Will Citizens United Sound the Death Knell for American Democracy

              Robert A. Levine    5-31-12

It may come off as hype even talking about the end of democracy in America, but one has to wonder about that as the repercussions of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court become more evident. America’s democracy has survived many hits in the past, but it’s possible this one could be a knock-out blow. And once down on the mat, democracy may not be able to get up again.

This consideration was raised by a recent Politico article reporting that Republican Super PACs will spend a billion dollars to try and elect their candidates in this election cycle. (http://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=482f87de1d55a93ceaa04945cb513295628728e3a741d9bd5de4fba222ff3263) These are not grass-roots organizations, but groups financed by a few big donors. For example, groups linked to the Koch brothers will spend about $400 million alone, organizing operations in important districts and states.

Now, there are those who will say ‘so what,’ and that campaign spending is like a popularity contest, where candidates with the most appeal raise the most money. And that the Democrats can also try and generate as much money as they can if they want to make the races more competitive.  And that money and campaign ads don’t determine the way people vote. And that Obama spent three quarters of a billion dollars on the last presidential campaign anyway.

In relation to the last argument, the money Obama raised and spent on his campaign was through his own organization and he vetted and was responsible for the messages that emerged. With the plethora of Super PACs now sprouting all over the landscape, extremely wealthy people can issue their own messages as they attempt to influence elections, often anonymously and with no constraints on what is said or how much money is donated.  They can distort opponents’ messages, say things out of context or with only a kernel of truth, or frankly lie or make up stories, with no one and no governmental agency to take them to task.

By buying up enough air time in major markets in the swing states, they can completely dominate the political dialogue in the presidential campaigns, restricting the ability of opponents to respond over the airways and drowning out any counterthrusts. These kingmakers can similarly impact Congressional and Senatorial races with their money, electing men and women with worldviews comparable to their own, thus being able to determine governmental policy.

Unfortunately, this control of the electoral process can become self-perpetuating, extinguishing the vestiges of democracy.  Instead of free and open elections, America could undergo a transition to a plutocracy, where the very wealthy have the power and make the rules. The only way this can be averted is if common sense limitations on campaign spending by individuals and corporations are instituted again. But how can this happen if our elected representatives, along with the president and Supreme Court are opposed to any restrictions?

Economic inequality in America will grow even worse in the future, as the tax laws and regulations are further shaped to favor the rich. And this will be more than matched by the disproportionate political power of the rich. If these Super PACs are allowed to continue to control the discourse, any semblance of fairness that remains in political campaigns and elections will vanish.

Some see a negative legacy from George W. Bush’s presidency as a result of the Iraq War and tax laws that increased the nation’s budget deficits.  However, I believe his enduring legacy will be his nominations to the Supreme Court, with its Citizen’s United ruling that gave control of the political process to the extremely wealthy.

James Madison noted in The Federalist Papers- “We may define a republic to be… a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people…not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class.” We are now moving away from this vision for our republic and whether or not this trend can be reversed remains a question.

Resurrecting Democracy
http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/

High-Tech Immigrants Needed, but Immigrants Need Not Apply

                        Robert A. Levine    5-25-12

Engineers and scientists are desperately needed by many high-tech firms. However, positions are going unfilled because there are not enough trained Americans to fill them and immigration policy doesn’t allow enough visas to be granted to qualified immigrants who would be happy to take these jobs. And it’s not only in established businesses where immigrants bolster the economy. One study showed that foreign-born entrepreneurs started more than 25% of the technology and engineering firms in the U.S. between 1995 and 2005. Businesses created by immigrants generated $52 billion in sales and had 450,000 employees in 2005.

Foreign nationals now comprise the majority of scientists and engineers being trained in the U.S. for advanced degrees. For example, they account for 50% of master’s degrees and 70% of Ph.d degrees in electrical engineering. On an undergraduate level, foreign born residents earn 33% of all degrees in engineering, 27% of those in computer science, math and statistics, and 24% of those in the physical sciences. Each year vast numbers of students from abroad come to study in our universities, because the education they receive is superior to what they can get at home. Last year, 160,000 Chinese men and women were enrolled in American universities, about 60% of them pursuing engineering or science degrees. Yet our poorly conceived laws limit thousands of these scientists and engineers from obtaining jobs in our country after they graduate, even though they would prefer to stay and our high-tech firms would love to have them. We should be trying to lure these foreign graduates to work in America, rather than making it difficult for them to gain employment.

A Harvard Business School study found that almost half of the scientists and engineers with doctorates currently working in the U.S. were immigrants, and they accounted for 67% of the increase in American scientists and engineers between 1995 and 2006. The need for these educated foreign born workers will only grow as the Baby Boomers age and retire in the years ahead.

At the same time that immigration laws block many foreign-born scientists and engineers from working in America, China and India are actively recruiting those that are here, providing outsized bonuses and other inducements. As a case in point, according to the New York Times, China has been offering experienced professors and researchers bonuses of approximately $158, 000 to come back home.

The flow of these university graduates to their native countries from the U.S. can be considered a reverse brain drain, inverting the expected pattern of immigration. Federal funds subsidize the education of these scientists and engineers with grants to the universities they attend, aiding the economies of other nations and helping them to compete against us. America also loses the tens of thousands of patents and new technology these foreign scientists and engineers would have developed in our country, which would have created more jobs. These go instead to the nations to which they’ve returned.

Opposition to allowing more foreign scientists and engineers to work in America has come from some unions who claim that they drive down wages for American workers. Since there are jobs going unfilled in the high-tech fields because there are not enough scientists and engineers, the charge appears ludicrous. And foreign workers in these firms receive salaries that for the most part are comparable to American workers. In addition, bureaucrats in the Immigration and Naturalization Service have complicated the processes that foreign-born scientists and engineers must go through to work in the United States, making it more difficult for them to obtain jobs. But the real problem lies with the politicians hostile to immigration who have been against increasing the visas for educated workers.

Given the paucity of American students seeking advanced degrees in science and engineering, we should be handing out green cards and welcoming any potential workers or entrepreneurs in the high tech sector. We should also provide them with easier paths to citizenship so they will be more likely to remain. It will only benefit our economy in the long run.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
                               

Earmarks- Playing Congressional Whack-A-Mole

                      Robert A. Levine    5-21-12

Congressional earmarks keep popping up no matter how much good government groups and sympathetic members of Congress try to suppress them. And many of the politicians who rail against earmarks are the ones who find ways to use them, keeping the earmarks hidden by labeling them differently or burying them within legislation. But an earmark by any other name…

The majority of House members and Senators decry earmarks in public and give the impression they would like to eliminate them permanently. But it seems as if you can’t keep a good political payoff down. The placing of earmarks in legislation has continued in spite of the supposed moratorium on this activity enacted by Congress in 2011.

Currently, a favorite strategy of lawmakers is to use special funds in spending and authorization bills for projects in their districts or states. As an illustration, early this year the budget passed for the Army Corps of Engineers contained 26 different funds totaling $507 million for construction, maintenance and other projects that were not part of the original bill. It has been noted by budget watchdogs that the funds for these 26 projects were approximately the same as the earmarks in the 2010 budget. The nation’s budget deficits and the need to reduce spending did not act as a brake for the members of Congress, who added more money for the Corps than the president had requested.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contained 111 earmarks. Of these, 59 utilized the exact language found in previous earmarks. A report from Senator Claire McCaskill’s office in December of 2011 found 115 earmarks in the NDAA. These cost taxpayers $834 million. Among those who requested the earmarks were twenty Congressional Republican freshmen who had campaigned against the practice. No surprise.
Further analysis by CAGW showed that 12 of 16 appropriation bills for FY 2012 that they had examined contained earmarks, with 251 projects totaling $9.6 billion. This is actually reduced since the moratorium went into effect, as earmarks in FY 2010 totaled $16.5 billion. However, transparency is now gone, with earmarks hidden within the text of legislation and not easily discerned. Earmarks previously were listed in a single table with the amount of the project, its location and with the names of those who requested the earmark attached to the request.

Unfortunately, past earmarks are still contributing to our budget deficits and wasting taxpayer money. An example is a drip pan for helicopters that attaches beneath the roofs to catch leaking transmission fluid. Congressman Harold Rogers, the current Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, aka the Prince of Pork, requested as an earmark in 2009 that these pans be manufactured by a Kentucky company, a major contributor to him and to Republican groups. The cost to the Army for these drip pans, awarded without competitive bidding, was $17,000 each, compared to a similar pan from another manufacturer that cost $2500. The Army has already spent $6.5 million on these devices with more to come.

The Earmark Elimination Act, co-sponsored by Republican Pat Toomeyand Democrat Claire McCaskill, last year was an attempt to permanently end all earmarks, but was defeated when it came before the Senate in February. However, it seems that no matter what legislation is enacted that tries to eliminate earmarks, members of Congress and Senators will find ways to circumvent the ban. Politicians want to pay back businesses that support them in order to generate more campaign funding, and they want to finance projects in their districts to garner more votes. Thus, whatever laws the House and Senate pass against earmarks, they will always have loopholes that allow legislators to continue the practice they appear to oppose.

Resurrecting Democracy
http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/

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://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=67d22cc68366780fe484783c07fb312183a2b7697dbdc4f50575b972c7aae470) 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 Susan Collins 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

Moral Hazard, Health Care Coverage and the Individual Mandate

            Robert A. Levine   4-23-12

Whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA), now before the Supreme Court, will survive in its current form is in some doubt, with the individual mandate particularly in danger of being overturned. Though Congress has the power to regulate interstate commercial activity, opponents of the law believe it can not impose a tax or fee on inactivity, such as the failure of citizens to purchase health insurance.

The individual mandate was included as part of the law to pressure young healthy people to obtain insurance. This was to balance the cost of insuring men and women with chronic illnesses and pre-existing conditions. Without the mandate, it was believed many young Americans would not bother with coverage, as is currently the case. If that happened, writing policies for those with pre-existing conditions would not make financial sense for the insurance companies, or the premiums would be too expensive for those who were sick.

Many individuals in their twenties and thirties do not see the need for heath insurance, assuming they are unlikely to become seriously ill or injured and that it is a “waste” of money. They know that if necessary, they can always receive Emergency Room care without insurance, and think they will be able get coverage after the fact. And if medical expenses become crushing because of a major illness or injury, the involved person (having limited assets) can simply declare bankruptcy, erase the debt and start over. This is a prime example of moral hazard, where the economic risks of illness for uninsured people is placed on the backs of others.

Health insurance allows individuals to receive care without having to worry about financial ruin in case they are faced with unexpected medical expenses. An immediate expenditure of funds to buy coverage guards against the possibility of much greater losses in the future. Carrying health insurance requires men and women to take responsibility for their own well being and not be dependent on the social safety net should they fall ill. It is unfair to other citizens for uninsured people who can afford coverage to receive medical care. It means their care is paid for by government subsidies to hospitals (which is bourn by taxpayers) or by an increase in insurance premiums for all policyholders. However, as long as men and women know they can obtain medical treatment in Emergency Rooms or walk-in clinics, and that they will be hospitalized if necessary even without coverage, there is less incentive for them to purchase insurance. And bankruptcy is an easy way for young people who have not yet accumulated significant assets to discharge debt.

If the ACA or the individual mandate is voided by the Supreme Court, a way must be found to persuade reluctant citizens who have the financial means to buy health insurance. A law that prohibited medical facilities from providing care to those who did not have coverage would certainly be effective, but this is a non-starter. It contravenes societal and medical mores about treating sick or injured patients regardless of economic circumstances. A more realistic approach would be to enact a law that prevented medical expenses incurred by uninsured men and women from dismissal through bankruptcy. Citizens who were irresponsible and neglected to obtain insurance would be indefinitely liable for all their medical expenses, eliminating some degree of moral hazard.

If this measure were passed, those who were too poor to pay for coverage would enroll in Medicaid and those who could afford it would be more inclined to purchase insurance. Allowances would have to be made for people who were emotionally disturbed or mentally impaired.

Though not a perfect answer, the above strategy is a logical approach to the problem of citizens who choose not to purchase health insurance, shifting the cost of their care onto the government and those who have coverage. If the individual mandate or the Affordable Care Act is overturned, Americans who are not obtaining health insurance might be motivated to do so by legislation that does not let them off the hook for the medical expenses they incur.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Turning Back the Clock Politics

                    Robert A. Levine   4-19-12

The gridlock in Washington and the difficulty Congress has in passing significant legislation does not require intricate analysis and pontificating by pundits over its cause.

Conservative initiatives that would have Americans live in the past are the main divide between conservatives and liberals or moderates. It’s the reason conservatives want to expel moderates from the GOP whom they label as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). The more conservative a politician is, the more he or she sees the past through rose-colored glasses and wants to move America back in time. They want to go back beyond the Great Society of Johnson, the New Deal of Roosevelt, and even measures favored by Nixon such as the EPA.

Examining conservative stances, their love affair with the past becomes readily apparent. Smaller government and lower taxes head the list. This is in disregard of globalization and the problems raised, the complexity of citizen’s lives, the need for an adequate safety net, protection against external and internal enemies, a suitable infrastructure for the nation, food, drug and environmental monitoring, safety standards for air travel and automobiles, allocating the wireless spectrum and off shore drilling, and numerous other functions of government in the modern world. Conservatives would like to shrink the federal government’s role and spending in virtually all of the above areas, except for the military.

As for lowering taxes, America’s marginal income tax rates are among the lowest they have ever been and among the lowest in the developed world. During the early 1950s through 1963, the marginal tax rate was above 90%, and as recently as 1979 it was 70%. In moving the nation back past the New Deal, conservatives would probably be happy with the income tax rate of 7% that was in place in 1913.
And conservatives want government to be less intrusive in people’s lives, except when it comes to hot-button issues of importance to them, such as a woman’s right to choose and same-sex marriage. This really has to do with religious beliefs and government should not be involved in regulating these areas. However, many conservatives would like the wall between government and religion to be torn down and for policy to be concordant with religious practices. Perhaps they would feel more comfortable in the Massachusetts’ colony in the 17^th century, when religion and government walked hand in hand, controlling people’s lives.
Conservatives also do not think contraceptive coverage should be an expected part of health insurance since this could lead (God forbid) to women’s sexual freedom and possibly sexual relationships outside of marriage. Better that America should go back past the 1960s, before oral contraceptives became widely accepted and state laws banning the sale and use of contraceptives were overturned by the Supreme Court. And conservatives believe a woman’s place is still in the home with the man as the breadwinner for the family, with no need for equal pay for equal work laws.

There’s also the “old West” model of society that conservatives promote; every citizen packing guns and standing their ground against whomever they see as miscreants. There’s no acknowledging the danger of weapons in an overwhelmingly urban nation and that weapons should be limited to hunting, sport shooting or home protection.

Their rejection of scientific information take us back in time as well, with an unwillingness to accept evolution, the “big bang” theory or global warming, and a desire to teach non-science in the classroom.
In addition, conservatives are suspicious of America being corrupted by foreign influences. This may be one of the reasons for their adamant opposition to sensible immigration reform, besides the economic grounds and possible racism. The overwhelmingly WASP nation that existed around the time of the revolution would probably fit the bill for them.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is currently dominated by conservatives who hold many of the above views and would like to take America back to a simpler and more freewheeling time of robber barons and gunslingers.

If conservative ideology becomes more ascendant in the future, America will indeed be returned to a previous era, its stature in the world eroded, economic inequality heightened, and the gains women have made rolled back. Perhaps if the electorate truly understood how conservative policies would change the nation, America might remain in the present with a brighter future.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Big Game- Can America Compete?

                        Robert A. Levine   4-16-12

As an avid sports fan who follows teams on a college and professional level, I find the skewed priorities favoring sports over education for allocation of resources by state and local governments disturbing. Support for sports teams at high schools and colleges has continued or expanded even as school funding has dwindled, with coaches and athletic programs as the tails wagging the educational dogs. With March Madness having just passed, it’s appropriate to ask whether America will be able to participate in the “big game” of national economic competitiveness in future years, since contending is dependant on an educated populace.

There is little question that America does a poor job of educating its citizens compared to other nations. The Program for International Student Assessment in 2009 had the U.S. at 17^th in reading proficiency, 31^st in math and 23^rd in science. Instructors estimate that over 40% of college freshmen are unprepared for course work. Equally disheartening, employers say that 39% of applicants are not qualified for entry level jobs.

Yet despite the above deficiencies, funding for teachers’ salaries, additional teachers and facility upgrades is being curtailed throughout the nation. Admittedly, there are many reasons why America’s students perform poorly, including a lack of parental interest, poor teaching, language barriers, cultural mindsets, and so forth. And while increased funding is not the only answer to improve student performance, better teachers, more teachers and better facilities, all requiring increased funding, would certainly help.

On the other hand, money is being spent freely on athletic programs at many high schools and colleges. Texas is emblematic of the support given athletics while education is being starved. In the NEA rankings in December 2010, Texas was 33^rd in teacher salaries and 44^th in per student spending in K-12 schools. State testing (SERI) in science and mathematics in 2011 had Texas students 31^st. In the percentage of state populations over age twenty-five with at least a high school education, Texas came in last. Yet a new football stadium for Allen, Texas, high school last year was built at a cost of $60 million. The new stadium seats 18,000 people, replacing one that held 14,200. In 2006, high school football coaches in Texas averaged $73,800 in salary, versus $42,400 for teachers. And it isn’t only coaches and stadiums that athletic programs require, but assistant coaches, administrative personnel, training and weight rooms, and so forth.

On a university level, Texas football coach Mack Brown was the highest paid in America in 2010, earning $5.1 million plus incentives. This was while a pay freeze was in place at the university and tuition was being increased. While other Texas coaches earned less, they were still well paid compared to professors at their institutions.

The focus on sports in Texas is mirrored in other states with poor educational achievement. In Alabama, the head football coach currently has a guaranteed salary of $44 million over eight years, while full time faculty members will earn an average of $650,000 during this same period. In other words, the coach will be paid over sixty-six times the annual salary of faculty members. Another report showed that between 1985 and 2010, average salaries for professors at public universities around the nation rose 32% while those of football coaches went up 650%. This sends a message to students and faculty that they are not valued and that athletics is more important than education. Indeed, athletic prowess rather than academics is the way many universities brand themselves.

In general, states that most strongly embrace school sports are the ones that fare worst academically. Supporters of university sports programs argue that they bring in money and provide positive publicity for the school. And indeed that’s the case for some institutions that consistently have winning records in the major sports. But not every university can be a winner and there are far more that lose money on athletics than those that are profitable. And building athletic powerhouses on a high school level makes no sense at all.

To prepare America for the “big game,” the culture at high schools and universities must be changed, with more focus on academics and less on sports. Consideration might be given to having sports teams separated from the schools and run as independent clubs with school affiliations. Having an Ivy League-like de-emphasis on athletics is another option. Sports-rabid alumni, however, are unlikely to agree to these kinds of changes.

America is in competition with nations where students are willing to put in long hours of study, and academic proficiency is lauded. Sports are fun but need to play second fiddle to academics if America is to thrive in the 21^st century’s “big game.”

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Freedom of Religion Is Not Absolute

               Robert A. Levine   4-12--12

 Rick Santorum made separation of church and state an issue in his campaign for the presidency, denouncing John F. Kennedy’s commitment to that principle and using freedom of religion as a rallying cry. The uproar regarding coverage for contraception further highlighted the continuing schism in America over those wanting absolute freedom to follow their religious beliefs and those accepting that when a conflict exists, civil law must override religious precepts.

Previous court battles have affirmed that freedom of religion in America is not an absolute right. Though the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from any actions favoring the establishment of a religion or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” there have been a number of instances where the general welfare has taken precedence over religious practices, forcing a religion to change its edicts. Since the state is responsible for regulating harmful conduct, if there is disagreement between a religion and the state over some element of religious practices, civil law must be observed. Of course, the difficulty arises in determining which religious practices may be detrimental to society.

One prominent example of a conflict between church and state, where the Supreme Court ruled that civil law must be followed, involved the Mormon practice of polygamy. In 1862, the Morrill Act was passed by Congress prohibiting plural marriages. The Court upheld the conviction of a Mormon in 1878 for violating the law which he said had interfered with his religious duty. However, polygamy continued to be openly practiced by Mormons with the argument that it was protected by the First Amendment. Finally, in 1890, the president of the Mormon Church acknowledged that civil law had primacy over church law and the practice of polygamy was ended by the church, aside from some fundamentalist splinter groups. Similarly, the Muslim practice of allowing up to four wives under Islamic law is illegal in the U.S.

Another area where civil law was in dispute with religious officials was over the handling of pedophilia by the Catholic Church. For most of the 20^th century (and past centuries) the church dealt with child molestation by priests as a sin, rather than as a criminal offense. When a case of pedophilia was discovered, the name of the perpetrator was generally not reported to the civil authorities, with disciplinary measures meted out by the church. Often, this consisted of transfer to another position where the perpetrator might still have contact with children. Or a life of prayer and penance might be ordered. It was only after a series of scandals, numerous suits and some criminal trials in recent decades that the church agreed to treat pedophilia as a criminal offense, allowing an arm of the state to decide on punishment.

It is clear that religious freedom is not absolute in America. However, two questions must be answered by the courts in dealing with conflicts between church and state. One is how egregious the issue in contention is to the beliefs of a particular religion and the second is whether favoring the religion would contravene the general good to a sufficient degree to harm society. On the issue of contraception, it is clear that women’s health will be impacted if coverage is not available for low-income recipients. It also seems that when the Obama administration allowed church-affiliated organizations to opt out if they so desired and have the insurance companies pay for contraception, the church’s objections had been met.

We live in a pluralistic society where conflicts between what are considered civil rights or social needs and religious beliefs are constantly playing out. Finding a middle ground when dealing with galvanizing issues, such as abortion or same-sex marriage appears to be nearly impossible. On the other hand, the availability of contraception for all women seemed to have been settled decades ago and yet has come back to haunt us again. It is unfortunate that when the nation faces so many serious economic problems, the two political parties must devote so much time and energy to an issue like contraception coverage which should have been a minor administrative decision.

To truly insure freedom of religion for everyone, the wall separating church and state must remain in place as a bedrock principle of American democracy.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

After the A.C.A.- Are There Answers?

                       Robert A. Levine  4-2-12

If the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is overturned by the Supreme Court, which now seems probable, how can health care costs be controlled and care provided to the one sixth of Americans who have no insurance? A bipartisan solution to the problem appears to be impossible. Evidence for this is reinforced by the fact that the individual mandate provision of the ACA, which originally had been a conservative Republican concept, became an anathema to Republicans once it had been adopted by Obama and the Democrats, and a focus of their opposition to the law.

Addressing the significant problems of overall health care costs, the one sixth of Americans who have no coverage, and increased spending by the government for Medicare and Medicaid, appears to be beyond the gridlocked, highly-partisan legislative bodies in Washington. And unless solutions to these problems are found, budget deficits and the national debt will continue to grow and the American economy will suffer. If after the November election one party controls the presidency and both Houses of Congress, with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, there would at least be the possibility that a health care plan could be enacted. However, a more likely scenario is a continued division of the seats of power between the two parties and continued disagreement over what should be done. And cutting Medicare and Medicaid spending as the Republicans propose, or raising a few premiums, is not the answer.

The general animus between the parties and over health care in particular, masks the fact that the steps to constraining health care costs are straightforward and fairly obvious. However, it would entail abandoning the rigid insistence by conservatives on market-based solutions for all economic problems.

The market simply does not work in regard to health care, encouraging predatory behavior among the stakeholders in the system. When physicians are paid by fee-for-service, their income is determined by how many tests and procedures they perform and the intensity of the services they provide. And since there is an asymmetry of knowledge between laymen and physicians, patients usually accept whatever physicians recommend. This has led to a huge volume of unnecessary care; up to 30% of health care spending- $900 billion out of $2.7 trillion last year, with some adverse events as well. (Some unnecessary care is also generated by defensive medicine to ward off malpractice suits.)

Another 15-25% of health care spending is consumed by administration and overhead because of the complexity and inefficiencies of the insurance based system. Unable to reduce health care costs, insurance companies merely pass onto consumers in premiums whatever they pay out to providers. These companies also don’t cover those with pre-existing conditions and withhold payment for services whenever possible, to increase profits that will enhance executive salaries and shareholder dividends.

To curb unnecessary care, and save a good portion of the $900 billion dollars annually wasted there, fee-for-service payment for physicians should be eliminated. Capitation, bundling of payments for services, or having physicians on salary are all preferable options. Over 30% of physicians are already salaried and this would be the simplest and most efficient method of curtailing unnecessary care and its attendant costs.

A single payer system to reduce administration and overhead would also save hundreds of billions of dollars. This could be established through a Medicare for all system under the aegis of the government, or under a quasi-governmental agency similar to the Federal Reserve and free of political interference. Unfortunately, the chances of having this sensible path followed in the current political environment are slim to none.

Malpractice reform, expensive new technology that provides few benefits, and drug costs, must also be addressed to maximize savings for the health care system.

