Resurrecting Democracy

Dysfunctional Washington- What Does the Future Hold?

                   Robert A. Levine   5-3-12

With the vast majority of Americans disgusted with Washington and polls showing that Congressional approval rates are in the toilet, can we anticipate that the discourse might improve in the future? Can we expect that politicians will take citizens’ displeasure to heart with positive steps to improve the atmosphere in Washington, so that the important business of the nation can be accomplished? Unfortunately, the answers are no and in fact it is more likely that the political climate will deteriorate in the years ahead.

A recent article in Politico by Charles Mahtesian and Jim VandeHei spelled out the reasons why the situation appears so bleak.( http://bit.ly/IkrTZr) Basically, it’s the loss of centrists and moderates on both sides of the aisle with greater polarization in both the Senate and the House. Whereas twenty years ago, 40% of Senate Republicans were considered moderate, barely 10 % can be so-labeled today. In the House, it was 30% twenty years ago and almost none currently. Similarly, moderate Democrats now constitute 12% of the party in the House versus 35% in 1989. Moderate Democrats in the Senate are 15% compared to 27% 20 years ago.

The refusal of Tea Party activists to support any Republican who is not to the extreme right of the political spectrum has resulted in moderate conservatives being shunted aside in Republican primaries or having to retire. And right-wing conservative Super PACs, from outside the contested state or congressional district, with vast sums of money since the Citizens United ruling, have supported the most partisan candidates with attack ads. To make matters worse, the candidates being skewered cannot respond effectively to these ads, as they don’t have the financial resources to mount a defense.

Centrist Democrats have also gone down to defeat or retired, with the liberal wing of the party and organized labor going after incumbents who have not hewed to the party line, particularly in regards to health care. This is particularly true in the House where Jason Altmire and Tim Holden were just defeated in Pennsylvania Democratic primary races. The list of moderate Democrats Senators not running for re-election include Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jim Webb of Virginia.

Republican moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine is also retiring along with moderate conservative Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas. The reasons for all of these retirements include the partisanship in Washington and the inability to legislate effectively. In addition, there’s the fact that campaigning opens up moderate candidates to blistering attack ads, often personal in nature, augmented by Citizens United Super PAC money. As examples of internecine combat in the Republican Party we just have to look at the battles Oren Hatch of Utah and Charles Grassley of Indiana are going through, because these long time conservatives are not deemed conservative enough by extreme elements in their party. Interestingly, Oren Hatch received a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union and the Chamber of Commerce in 2010, but that isn’t considered adequate by the far, far right. Maybe it’s the fact that in the past, they were willing to talk across party lines and were even cordial at times to Democrats.

The loss of moderates in the House and Senate are going to make compromise on any issue more difficult to accomplish, and the atmosphere in Washington is bound to become even more toxic. Perhaps the saddest aspect of the current political climate is the fact that the moderate middle, including independents, moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats, has no bloc to represent their views, despite the fact that they are the largest percentage of voters.

 To change the political environment so that government can function again, campaign financing reform, including limitations and transparency on Super PAC donations is necessary, despite the Citizens United ruling. Perhaps it will take a constitutional amendment, but it must happen if American democracy is to prosper. And the way both the Republicans and Democrats have evolved over the past several decades, it is evident that a third party of the center is needed to represent the moderate middle and bring common sense and compromise back to Washington. Neither of these remedies will be easily accomplished, since both current parties and the deep pockets behind them will fight fiercely to keep these prescriptions from being realized.

 Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

 

 

The Federal Election Commission and Citizens United

                                                        Robert A. Levine   2-3-12

 With the increasing role Super PACs are playing in the 2012 Republican primaries, and will play in the general election, isn’t there some entity to police the donation of unlimited funds to these groups and make these donations more transparent? Theoretically, for awhile, there was; the Federal Election Commission (F.E.C.).

 Congress established the F.E.C. in 1974 as an independent regulatory agency. Its mission was to enforce the provisions of campaign finance law for federal elections, including the public disclosure of information, the limits and prohibitions on contributions, as well as to supervise the public funding of presidential campaigns.

To insure a balanced political approach by the Commission (as well as future gridlock), it was to consist of six members, with no more than three permitted from the same party, and with four votes necessary for any action. The Commission was structured this way to supposedly ensure bipartisan, or nonpartisan, rulings, (and to be certain that no decisions would be overly detrimental to either of the two major parties). The members were to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve six year terms, with a rollover of two new appointees every two years.

 Critics of the F.E.C. point to the balance between Republicans and Democrats as being responsible for its inability to force adherence to campaign finance regulations over the years and for seeming to be supportive of the interests of the two major parties. When the Commission has acted, it is usually long after the fact, the elections being over and the winners ensconced in their offices, the penalties often minor. Currently complicating the picture, the terms of five of the six F.E.C. commissioners have expired. Though President Obama could appoint new members, Senate Republicans would undoubtedly block their confirmation.

 The original Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971 along with its subsequent amendments produced guidelines with the objective of legally limiting campaign contributions. As ways to evade these regulations were found, a further attempt to control runaway contributions, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) was enacted. This was subsequently emasculated by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision two years ago.

 The impotence of the F.E.C. and indeed any government agency to limit campaign contributions has become more evident (and tragic) since the Citizens United ruling. Special interest money has been surging into so-called Super-PACs and independent organizations, some of them masquerading as social welfare advocates, to run attack ads against political opponents. The Supreme Court held that unlimited contributions by corporations and unions, as well as wealthy individuals, to these so-called “independent” organizations are permissible, based on the concept that political spending was a form of free speech. The use of 501(c)(4) non-profit affiliates by these organizations allows some donors to remain anonymous while they covertly influence elections with vast amounts of money. In those SuperPACs where donors are revealed periodically, it is often after the election has taken place, so that voters are not aware of where the money in support of a candidate came from.

 While the F.E.C. can still monitor and limit contributions that go directly to political parties and candidates, unrestricted spending on campaigns by outside organizations makes this power of scant value. It is possible that SuperPACs and independent groups will collect and spend more during the current election cycle than the candidates and the political parties themselves, as occurred in the media blitz during the recent Florida G.O.P. primary. The ability of these organizations, by utilizing special interest money, to shape politics in America is a grave threat to the democratic process.

 The impotence of the F.E.C. to control campaign spending is another symptom of the dysfunction in Washington. The two parties continue to be unable or unwilling to agree on how to bring the nuclear arms race of campaign financing under control. Unfortunately, overturning Citizens United may take a constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, both of which seem unlikely. Until Americans understand the ramifications of Citizens United and pressure politicians to limit the influence of special interest money, spending on federal elections can be expected to escalate indefinitely.

 Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

 

Mitt and Newt at the CNN Florida GOP Debate

                                                Robert A. Levine 1-26-12

 The increasingly strident tone of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as they faced off in tonight’s G.O.P. debate in Florida must be considered in the context of the battering each has been receiving from the other’s SuperPAC. Of course, both candidates deny their ability to control these attack ads and criticizes the other’s ads for falsehoods and misstatements of the facts.

 Perhaps desperation reared its head along with an obvious dislike that each candidate feels for the other, allowing them to slash away at each other with no holds barred. While that may make for fine entertainment in the tradition of the World Wrestling Federation, it bodes ill for the Republican candidate who eventually wins the nomination. The contest against President Obama will have to be fought with all the baggage that has been accumulated during the knock-down, dragged-out Republican race.

 The attacks that Mitt and Newt launched against each other’s credibility must also be viewed in the light of the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll that had Newt surging to the front of the pack for GOP primary voters nationwide, at 37% to Mitt’s 28%. Yet among all voters, Newt was swamped by Obama in a head to head match-up (55% to 37%), with Mitt faring considerably better but still losing (49% to 43%). Rick Santorum garnered only 18% of Republican primary voters, with Ron Paul trailing with 12%. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports had Romney ahead over Gingrich among Republicans in Florida by 39% to 31%.

