More Congressional “Chutzpah”
                        Robert A. Levine  12-26-11
Congress has done it again, giving their members special consideration other Americans can only dream of. For some time now, Congressional insiders have been able to enrich themselves on the basis of knowledge not available to the public. (Washington officeholders have access to a treasure trove of economic data not available to ordinary citizens.)
 After prime time exposure of Congressional insider trading depicted on CBS’s 60 Minutes recently, there was a sudden moment of understanding by many members of Congress and Senators that public anger demanded a change in standard Washington behavior. It was assumed that legislation would be passed to prohibit Congressional members and staffers from using privileged information to engage in stock trading as is the law of the land for the general population.
 Actually, a bill to ban insider trading by office holders in Washington was introduced seven years ago called Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act by Representatives Louise Slaughter and Brian Baird, both Democrats. However, since it was introduced, this measure has languished in Congress irrespective of whether Republicans or Democrats had majorities, with members of neither party apparently wanting to terminate a potentially lucrative practice. Then, Congressmen and Congresswomen suddenly “got religion” when their insider trading was prominently disclosed, with the story kept alive by the media amid a public outcry.
Unfortunately, Congressional shame and remorse has evidently been short-lived. The House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Alabama Republican Spencer Bachus, on December 7 postponed a vote on legislation that would have proscribed insider trading. After meeting with other House Republicans, he claimed that “a significant number of members of the committee on both sides of the aisle have indicated a desire for additional time to study the issue.” This ignored the fact that the bill to end insider trading had over a hundred co-sponsors and overwhelming public support. Why should we not be surprised by this action? Over the years, it has been shown that Congressional insiders who trade in stocks outperform the market by about 12% annually, a better result than most hedge fund managers. Obviously, the access to privileged information that members of Congress and their staffers are able to acquire has been very profitable for some of them and it is easy to comprehend their reluctance to give it up. And Chairman Bachus was identified as someone who traded in stock options, having done so after having received a Treasury report in 2008 focusing on problems with the economy.
Is it any wonder that Congressional approval ratings are currently in single digits and that the public views politicians with such disdain? Their personal goals and ethics are not aligned with those of other citizens, and they can enact legislation (such as banning insider trading by ordinary Americans) that does not necessarily apply to them.
Chutzpah is a bipartisan characteristic. It is a Yiddish term that denotes acts or conduct of unusual effrontery, arrogance, brazenness, or hypocrisy in disregard of normal standards of behavior and other people’s sensitivities. Members of Congress certainly are imbued with an inordinate amount of chutzpah. On the other hand, the American electorate lets them get away with it.
 Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

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

Who Speaks Up For the Middle Class

Who Speaks Up For The Middle-Class?

                    Robert A. Levine  10-21-11
        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.
http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/
Resurrecting Democracy