America’s per capita spending on health care is 50% higher than other developed countries. In terms of metrics like life expectancy and infant mortality, the medical outcomes are worse, and one sixth of Americans have no health care coverage. The nation can do much better in terms of cost and quality. The problems of soaring health care costs and lack of coverage have been ongoing problems for decades and need to be solved once and for all. Labeling necessary reform measures as “socialistic” and trying to placate the stakeholders in the current system will not help the nation find solutions. Pragmatism needs to win out over partisanship for America to win the battle over health care costs.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Swing Vote

The Swing Vote
            Robert A. Levine  3-26-12

The Swing Vote is the title of a recent book by Linda Killian that laments the lack of power independents have in Washington and their impotence in determining government policy. It is a strong affirmation of the need for independents to get involved in politics to bring about change. The percentage of Americans who self-label themselves as independents already constitutes the largest political bloc and is continuing to grow as more and more citizens are turned off by the partisanship of the Republicans and Democrats, and their inability to get things done.

 Members of Congress and Senators are increasingly from the far fringes of their parties and unwilling to compromise on needed legislation to move the country forward. This polarization has made Congress an ineffective body with public approval ratings in the single digits, their lowest levels ever. Moderates from both parties are either retiring in disgust at their inability to legislate and the lack of comity, or because they were defeated in general elections or primaries by more partisan candidates. Centrist politicians and voters from both parties bemoan their lack of input in the political process and the way ideological gridlock in Washington is damaging the economy and the nation’s future prospects.

In addition to the usual published sources, Killian wrote The Swing Vote after interviewing independent voters as well as officeholders and politicians from both parties. She focused particularly on those who were independents and centrists, capturing their frustration in bringing the two parties together to generate solutions to the nation’s problems, such as the national debt and budget deficits, tax policy and entitlement spending. Along with many others, she perceives the ascendancy of extreme partisanship as being caused by the redistricting process and gerrymandering, voter registration and voter rules that exclude many citizens, and the dominance of the special interests in campaign financing.

Killian sees change coming only if more independents are willing to become involved in politics, demanding more transparency from public officials, obtaining election reform, more equitable redistricting, and campaign finance reform. She does not mention the formation of a centrist third party to unify independents and centrists, to give them a strong voice in reform efforts, which I believe is necessary to effect change. Killian is an intelligent writer who makes her points cogently and concisely. The Swing Vote is recommended reading for anyone interested in politics, and the role of centrists and independents in changing the political dynamic.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Folly of the Carry Laws- When Will America Learn?

                      Robert A. Levine   3-23-12

The tragedy of the Trayvon Martin case in Florida highlights the madness of the “carry laws” allowing citizens to carry guns on the street to “protect themselves.” This folly is compounded by Florida’s “stand-your-ground” statute that permits people who feel their lives or safety are threatened, to use deadly force against the individual or individuals they believe are endangering them, or if they believe criminal activity is occurring. This is not an issue of just one self-authorized vigilante killing an innocent teenager, but of a culture that allows citizens to carry guns and shoot people based on a subjective judgment.

The problems with these laws have been disregarded by legislators in submission to the NRA in Florida and numerous other states. It is difficult enough to determine when policemen have acted appropriately in shooting someone they consider dangerous. When a civilian is involved in a confrontation, the uncertainty escalates. Since any non-felon can be licensed to carry a gun on the street, there is no way to exclude racists from targeting minorities, gangs from killing adversaries, people from settling grudges with individuals they dislike, or self- authorized vigilantes attacking those they consider bad guys, all claiming the shootings were done in self defense.

Are we still in the Wild West era on the frontier where citizens had to carry guns for protection and there were shootouts in the streets? Or perhaps we are devolving into a society similar to Iraq, Yemen, or Afghanistan. Can the revival of feuds like the Hatfields and McCoys be far behind? Maybe we should also allow honor killings of women who disobey their parents and have sex with a boyfriend.

Politicians on both the right and left constantly talk about American exceptionalism in a positive way, separating the nation from all others as a hallmark of freedom and democracy. The ability of citizens to utilize firearms is another way the U.S. is different from other countries. America is the only developed nation that permits citizens in many states to carry weapons on the streets, some including schools and other public places. Allowing home owners or business owners to have guns on their premises to protect themselves is understandable, or hunters owning guns, or skeet shooters. But the “liberalism” that many conservatives have shown in regard to gun rights makes no sense. And it is not only the carry laws, and stand-your-ground laws but allowing people to own assault weapons, sniper rifles, rockets and grenades for “self-protection.” This should not be acceptable in a civilized nation.

One interesting element in the Trayvon Martin case is that the “stand-your-ground” Florida statute would have justified Martin’s shooting George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain, who shot him. Zimmerman, who appears to be fifty to a hundred pounds heavier and much taller than Martin in photographs, followed Martin around after having been told by the police to cease and desist to allow them to handle the incident. But he persisted anyway and apparently got into a fight with Martin. We know what would have happened if the situation had been reversed and a black teenager had shot a white man in “self defense.” If not shot by the police, he would have been thrown into jail.

According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, there were 13 killings in Florida that the authorities considered justifiable homicide in 2005. After the stand-your-ground law was passed, over the next five years an average of thirty-six killings annually were deemed justifiable. 19 other states have similar laws to Florida’s stand-your-ground statute, permitting the use of guns outside the home. Tragedies such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting have done nothing to halt the march of gun advocates that keep liberalizing gun laws. There must be a better way to make the nation’s citizens feel secure.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Congress and Corruption- Hand in Hand

                                    Robert A. Levine    3-22-12

 The number of cases of corruption and ethics transgression involving individual members of Congress over the years has helped contribute to the abysmal ratings of America’s national legislative bodies in the eyes of the public.  However, the extent of self-dealing, along with personal and family enrichment by these elected representatives of the people is given transparency by a 346 page report by CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Instead of going to Washington to serve their constituents, it appears that the majority of the members of Congress are going to the Capitol to serve themselves. With a detailed examination of the records of each House member during the last two election cycles, Crew was able to show that over half of them or their families profited through their offices. Crew analyzed “campaign spending, budget earmarks, office accounts and lobbying by any relatives.” They found an extraordinary amount of money was generated by Congressional members for themselves or relatives through “creative accounting, self-interested budgeting and generous expense reimbursements.”

Numerous examples are given involving members of both parties in an article in the New York Times (http://nyti.ms/GHSE7C). It can at least be said that while passing laws in a bipartisan manner is close to impossible, gaming the system is an accepted bipartisan enterprise.

Though this thorough analysis of Congressional members only involved a four year period, this kind of behavior has been going on throughout the institution’s history and is common practice. The public has forgotten the House Banking Overdraft Scandal of the late 80s and early 90s in which hundreds of members of Congress issued 20,000 bad checks for $10.8 million dollars without any penalties or fees. Among the prominent perpetrators were Republicans Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and the Democratic House Speaker at that time, Tom Foley. (A more detailed account of this scandal can be obtained by downloading a free addendum to my book Resurrecting Democracy from my website http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/ – A History of Political Corruption Through 1992)

Forget transparency! Forget ethics! The sad part of this recent revelation by CREW is that many of these practices by House members are not illegal and do not violate House ethics rules. As long as the two parties play ball together in terms of allowing members to enhance their incomes in any way possible, even though they won’t play ball legislatively, little can be done to change the rules or make them act in a less self-serving fashion. This is more reason to consider the formation of centrist third party whose members come to the plate clean and make ethics reform in Washington a central tenet of their beliefs and action.

 Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

A Pox on Both Your Houses- A Sudden Burst of Bipartisanship

                        Robert A. Levine   3-19-12

With public approval of Congress at 10% or below in a number of polls, and with voter wrath directed at incumbents, members of Congress and Senators are starting to realize they have to do something to improve their status in the eyes of the electorate. They are even considering (gasp!) passing two bills on a bipartisan basis and approving stalled judicial nominations. This is not being done in the spirit of compromise and because partisan rancor in the two houses of Congress has suddenly evaporated. It is an effort to show the American people that Congress is not completely dysfunctional and that the two parties can work together on occasion to pass needed legislation.

However, this Kumbaya moment sounds better than it actually is, with intra-party squabbling and inter-party conflict over some of the issues still unresolved. The two bills being considered in the House and Senate are a transportation bill and the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startup Act). Unfortunately, the transportation bill passed by the Senate, differs from the one passed by the House and the differences have to be reconciled, a task that may not be so easy. Among other problems, the House bill would eliminate guaranteed funding for mass transit, which would hurt America’s cities and force commuters to pay higher fares.

Under President Reagan’s aegis in 1982, Congress allocated 80% of highway trust revenues to highways, bridges and tunnels and 20% to mass transit. This formula has remained in effect until now. But under the House bill, all revenue would go to highway projects, with a one time payment of $40 billion spread over five years that mass transit would share with other transportation initiatives. Revenue for the $40 billion would supposedly come from off-shore oil and gas drilling leases. The Senate bill keeps the current formula in place, but it’s only for a two year period. And Senate provisions to fund the bill, a pot-pourri of measures that have been criticized as unrealistic, uses ten years of revenue to pay for the two year program. House Speaker Boehner has been under pressure to bring the Senate bill to the floor in the House, as a number of construction jobs would be generated if it passed. But he would have to override objections from the most conservative members of his party to get the legislation enacted and prove to the public that Congress is not in perpetual gridlock. The right-wingers want to include drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in the bill and cut total spending.

The JOBS Act, which was passed overwhelmingly in the House by both parties, will be debated in the Senate this week and may run into trouble there. Regulations from Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank that curbed predatory behavior by investment bankers would be overturned if the JOBS Act were passed in its current form. The bill, a conglomeration of measures, would cut oversight on new companies going public, reducing consumer protection. Companies would be allowed to raise money through social media over the Internet without filing the standard disclosures. Small investors would be able to be solicited, many of whom are not sophisticated enough to properly evaluate the offerings. Auditing restrictions for small companies moving towards an IPO would also be loosened. In addition, the law would allow investment bankers to publish research on companies whose IPOs they are underwriting, a practice that is now banned since it previously led to abuses. SEC Chairman, Mary Schapiro, in a letter to the Senate Banking Committee noted that the provisions of the bill would weaken protection for small investors and would reduce market transparency. A number of Senate Democrats want to amend the bill to enhance consumer protection, but Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell want to see it passed as is. Increased funding for the Export-Import Bank, which helps American company sales overseas, is also a source of conflict, as some Senate Democrats and Republicans want to tie it to the JOBS Act and some Republicans want to eliminate the agency completely.

Nothing ever seems to go smoothly in the two Houses of Congress, even when there are attempts to show Americans that bills can get passed in a bipartisan manner. Good luck.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com-

What A Drag! Gas Prices, Austerity and the Economy

            Robert A. Levine  

Even as the economy appears to be emerging from its doldrums, several factors are threatening to derail the recovery. Since movement up or down will greatly influence the presidential and congressional races eight months hence, any action taken to bolster the economy has political overtones.

Rising gas prices is an obvious fly in America’s ointment that economists have long been warning about. While the effect of high prices has been moderate so far, future increases could throw the nation back into recession. Unfortunately, prices are dependent on unpredictable geo-political factors, most of which are beyond America’s control. Included is the West’s confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program and actions that Israel may or may not take. Iran’s recent threat to close the Straits of Hormuz caused an immediate spike in oil prices and they have remained elevated since. The situation in Syria could also spiral out of control, leading to a wider conflict in the Mideast, with neighboring states becoming involved on both sides. Nigeria, a major oil supplier, remains volatile as well, with an Islamist insurrection in the country’s north and continued unrest in the oil producing delta.

Since the start of the recession, an important element that has been a drag on the economy and stalled recovery has been the layoffs of public service employees by state and municipal governments because of reduced revenue. Economists believe this has a multiplier effect, with 2.4 jobs lost for each public sector layoff according to the Center for Public Policy Priorities. An average of 22,000 public sector workers lost their jobs every month through 2011, with a total of over 270,000 teachers and other workers being laid off. Even as private companies have ramped up employment, the shedding of jobs by state and local governments has kept unemployment levels high and made recovery more difficult. While the stimulus package from the federal government in 2009 did help preserve some of these jobs for a period of time, a considerable number of layoffs of teachers, policemen, firemen, sanitation workers, administrative personnel and so forth, did occur. Many of these jobs have not returned because state and local tax revenues have not rebounded to the levels prior to the recession. State and local governments have also cut spending on goods and services in light of their revenue shortfalls.

Aside from the immediate effect, the loss of teaching positions will be particularly injurious to the nation’s economy in the future, since an educated citizenry is necessary to compete in today’s global world.  America’s students are currently behind other nations in terms of educational proficiency and this will only worsen over time if class size increases and there are not enough teachers. And preserving and expanding the nation’s infrastructure falls mainly on the shoulders of state and local governments, with funds coming from Washington. Sadly, this is another area that has been neglected and will impact the nation in the future.

While this recession has been deeper than past downturns, the lag in recovery has been partially due to a focus on austerity by politicians at all levels combined with uncertainty over rising gas prices. Increased spending on education and infrastructure should be a priority for the nation to maintain and enhance its competitive position.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com3-16-12

Washington Comity Has Become Washington Comedy- How Can the Equation Be Changed?

                        Robert A. Levine 3-1-12

Olympia Snowe’s retirement from the Senate is another dagger in the heart of centrism and moderation in American politics. She noted that the political process is “no longer allowing lawmakers to shape or change legislation and turning every vote into a take-it-or-leave-it showdown intended to embarrass the opposition.” (http://nyti.ms/x4WQ5s)

Centrists of both parties have been exiting the Senate in droves in recent years or are leaving shortly, including Democrats Ben Nelson, Joseph Lieberman, Jim Webb, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh. Republicans include Lincoln Chaffee, James Jeffords, as well as Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Spector who switched parties. These Senators are generally at an age where they could have continued their careers, but most give similar reasons for leaving- the poisoned atmosphere and lack of comity between members of the two parties which makes legislating difficult and sometimes impossible.

One can imagine the frustration of Senators willing to negotiate and compromise to get laws enacted that are in the nation’s interest, but are held back by extreme elements in their parties. Politics is increasingly being played as a zero-sum game, where if legislation initiated by one party passes, it is considered a win for them and a loss for the other party. And the media and zealous bases in the parties reinforce this perception. Of course, America is the real loser when legislating is no longer a bipartisan process.

The other growing barrier to legislating is the fact that so many bills are framed in moralistic, absolutist terms. This is true not only of social issues like abortion or same sex marriage, but health care, taxes and financial reform. How can one compromise when the opposing position is being characterized by one’s peers as being evil, heartless, or socialistic?
Back in the Senators’ home states, the political atmosphere has also become toxic, with Tea Partiers and others at the fringes putting pressure on centrists to adopt their positions or leave politics. And these people can be vociferous and abusive to politicians with even a tinge of moderation, like Republicans Charles Grassley of Iowa or Richard Lugar of Indiana. In fact, staunch conservative Bob Bennett of Utah was ousted in the last election because he wasn’t conservative enough for the right-wingers. This came as a warning to other Republicans to increase their conservative bona fides in legislative votes. In other words, don’t compromise!

While politicians on both sides of the aisle speak about making governing in Washington less dysfunctional, the situation continues to get worse, with Olympia Snowe’s retirement another bit of evidence. Is there any way to change?

There have been a number of moves to engage centrists and independents in this election cycle through organizations such as Americans Elect and No Labels, which appear to be gaining some traction. Unfortunately, neither of these groups goes far enough. A third party of the center is needed to transform politics in America at every level; the counties, municipalities, the states and in Washington. This third force, interposed between the two parties, would no longer allow politics to be structured as a zero-sum game, where a win for one side was a loss for the other. And with even a few members in each House, this third party would have leverage in Congress to move legislation forward that would benefit the nation.

The centrists and moderates on both sides of the aisle who are retiring could find a new home in a centrist third party. The time is ripe to end the comedy in Washington and see the return of some comity. A centrist third party could be the catalyst for change.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Hidden Meaning of Severely Conservative

                                    Robert A. Levine   2-15-12

Mitt Romney is severely conservative. He announced it at a CPAC meeting last week, perhaps trying to convince other conservatives that his conservatism was unbounded. In that context, it was an unusual use of the word ‘severe’ and one wonders whether there might have been a hidden meaning in that statement.

Webster’s 20^th century dictionary provides several definitions for severe. 1) harsh or strict, unsparing, stern. 2) serious, grave, forbidding 3) conforming strictly to a rule or standard. 4) extremely plain or simple. 5) keen, violent, intense. 6) difficult, rigorous. Of all these definitions, the third may have been what Romney was trying to convey- his beliefs and actions conformed strictly to conservative standards. Or not.

Severe is generally employed to describe illnesses or injuries and perhaps this might be the covert subtext of what Romney was saying. He perceives conservatism as an illness and he’s severely infected with this disease. Of course, there’s no way of knowing whether this view of conservatism is conscious or buried deeply within his unconscious. It might even be seen as a psychosomatic condition or a mental health problem. We must also keep in mind that the Massachusetts Romney once tried to convince voters in that state that he was a moderate, or even a bit liberal, which is another form of illness. Could he possibly be harboring two different diseases, with each separately wreaking havoc upon his immune system? After all, antibodies to liberalism have no effect upon conservatism and vice versa. (We can dismiss the idea that Romney was using severe as a synonym for bad, such as having ‘a severe chest cold.’ It’s doubtful that Romney would want to voters to think that he was a bad conservative.)

Romney may have also been trying to evoke sympathy from Republican primary voters by telling them about his affliction. However, it’s not clear whether his conservatism is a chronic illness or an acute problem that will remit spontaneously or be cured with the proper treatment. Since we still see him on the campaign trail, we can assume that his health has not deteriorated to a point where he’s in extremis from his conservatism.

We will follow his future course carefully, hoping that he will be indeed be cured and be able to reach the healthy state of centrism. Unfortunately, this will not help him in his attempt to woo the Republican base, many of whom are afflicted with Romney’s current illness.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Reversal for Fortune- Obama and the SuperPACs

                                                Robert A. Levine  2-13-12

The Citizen’s United ruling by the Supreme Court two years ago, equating donations of money with free speech, changed the political landscape for campaign fundraising, fostering the emergence of SuperPACs as the main conduit for wealthy contributors. President Obama’s recent change of heart regarding the pursuit of funds for Democratic SuperPACs to compete with Republican entities has provided another issue that allows him to be skewered by his opponents. The latter, of course, who are collecting sums at a breathtaking pace from their stable of affluent donors, do not acknowledge their hypocrisy in criticizing Obama for doing the very same thing.

However, Obama did previously take a strong stand in opposition to the SuperPACs. This position apparently changed when he became convinced that his unwillingness to seek financing for his own SuperPACs would place him at a competitive disadvantage in his current campaign for re-election. While the SuperPACs of the Republican candidates are engaged mainly in internecine warfare at the moment, they are still managing to fire regular broadsides at the president.
The organization tied to Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future, raised $18 million from two hundred donors in the second half of last year, with 10% of the billionaires in America contributing. Newt Gingrich’s campaign is being kept alive by one man, Sheldon Adelson, the hotel and gambling magnate, with him and his wife having donated $10 million to the Gingrich SuperPAC, Win Our Future. The SuperPAC of Rick Santorum, the Red, White and Blue Fund, is being supported by Foster Freiss, a wealthy backer of conservative causes. Though the Republican candidates and SuperPACs are fighting each other now, their antipathy for Obama will drive them to unite around the ultimate nominee, which means that all of their financing and vitriol will be directed at the president. In fact, Adelson has apparently already communicated his intention to donate money to support Romney if he is the nominee. And Karl Rove’s Republican SuperPAC, American Crossroads, collected $51 million last year, with an objective of an additional $200 million to be used in this year’s elections.

Did Obama have any alternative to trying to generate funds for his own Democratic SuperPAC? Obviously, there is some heavy financial artillery arrayed against him. But one of Obama’s strengths in the 2008 campaign resided in his ability to attract multiple donors to contribute small amounts for him over the Internet and through other channels. This time around, he already collected over $224 million for his campaign and the Democratic Party in 2011, with the efforts continuing this year. So he will not exactly be facing his Republican opponent “unilaterally disarmed” as Jim Messina, his campaign manager, claimed. However, direct donations to the presidential campaigns by any individual are capped at $2500 for this election cycle and $30,800 to party committees. There are no limits on donations to the SuperPACs, allowing huge sums to be harvested from a small number of contributors. This includes individuals, corporations, unions and other entities, making fundraising a lot simpler.

The SuperPACs are an invitation to corruption, with special interests able to buy support for their favored candidates with enormous sums. If President Obama had stuck to his guns in denouncing the SuperPACs and refused to use them in his current campaign, he would have held the moral high ground against his Republican opponent. Obama’s position would have elicited sympathy and backing from much of the electorate, fed up with the way special interests use money to dominate the political conversation. What’s more, it would have bolstered Obama’s standing with independent voters who strongly favor restrictions on campaign financing. And perhaps his viewpoint would have generated even more donations from an angry public to counter the SuperPACs. Now, Obama is just another candidate trying to raise as much money as possible to enhance his presidential race.

Obama’s current reversal mirrors a similar occurrence during the 2008 election cycle. Though John McCain and Obama had previously agreed on public financing for the presidential campaign, Obama reneged on the agreement when he realized that his fundraising would far surpass his opponent’s. It appears that whatever ideals Obama espouses when not under pressure, in the heat of an election battle he’s willing to do whatever he thinks is necessary to help him get elected. That’s what politicians do.

Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com

Amnesia or Forgiveness? American Voters Disregard of Ethics Violations

Amnesia or Forgiveness? America Voters’ Disregard of Ethic Violations
                                    Robert A. Levine    1-11-12
In the current Republican presidential primaries, Newt Gingrich has garnered significant levels of support despite past ethical “missteps.” He was involved in the House banking scandal with bad checks in the late 80s and early 90s. The House Ethics Committee levied a $300,000 fine on him in 1997 for using non-profit organizations for partisan political purposes. He excoriated President Clinton for sexual improprieties while he himself was married and having an affair with a much younger woman. There was also a sweetheart deal Gingrich made with a publisher in 1994 that gave him a $4.5 million advance. The pattern of unethical behavior is clear, yet has been disregarded by many voters.

By voting for them again, Americans repeatedly seem willing to forgive politicians’ ethical lapses, questionable conduct and frank hypocrisy, or are citizens simply amnesic?    
      
Almost daily, there are revelations about elected officials at municipal, state and federal levels who are guilty of ethical transgressions or frank felonies. Democracy is supposed to act as a check on officeholders who utilize their positions for venal purposes. Periodically, the voters sit in judgment of those they have elected and are able to dismiss them. And those who have committed egregious offenses can be recalled through petitions and special elections. But that rarely happens.

The electorate is far too lenient in the way it indulges ethically-challenged politicians. Sitting officeholders have been re-elected by their constituents while criminal charges were pending and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. And ethics violations often seem to mean nothing to the voters, even when affirmed by established ethics committees or independent watchdog groups.

In addition to Gingrich, examples abound. Mary Jo Kopechne drowned at Chappaquidick when Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy was apparently driving drunk and went off a bridge into the water. He left the scene of the accident without reporting it and did not go to the police to try and rescue the woman. Yet in spite of his conduct, his constituents in Massachusetts saw fit to send him back to Washington repeatedly.

Republican David Vitter, a family values religious conservative from Louisiana was involved with prostitutes both before and after his election to the Senate in 2004 and was re-elected in 2010 after all the information regarding this became public.

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for his actions as one of the Keating Five in the late 1980s. McCain and the others interceded with federal regulators of the banking industry on behalf of Charles Keating and the Lincoln Savings Bank after having received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Keating. The senators were able to block the closing of the corrupt bank, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Yet McCain was successfully re-elected four times afterwards and secured the Republican nomination for president in 2008.

Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was returned to Congress in 2006 by his constituents in Louisiana after $90,000 in unexplained bills were found wrapped in aluminum foil in his freezer and he was accused of various criminal schemes. He was subsequently found guilty of multiple counts and sentenced to thirteen years in prison.
         
In the House Banking Scandal from 1988 to 1991, hundreds of Congressmen wrote overdrafts on their House bank accounts. No penalties or fees were assessed and many of those involved were subsequently re-elected.

There were also dozens of Senators and members of Congress who took money from Jack Abramoff to vote certain ways, or to help Abramoff’s clients deal with federal agencies. Both Republicans and Democrats participated in these schemes, among them Senators Harry Reid, Conrad Burns and Byron Dorgan. Congressmen included Tom DeLay, Denis Hastert, J.D. Hayworth, Roy Blount and Patrick Kennedy.

These are only a small fraction of federal legislators involved in unethical activities over the years. Executive branch members have also been compromised, as well as numerous officials at lower levels. But this problem of corruption is not being addressed by voters. They do not hold elected officials to high standards, perhaps reinforcing perverse conduct.  It is time that Americans became more discerning when they vote and less forgiving of corrupt behavior by officeholders. Character is far more important than a candidate’s ideology. Past actions usually predict politicians’ future performance.

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