 In tonight’s debate, it appears as if Romney came out more aggressively than in the past and held his own against Gingrich. Romney hit Gingrich as expected over his lobbying for Freddie Mac and its role in the housing collapse. Gingrich as expected denied that he had been a lobbyist and emphasized Romney’s investments in Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and Goldman Sachs. He also brought up Romney’s Swiss bank accounts and his investments in the Cayman Islands along with his low tax rate. Romney countered that he was proud of his success and accomplishments. The two men also argued over the immigration issue, with Gingrich attacking Romney as anti-immigration and both claiming each was distorting the other’s stance on immigration. Most of the venom between Romney and Gingrich came out early in the debate and simmered down after Santorum asked that the debate move away from Gingrich’s actions as a lobbyist and Romney’s business success, since there was nothing wrong with either, and there were more important issues to discuss. 

Santorum scored his points by hitting both Romney and Gingrich over health care, pointing out the similarities between the program passed in Massachusetts under Romney’s leadership and Obama’s federal plan. He declared that Gingrich had supported a health care mandate in the past and that neither Romney nor Gingrich could contest Obama over health care because of their past actions.

 Ron Paul kept emphasizing the need for the U.S. not to interfere in the affairs of other countries, to shrink the federal government and strengthen the dollar. He spoke of medicine being better prior to the establishment of Medicare, blaming the government for the high cost of health care.

 I would call tonight’s performances by Romney and Gingrich a tie, perhaps even giving Romney a slight edge. (Romney’s new debate coach can be proud.) Santorum was able to get across his passion, but did not articulate his positions as well as Romney and Gingrich. Paul’s vision seemed anchored in the past, without a way to move the country forward. Romney needed this performance to cement his Florida lead, but there are still five days left to the actual primary where things could change.

 Resurrecting Democracy

 

A Possible Path to a Centrist Third Party?

                                    Robert A. Levine   1-24-12 

Though the Republican primaries and the presidential race now dominate the news, the disgust over governmental dysfunction and disdain for the two current parties remains. Polls have shown approval of the Republicans and Democrats at their lowest levels ever, along with ratings for Congress in the single digits. There is also a lack of enthusiasm for the presidential candidates of both parties. Americans may be ready for another political option- a centrist third party.

 In fact, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two thirds of respondents would consider voting for a third party candidate with whom they agreed on most issues. And about half said they thought there was a need for a third party. Various surveys have shown that 35 to 43% of Americans are self-labeled as moderates, an indication of fertile soil for planting a centrist third party. (A Gallop Poll that came out on January 9 had 40% of Americans identifying themselves as independents.) Moderate Republicans, centrist Democrats and independents at present have no appropriate political home. Many of them do not participate in elections, as the candidates running for offices do not represent their beliefs. A recent article in USA Today reported that more than 2.5 million voters have exited the Republican and Democratic parties since the 2008 election, with the number of independent voters growing.

 Given all the discontented citizens who might support a centrist third party, how could it be created?  To differentiate itself from the current parties, a commitment to integrity, transparency and pragmatism would be required, with a willingness to compromise and find common sense solutions to America’s problems.

There are already a number of organizations and nascent parties with a moderate or centrist orientation, though their objectives vary. Some are national in scope while others are limited to individual states. These include Americans Elect, No Labels, the Reform Party and state Moderate Parties among other groups.

Americans Elect believes that a non-partisan presidential ticket will change the political dynamic in the country and is presently attempting to get on the ballot in every state. They intend to have an online convention for Americans to directly nominate the candidates. All voters, Democrats, Republicans and independents will be able to participate in the selection. However, this process does not address the problem of a gridlocked Congress that will have even less incentive to deal with a president who does not have the support of a political party.

 No Labels aims to reform Congress by changing its rules and the behavior of its members. Its prescription for reform is reasonable, but many of the ideas have been considered for years without any action. Among No Labels recommendations are- No Budget, No Pay for Congress; Up or Down Vote on Presidential Appointments; Fix the Filibuster; A Monthly Question Time for the President; No Pledge but the Pledge of Office; Monthly Bipartisan Gatherings and Bipartisan Seating. While No Labels’ objectives are laudable, the partisanship in Congress and demonizing of opponents are not going to suddenly go away to permit these proposals to take hold.

