Update on Gun Control

Dear Friends,

As I hope you recall, Representative McCarthy (D. NY) introduced a bill to limit the excess capacity magazines used in the Arizona massacre earlier this year.  It is H.R. 308.  It has a mere 80 co-sponsors.  I am happy to say that my Representative Keith Ellison as well as neighboring Representative Betty McCullom are both co-sponsors.  Much to my surprise and regret, Representative Tim Walz who is a good progressive but in a difficult district is not a co-sponsor.  I will once again encourage him to become a co-sponsor.  A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Lautenberg (D. NJ) as S. 32.  There are only ten co-sponsors in the Senate.  I am once again happy to say that one of my Senators, Franken, has become a co-sponsor.  Unfortunately, my other Senator, Klobuchar, has not become a co-sponsor.  She is a former county prosecutor who should certainly be in favor of such a ban.  She is, however, afraid to take positions that somebody might disagree with.  I will have to again encourage her to become a co-sponsor.

Now that you have the bill numbers it is easy to find out if your Representative and Senators have become co-sponsors.  You can go to the OpenCongress website (here).  If we all make sure that our Representatives and Senators are co-sponsors, maybe even this baby step of gun control can get past.  As Lawrence O'Donnell on MSMBC has said, he blames the first 10 bullets on the shooter and the next 21 on the law. 

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

How America can reclaim its Democracy

Dear Friends,

I have watched with joy as the Egyptian people, in a peaceful revolution, have been able to overthrow a despot long supported by the United States and other democracies who talk about wanting to spread democracy but are not willing to risk any instability.  The Egyptians have shown Americans how we can reclaim our democracy.  We, individual people, need to band together to overcome our current political system that has been purchased by the very rich and the largest corporations.

On this blog, I have referenced the book "Winner-Take-All-Politics" by Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker.  It presents a clear and well-documented picture of how big money with the aid of both major political parties has taken over our government.  Bob Herbert in his column in The New York Times entitled "When Democracy Weakens" (here) also cites Messrs. Pierson and Hacker.  Mr. Herbert makes it clear that we are not likely to see any help from President Obama in terms of reversing this trend of the rich controlling everything and getting what they want.

The poor, who are suffering from an all-out depression, are never heard from. In terms of their clout, they might as well not exist. The Obama forces reportedly want to raise a billion dollars or more for the president’s re-election bid. Politicians in search of that kind of cash won’t be talking much about the wants and needs of the poor. They’ll be genuflecting before the very rich.

Mr. Herbert concludes his column with these paragraphs.

I had lunch with the historian Howard Zinn just a few weeks before he died in January 2010. He was chagrined about the state of affairs in the U.S. but not at all daunted. “If there is going to be change,” he said, “real change, it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves.”
I thought of that as I watched the coverage of the ecstatic celebrations in the streets of Cairo.

So did I.  It is clear from much of the reporting that the economic disparity between the rich and the poor in Egypt and the lack of jobs for many Egyptians were probably more important in fueling the revolution than was the lack of a democracy. 

As the disparity between the rich and the middle class and poor in America continues to widen to unsustainable levels, what will trigger a peaceful American revolution that restores our democracy?  We only need to look at Egypt to learn.  The rich and powerful can be defeated if all of us band together and demand justice both social and economic justice.

David Brooks in his recent column in The New York Times entitled "The Freedom Alliance" (here) got it partially right.  After talking about all the people who have contacted him about trying to save their favorite government sponsored program from the current budget ax, Mr. Brooks responds with these paragraphs.

It seems that as long as there is a budget crisis, I’ll never be lonely. But I have to say, many of these great people are suffering under a misimpression. They assume that if they can only persuade enough people that their programs are producing tremendous results then they will be spared from the budget ax.
They are wrong about that. The coming budget cuts have nothing to do with merit. They have to do with the inexorable logic of mathematics. Over the past decades, spending in nearly every section of the federal budget has exploded to unsustainable levels. Each year, your family’s share of the national debt increases by about $12,000. By 2015, according to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, Moody’s will downgrade U.S. debt.

So to start with Mr. Brooks is right, the budget cuts have nothing to do with merit.  However, he is wrong that they have to do with the national debt.  What they really have to do with is the demands of the very rich who are unwilling to spend any money for those in our country who are most in need.  It also happens that many of those people also look different or have a different religion or speak with an accent.  They are the "others".  The Tea Party movement represents (I hope) the dieing gasps of a white America that is frightened by the change in the demographics of this country and the world.  Unfortunately, very rich Republicans and libertarians like the Koch brothers will fund the fueling of this fear, and it can cause terrible problems for this country.

David Brooks continues with the idea that only cuts can lessen the national debt.  I guess he has not figured out that if we provide jobs for the people the tax revenue of the government will increase and if we were to tax the rich in proportion to what this wonderful country has given them and what they can afford to pay and if we would get out of Afghanistan.  We would be able to get our annual deficits under control and then begin to bring down the national debt.  Mr. Brooks has bought into the narrative that the only way to reduce the national debt is on the backs of the poor, the middle class, government employees and other public sector employees like teachers and police.  That narrative is a lie.

Mr. Brooks continues with this paragraph.

The implication is this: If people who care about this or that domestic program fight alone, hoping that their own program will be spared, then they will all perish alone. If they have any chance of continuing their work, they will have to band together and fight their common enemy, the inexorable growth of entitlement spending.

I agree completely with the first part of the paragraph.  All people who understand the important role that government has in providing opportunity, in preserving the environment, in regulating business, in providing a safety net, in educating our children, in protecting the rights of the minorities, in keeping our streets safe, etc. need to join together to overcome the power that money gives to the rich.  In the second part of the paragraph, Mr. Brooks is wrong.  We do not need to attack entitlement programs, we need to make them efficient, e.g. institute Medicare for all, and properly fund them.

The Egyptians have shown us the way.  When will it get so bad in America that we will follow their lead, join together in a peaceful revolution and reclaim our democracy?  I hope it is soon before things get even worse than they are now.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama and Budget Cuts

Dear Friends,

The lead article in The New York Times (here) this morning was about the House Republicans having trouble maintaining discipline in their ranks.  They are acting like Democrats who have a difficult time maintaining party discipline.  Of course I was struck by the incredible disregard that many Republicans have for those among us who are the least able to take care of themselves.  The tea party Republicans even vote against unemployment benefits for American workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade agreements.  I can't say that this disregard for their fellow Americans surprised me.

What did surprise me were these paragraphs at the end of the article.

But Republicans have succeeded in shifting the focus to budget cutting so sufficiently that the White House will propose an array of cuts in the budget for next year that Mr. Obama sends to Capitol Hill on Monday.
Administration officials confirmed on Wednesday that the budget would propose to cut in half, to nearly $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2012, a federal program that subsidizes energy costs for low-income households.
The big reduction for the popular Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program immediately drew protests from lawmakers and antipoverty groups, as have several other cuts the administration has previewed for community service and environmental programs.

President Obama is voluntarily proposing cuts that will have draconian impacts on the poorest people in the country.  There are two really big problems with what is being proposed.  The first is that President Obama was elected by a progressive base, and he is once again poking us in the eye by cutting a program that has broad support because it is so critical to the poor.  Second, he is giving up important leverage without getting anything from the Republicans.  It should be clear to everybody that the Republican Party will cut everything but those programs that help the rich and that no matter what President Obama does they will brand him as a socialist.  I have never met a socialist that would let a fellow countryman die in the streets because he had to choose between heating his home and feeding his family. 

We should be ashamed that the richest country in the world refuses to take care of it own.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal