfairly. But, both parties should be more concerned about the good of the people; not the good of any party. It behooves both Democratic and Republican voters to insist that our legislators create more balance;not less. Those of us who believe in the platform and values of the Democratic Party should not fear such a balanced approach. Democratic candidates can compete with Republican candidates, and can win even in unsafe districts. How much better could we do in competitive districts? And, if John Boehner’s district were competitive, he might gain more political power through compromise than obstruction. That would be a win-win for both parties, and for the American people.

We have overlooked the importance of what happens at our local and district levels for too long. we have been trained to keep our eyes on the federal government,thus national elections, as the source of our failed compromise; when,in fact, competitive compromise begins within our own districts. We cannot sit back until the next presidential election, hoping to elect persons who promise to compromise. Everyone wants to compromise when it maintains their balance of power;but without such a balance, no one can afford to compromise. Not Mr. Boehner, despite his fine character and personal wishes…unless he is willing, and we are willing to watch his failed re-election as the price to be paid. Would that be a win for Ohio or the Teapublicans?

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,