 The Reform Party still has a national footprint, albeit considerably weakened since its hay day in the 90s. The organization of the party varies by state. It is pro-reform with many centrist ideas. Among its objectives are removing special interest money from politics and making government more efficient, but it also has populist goals, particularly in regard to free trade agreements and the WTO.

 The above three groups along with several moderate state parties could form the core of a national centrist third party that would have instant credibility and exposure. Though their visions of how to address the problem of gridlocked government are somewhat divergent, they all agree that change is necessary and want pragmatic solutions. However, these organizations and their founding members would have to be willing to suppress their ambitions and egos in order to coalesce into a centrist party. Though Americans Elect and No Labels emphasize that they are not political parties, true effectiveness and the ability to reform the nation’s politics will only come if they join with the Reform Party and compatible state entities into a single, strong party.  The question remains whether these disparate groups are capable of compromising and unifying. Another question is how quickly they would be able to challenge the current parties if they did unite. Each of these groups has already set an agenda for the fast-approaching 2012 elections. Thus it might be more reasonable for this new centrist third party to set its sights on the 2014 and 2016 contests.

Hopefully in the near future, the organizations of the moderate middle will be able to overcome their differences, develop a unified vision and present Americans with a real alternative to the current political duopoly. It is a logical path to a centrist third party.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

           

Romney's Private Equity Burden- It's Not Just About Jobs

                                                                        Robert A. Levine   1-19-12

 Mitt Romney’s ascendancy in the Republican presidential sweepstakes has put his career at Bain Capital, a private equity firm, under the microscope, the result of attacks against him from other GOP candidates. Romney’s apparent strength, his business experience, has instead become a possible liability. It would appear to be counter-intuitive to have Republicans assailing private equity firms, a part of the free-market system. But in the heat of political battle, adversaries strike at the perceived weak spots of a front runner, particularly when the polls are unkind to those in the back of the pack.

 Newt Gingrich’s broadsides may partially be payback for the hatchet job Romney’s super-PAC has done on Gingrich. Given the electorate’s concern about unemployment, Gingrich has repeatedly claimed that Bain and Romney were responsible for firing employees while looting companies. Romney was also labeled as a predatory corporate raider by a pro-Gingrich PAC. And Rick Perry called Bain Capital’s business model “vulture capitalism” for destroying jobs. Many Republican Party figures, including Rush Limbaugh, have come to the aid of Romney and private equity, declaring that attacks against him have been divisive and will boost Obama in the general election. But are these attacks fact-based or merely opportunistic?

 Private equity firms buy companies that are in trouble, or at least those they assess as undervalued, believing that by restructuring these companies they will be able to make money. The funds utilized in these purchases are mostly borrowed, usually from private pools of capital that are unregulated by the SEC or any government agency. By leveraging these funds with a small amount of their own capital, the private equity firms are able to lessen their own risks while increasing possible profits from the companies they have bought.

 Once the private equity firm owns and is managing a company, it strips away underperforming assets and excess personnel. This results in job losses and reduced worker benefits for those retained. However, companies previously on precarious ground may be returned to a firm footing, which can lead to job growth in the future. Those businesses that can not be salvaged are closed. Since the private equity firms are not subject to public scrutiny, it is not usually clear whether the jobs created offset those that are lost. One study of thousands of private equity buyouts suggested that about 6% of the workforce were downsized over a five year period. On the other hand, some of these firms that were restored to financial stability were able to expand their businesses and add jobs over time.

 Whether or not job losses occur because of these private equity leveraged buyouts, there are aspects of the way they function that are troubling. Management fees for the private equity firms are taken out of the revenues of the purchased companies, or borrowed and added to the debt of these companies. This can make it more difficult for the businesses to be successful, since more cash is needed to service a high debt load. And even if the companies go under, the private equity firms often make money.

 Another point of contention regarding private equity firms (and hedge funds) is the lowered tax burden for much of the partners’ compensation through so-called “carried interest.” The private equity firms charge 2% for investing people’s money and also extract 20% of any profits. The latter is taxed at a 15% rate as capital gains, instead of the 35% that would be due from ordinary income. Yet unlike capital gains, those who reap the tax benefits do not place any of their own capital at risk to warrant the lower taxes. While the reduced taxes on the “carry” are currently legal due to arcane rules in the tax code, attempts to change the regulations in regard to this issue have failed, having been blocked in the Senate under pressure from private equity lobbyists. Both Republicans and Democrats have been complicit in this action, enhancing the wealth of private equity and hedge fund partners. Over $6 billion annually is lost to federal government coffers because of this tax giveaway. (Mitt Romney has stated that he pays about 15% of his income in taxes.)

 The lack of transparency in these private entities that borrow huge sums of money and are highly leveraged is another problem that has not been addressed. The economic repercussions of one or more of these major firms going under could be considerable.

 

The bottom line is that the emphasis on job losses because of the business models of Bain and other private equity firms may be inappropriate. Rapacious management fees by these firms, unwarranted tax benefits on carried interest and the lack of transparency are much more important concerns. These features will not be corrected until Senators and members of Congress are willing to resist the largesse offered by the firms’ lobbyists. We should not hold our breath waiting.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Ethics and Politics in a Centrist Third Party

Ethics and Politics In a Centrist Third Party

                                    Robert A. Levine  1-3-12 

“If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.”

                                    The Federalist Papers, Number 15, Alexander Hamilton 

In a recent dialogue in the New York Times on the need for a centrist third party, I listed ethical conduct as one of the necessary hallmarks of this new party. Many respondents asserted that it is not realistic to expect politicians to have ethics guide their actions, since being honest and upright will not help them win elections and would in fact hinder them. They also noted that even if candidates and officeholders in this new party began their careers untainted, politics would soon force them to dirty their hands.

I disagree. The electorate has become accustomed to double-dealing and deceit from politicians and now accepts this as the norm. But if a centrist third party made integrity one of its defining characteristics and showed citizens how this could be accomplished, the party would be applauded and rewarded with votes. Americans are appalled by the corruption and partisanship of the Republicans and Democrats and many of them would be happy to support a new party that emphasized ethics. Integrity, transparency and pragmatism are the ways this new entity could differentiate itself from the current parties.

Legislating ethical reform does not work when legislators are constantly seeking ways to subvert the laws they have enacted and when they value the veneer of respectability more than ethical conduct. From its inception, this new party would have to have a strict code of conduct that its members agreed to observe and that the leadership enforced, unlike the Republicans and Democrats who generally ignore ethical lapses. Self-policing and transparency from the party would ensure integrity, particularly if there were onerous penalties for deviant behavior. Just as a culture of corruption in an organization can spawn more corruption, a culture of integrity is likely to foster ethical behavior.

To demonstrate its commitment to ethics, this fledgling party could utilize a written Oath of Conduct that mandated a different system of financing political campaigns. Candidates would agree not to take payments from any groups or individuals personally, but would direct all donations toward designated party administrative entities. (The funds could then be distributed anonymously according to the donor’s wishes.) Party members would also eschew political action committees and would never use political funds for personal gain. They would promise as well not to accept meals, trips, vacations, fact-finding junkets, or tickets to any events from individuals or organizations that had an interest in current or future legislation or executive actions. Any party member elected to office, appointed to an executive position, or serving on the staff of an elected or appointed official would also agree not to work as a lobbyist for five years after he or she left office. Officials from this party would be free to meet with lobbyists or representatives of special interests as they would with any constituent, but the discussions would be open and they would not accept any favors or funds. (This would not be unilateral disarmament as funds would be solicited from those who believed in this new party’s principles, with small donations also collected over the Internet.)

To give the Oath teeth, candidates and officeholders would sign the document and confirm that they understood its intent, agreeing to forfeit a monetary sum if their pledges were not honored. The amount of the penalty would be set by a party ethics board along with the details of the contract, but would be severe enough to dissuade members from abrogating the agreement. If members did not comply with their contracts and did not pay the penalties, they could be sued by the party. To prevent deceit, members would be required to list their assets with the party if they held an office or government post. Every two years, this would be updated as a further guarantee of financial rectitude. The Oath of Conduct and the willingness of party members to list their assets would prove to the public that this new party was serious about limiting corruption and conflicts of interest. The use of the Oath might seem draconian to some observers, but only robust measures will remove the stain of ethical laxness that most citizens associate with politicians.

Though there might be cynicism regarding this attempt at ethics reform based on past failures, a centrist third party could change the political dynamic in America with self-policing and transparency.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Motivating and Mobilizing the Moderate Middle

Motivating and Mobilizing the Moderate Middle

                                    Robert A. Levine   12-20-11           

            “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”

            Tom Paine, Common Sense           

The government of the United States is being held hostage by extreme elements in America’s two political parties, whose members refuse to compromise on matters of critical importance to the nation.(The grudging year-end passage of some legislation is inconsequential.) Though the Republicans may be more responsible for the inability of Congress to get things done, both parties have contributed to the toxic environment in Washington. This has made it impossible to appropriately address the economic downturn, high unemployment, the budget deficits and national debt, among other issues. And the demonization of adversaries and lack of civility between members of the opposing parties obstructs any dialogue, with an unwillingness to understand the viewpoints on the other side of the aisle. Of course, the longer this stalemate goes on, the more damage will be wrought on the economy, America’s standing in the world and citizens’ psychological state.

 Can the status quo be changed to allow government to start functioning again? The answer is yes, if the moderate middle can be mobilized, since partisans in the Republican and Democratic parties appear incapable of working together in the nation’s interest. Mobilizing the moderate middle sounds like an advertisement from a fitness center, suggesting an exercise program to help reduce an unwanted bulge around people’s mid-sections. However, the moderate middle is also a large bulge in the nation’s electorate, mostly inert, men and women who tend to be a bit lazy and apathetic from a political standpoint. Well, America needs them to get off their butts and be involved in the political process to help get the country back on track.

 Various polls in the last two decades have estimated that self-described moderates comprise 35% to 43% of the populace. (However, many of those who call themselves conservatives are actually moderate on many issues and label themselves conservative because it is currently in favor.) There is little question that moderate Republicans, centrist Democrats and independents (the moderate middle) have the power to decide national, statewide and many local elections if they play an active role. But how can they be motivated to become involved.

At present, disgust with the nation’s political parties is almost palpable. Most of the moderate middle certainly realizes that America is in trouble and that neither the Republicans nor Democrats are providing solutions. If moderates believe that their participation in the political process can be meaningful and that they can make a difference in turning the country around, they will be more willing become engaged.

A cause the moderate middle could rally around is a centrist third party dedicated to ethical conduct, transparency and pragmatism. Not tied to rigid ideology nor connected to special interests, this party would take a practical approach to the nation’s problems. Funding for the party could be obtained from small donors over the Internet, rather than from special interests, and it could be organized through the Internet as well. Soccer moms, college students, retired seniors, minorities and the general population could all find common ground in bringing this new entity to fruition. And the enthusiasm of the party’s supporters would have a multiplier effect as they convinced new people to join, all knowing they were participating in the transformation of America’s political system. No Labels and Americans Elect are a start in the right direction, recognizing the frustration of the moderate middle in being able to alter the political dynamic. But these two organizations do not go far enough to bring about change.

There is nothing in the Constitution or Federalist Papers that mandates two parties for America. The current duopoly of power has failed the nation and it is time for a centrist third party to restore effective government. The power to change things lies in the hands of a motivated moderate middle that participates in the political process.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

A Holiday Wish List for Washington

A Holiday Wish List for Washington

                                    Robert A. Levine  12-6-11

 The season is fast approaching when all the naughty and nice children provide Santa with wish lists for gifts they’d like to receive. Adults also make lists of the resolutions they hope to follow in the New Year, wanting to change some of their bad habits.  As this year comes to a close and we look back on what the political parties have NOT accomplished, it is instructive compiling a list of some of the legislation that naughty members of Congress have NOT enacted, or even introduced, and the concerns we wish they might deal with in the near future. Perhaps then, they might be considered nice. 

Because it is mind-boggling how many important measures this Congress has not been able to pass, we must restrict the list to those of particular significance to the nation.

 1)      Santa, please persuade Congress to enact legislation to reduce the budget deficits and national debt. Even the “super-committee” of Republicans and Democrats was unable to reach a consensus this year on a long range plan to control the budget deficits and national debt. The hang up was how to combine a decrease in federal spending with an increase in revenue. While the Democrats were unhappy about curbing entitlement programs, they were willing to do so if some revenue enhancement was part of the package. Republicans, however, refused to consider any plan that raised taxes, even if it were limited to the most affluent Americans. Thus, nothing happened.

2)      Have members of Congress and Senators act to cushion the effects of the recession and unemployment. With the economy still in tatters and millions out of work, Washington has still not found a way to alleviate people’s pain. The problem here is the focus on the budget deficits and the unwillingness of Republicans to increase spending on a temporary basis. While unemployment compensation may yet be extended and Social Security taxes lowered for another year to put more money into workers’ pockets, there is no agreement on more aggressive intervention to help the economy.

3)      Do something about the mortgage mess. While troubled banks that were too big to fail were bailed out by the government in their hour of need, little has been offered to troubled homeowners who have mortgages that are under water or who have already defaulted. While various plans have been suggested to address this problem, no accord has been reached about what should be done. But until the housing market is righted, the economy will remain precarious.

4)      Repair and enhance America’s crumbling infrastructure. The nation’s infrastructure was once the envy of the world with a network of railroads, modern interstate highways, bridges, tunnels, ports and airports, levees and dams, electrical plants and transmission lines, pipelines and refineries. Many of these are slowly disintegrating though they are vital to America’s economy. Broadband access in this day and age is also critical and America lags many other nations in connectivity. With the construction industry now in the doldrums, this is the time to rebuild and expand America’s infrastructure as the businesses and labor to do the job are available and the price should be right.

5)      Address the morass over illegal immigration. Federal action is needed rather than diverse measures from the states. While securing the nation’s borders is essential, Congress should be realistic about how to handle the 12 million or so undocumented immigrants already here. Deporting all of them would be a legal and logistical nightmare of great expense, as well as devastating to our farmers and various industries dependent on immigrant labor.

6)      Make it easier for foreign scientists, engineers and those with special skills to work in America so that we can benefit from their expertise.

7)      Create a more comprehensive and innovative education program. This should have national standards that improves proficiency in students and produces more of our own scientists, engineers and mathematicians.

 

Santa, these are just a few of the measures that Congress needs to address. I don’t know if you have the power to change the mindset of America’s politicians and make them willing to compromise, but it would sure help the country if you could.

(P.S. I checked the list twice.)

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Take the Money and Run (for Office)

                        Robert A. Levine 10- 27-11

 

            Take the Money and Run was the title of a 1969 Woody Allen comedy. But currently, the joke is on America’s citizens as politicians take all the money they can get from lobbyists and special interests when they run for office. Then, once elected, these officeholders do the bidding of those who have provided campaign funding, neglecting to meet the needs of their constituents and the nation as a whole. Instead of a comedy, taking the money and running has become a tragedy for Americans.

            In 1962, Jesse Unruh, the Democratic Speaker of California’s State Assembly stated that “money is the mother’s milk of politics.” This truism is even truer today when politicians have to spend increasingly larger amounts each cycle to get elected or re-elected. And the need to generate funds is true for candidates at every level of government, from municipal to federal offices.

             Currently, it seems as if officeholders operate in a permanent campaign mode. Their main objective has become doing whatever is necessary to get re-elected, rather than trying to develop legislation that will benefit the citizens they represent. Measures that serve a societal purpose or that will move America forward have become important to politicians only to the degree that they provide favorable publicity or help them in raising funds. Running for office requires huge sums of money, which means cultivating individual and corporate sources with deep pockets. Those willing to contribute to officeholders get access to them in a quid pro quo relationship, and may be given opportunities to shape legislation of concern. Unfortunately, this type of unethical linkage is legal as long as the quid pro quo cannot be proven. The corruption has to be much more blatant for prosecutors to intervene.

            Recently, the political playbook has been re-written with the arrival of ‘super-PACs.’ These organizations that are supposedly ‘loosely’ affiliated with candidates can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions, or individuals. The money can then be put to use supporting the candidate and his or her positions, or to attack the opposition. Though the connection between money and politics was strong previously, the ‘superPACs’ will raise the influence of money to new heights. Politicians know that these groups will provide an opportunity for them to accumulate funds without restrictions on donors and then to use these funds as they see fit.

            Though most politicians are content to take the money and run, it is not good for the nation to have the political process dominated by wealthy special interests who are able to use their wealth to have their way legislatively. The influx of money needs to be controlled, but it will not happen through the present Congress or the judiciary. A centrist third party that refuses to take money from lobbyists or special interests can deliver an antidote to the poison that threatens the American democratic system.  This party could raise funds from small contributors over the Internet or accept donations to a committee and disburse them according to the donor’s wishes, but do it anonymously. Thus, the candidate would not know the source of his or her funds and would not be beholden to any special interest.

            This is not fantasy. Enough Americans today are disgusted with the state of politics and would be inclined to contribute money to an alternative vision and vote for this entity’s candidates in an election. The use of social media and the Internet would allow this third party to reach large numbers of voters inexpensively to get its message across, perhaps even holding primary elections on-line.

            The current political system is not working. It must be changed. A centrist third party could be the answer.

 

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

 

Who Speaks Up For The Middle-Class?

                    Robert A. Levine  10-19-11

        In America, who speaks up for the middle-class? What group or groups defends the interests of the majority of the populace as the economy falters, jobs disappear, and the government programs that provide them peace of mind, such as Medicare and Social Security, are under attack. The rich and the poor have their advocates in and out of government, but ordinary citizens have no strong voice articulating their needs. Every power center in and out of government claims to represent middle-class interests, but even a cursory analysis shows that this isn’t so.

            Wages are stagnant or decreasing. Workers have to pay more in co-pays and deductibles for health insurance and contribute more to pension plans and 401Ks. Middle-class families pay a greater percentage of their incomes in taxes than the wealthiest Americans. In 2010, CEOs at major corporations earned more than 343 times the income of average workers. (In 1980, it was forty-two times.) A recent article in the New York Times noted that the 400 wealthiest Americans were worth more in total than the bottom 150 million. And the top 1 percent had more in assets than the bottom 90 percent.

            Given America’s precarious economy and the degree of inequality, where are the advocates for changes that would benefit the middle-class? The Republicans main concerns are the budget deficits and national debt rather than how to put Americans back to work. And they refuse to consider raising taxes on the most affluent to fund a job plan. They are more attuned to the needs of the oil, pharmaceutical and financial industries than to those of ordinary citizens. The Democrats don’t want to raise taxes on hedge fund managers and private equity executives, allowing much of their income to be taxed at capital gains rates of 15% instead of 35%, costing the government billions in revenue. (Is it a coincidence that Democratic leaders receive large campaign contributions from these sources.) And the Democrats have been unable to devise plans that would alleviate the mortgage crisis, heeding the objections of the banks instead of providing relief for suffering homeowners.

            Government agencies originally created to protect consumers and promote the public interest have also not been looking out for the middle-class. The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) has been more protective of the financial firms for which they have oversight than of the small investor. The Federal Housing Finance Agency didn’t do its job monitoring lenders prior to the recession, allowing mortgages that were doomed to fail damage the economy. And the bank regulatory agencies and the Federal Reserve have been more interested in assisting the banks than in helping consumers. There’s also the FCC, FDA and the Federal Trade Commission, all safeguarding special interests over American citizens. And of course, the Minerals Management Service did not really manage BP and the oil drillers in the Gulf of Mexico.

            Partisanship and/or corruption currently drives government policy in virtually every area, with the special interests and lobbyists in control rather than the voters. The middle-class desperately needs a white knight to ride to its rescue and change the way the government functions; an organization that will serve the public interest instead of the special interests. It is not an unattainable fantasy. Salvation can be found by establishing a centrist third party whose elected officials refuse to take money from the special interests and instead opt to raise funds from small donors over the Internet. This party’s guiding principle in governing will be pragmatism rather than partisanship, with no constraints imposed by ideological dogma. A centrist third party can be successful if enough citizens see it as a credible alternative and are willing to lend it their time and money.

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Resurrecting Democracy