Dont Make Your Success Dependent on Your Enemies
Cooperation

If you want to succeed, don't make your success dependent on your enemies helping you. It would seem this piece of advice would be rather self-evident, but the experience with the Affordable Care Act suggests neither Congressional Democrats nor President[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/UT7JxvRNxGI/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

So ... This Happened

On Al Sharpton's show on MSNBC today, actors staged a "re-enactment" of Mitt Romney's weekend fundraising jaunt in the Hamptons. Full-size version.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/tMcBooKeTYA/so_this_happene
d.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Bill Moyers: Is Labor a Lost Cause

Lost in the Supreme media chatter last week: a disturbing ruling in Knox vs. SEIU Local 1000 that restricts labor unions from directing collected dues toward political causes. There?s no similar limit on corporations, naturally ? yet another indication that the power and status of modern unions is waning, especially when compared to the unbridled influence of Corporate America. With a sharp decline in union membership, a legion of new enemies, and a series of legal and legislative setbacks, can unions rebound and once again act strongly in the interest of ordinary workers?

On this week?s Moyers & Company, Bill talks to two people who can best answer the question: Stephen Lerner and Bill Fletcher, Jr. The architect of the SEIU?s Justice for Janitors movement, Lerner directed SEIU?s private equity project, which worked to expose a Wall Street feeding frenzy that left the working class in a state of catastrophe. Fletcher took his Harvard degree to the Massachusetts shipyards, and worked as a welder before becoming a labor activist. He served as Assistant to the President of the AFL-CIO, and is author of the upcoming book ?They?re Bankrupting Us!?: And 20 Other Myths about Unions.

Full transcript after the jump...

BILL MOYERS: This week on Moyers & Company? American labor in crisis.

STEPHEN LERNER: I joke that the labor movement's in the sweet spot of despair. Just strong enough to be a bit afraid to lose and not strong enough to really win anything right now.

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: Most of the leaders of the movement, unfortunately at this point, remain fearful of shaking the table.

BILL MOYERS: And perfidious and passionate poetry from Philip Appleman.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Money buys profits and teachers, poems and art, So listen, if you're so rich, why aren't you smart?

BILL MOYERS: Welcome. In all the hullabaloo over the Supreme Court's decision on health care, another of its rulings quickly fell off the public radar. Before deciding the fate of the Affordable Care Act, the Court announced it would not reconsider Citizens United. That's the odious 5-4 decision two years ago that opened our elections to unlimited contributions. Within minutes of that announcement, right-wing partisans were crowing about the advantage they now own. An advantage not due to ideas or personalities, but to the sheer force of money. They were remarkably candid and specific.

Here?s what Fred Barnes wrote in "The Weekly Standard" about the Senate race in Missouri:

"For three weeks in May, Republican super-PACs took turns attacking Democratic senator Claire McCaskill in TV ads. Republicans hadn?t held their primary?it?s not until August 7?but McCaskill wound up trailing all three of the GOP candidates in polls. Now McCaskill, unnerved, is struggling to recover.

"That?s what super-PACs can do. When they emerged in 2010 and worked in tandem, they were a critical force in the Republican landslide in the congressional elections. This year they?re playing an even bigger role. The size and reach of their efforts dwarf what they did two years ago."

Attaboy, Fred, for telling it like it is. For exposing the hoax that the Court?s original decision was about ?free? speech. Free speech, my foot: It?s about carpet bombing elections with all the tonnage your rich paymasters want to buy. Try not to laugh when you hear one of its perpetrators, the noted lawyer Floyd Abrams, say, as he did not too long ago, ?I don?t think we should want as a matter of policy to make decisions which are essentially, people can?t do all the speaking that they can in a political campaign. I don?t think we can ration speech.?

Excuse me, Floyd: Speech is already rationed in America. On your playing field, those who have no money have no speech. And just who do you think is doing this ?speaking?? Hello, poor people, are you there? It?s your election, too. All 50 million of you; Hello, we can?t hear you. Better get a Super Pac and speak up!

Poor people haven?t lost their voice. They can?t afford a voice. And every day working people: universal laryngitis, the chronic absence of money. As for children ? children who have a big stake in our elections but no vote ? for them to be heard they would need piggy banks the size of Wal-Mart heirs. Or the Koch brothers for uncles.

And if ?free speech? is a right, why all the secrecy? Why hide from voters where the money is coming from? Why not openly say you?re downright proud to be exercising your First Amendment rights and that writing checks is your patriotic duty? Instead, conservatives across the country are fighting to keep their sugar daddies secret. According to their guardian angel in Congress ? the highly leveraged Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ? the right wing opposes disclosure laws because the super-rich just might be bullied and harassed by the rest of us who want to know who?s buying our elections. So that the editorial page of "The Wall Street Journal," asks us to have pity on billionaires and those little ol? corporations and their CEOs who just might have their tender feelings hurt; if they were exposed to boycotts and pickets ? were it known which candidates they were buying.

Wait a minute. Weren?t we taught the First Amendment also guarantees the right of every citizen to assemble and petition, even to boycott and picket? That?s what a couple of hundred protesters were doing just the other day. They marched to the DC offices of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. Those are the right wing money mills run by the mastermind of much of this massive fundraising, Karl Rove. He?s making a bundle himself buying and selling ?Free Speech,? while at the same time deploring the disclosure of big donors? names as ?shameful? intimidation!

Exercising their First Amendment rights, the demonstrators taped a kind of wanted poster on Rove?s office door, indicating they would like to see him wearing an orange prison jumpsuit. Instead, he could be seen last weekend in casual wear, buzzing around in a golf cart at Mitt Romney?s Utah mountain gathering of high rollers. No doubt plotting how to raise more millions to pay for more ?free speech.?

Let?s see if we?ve got this right: On the one hand, conservatives declare that corporations and the superrich can spend all they want on exercising their First Amendment rights, but on the other, they demand to keep it secret so the rest of us can?t exercise our First Amendment rights to fight back? Have you ever heard of more cowardly lions?

It?s one big joke. Big enough to make you cry. Three things don?t go together: Money. Secrecy. Democracy. And that?s the nub of the matter. This is all a sham for invalidating democracy in the name of democracy. It?s the trick authoritarians always use to hide their real intention -- in this case absolute power over our public life and institutions: the privatization of everything. The Supreme Court is pointing the way. Instead of mitigating the worst excesses of both the state and the private sector, the Court has taken sides. Saying to the massed wealth of the one percent: America is yours for the taking, for the buying.

That?s what George III thought, too. Which brings us back to our celebration of the 4th of July, to the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Jefferson, who seems to have thought that a little uprising now and then would be good for what ails us. This time the overweening power is not the monarchy but plutocracy, the convergence of the political, religious and corporate right that would keep us in the dark about where all that money is coming from, and who it?s buying, until one day we wake up and our country is no longer our own. Fortunately, those orange jump suits come in one size fits all. So remember, moneyed lords and ladies, what King George learned the hard way ? you can only push your subjects so far.

The Supreme Court?s doubling down on Citizens United wasn?t the only decision this session that seemed designed to strengthen the grip of corporate America and the superrich. Another one ? Knox versus SEIU Local 1000 ? the Service Employees International Union ? would diminish the financial power of organized labor by restricting union dues used for political action. The Knox decision is just the latest attack in the ongoing battle against labor. And like the fight in Wisconsin and other states, it focuses on public sector unions ? in part because they?re the greatest remaining bastion of labor?s power.

The strength of organized labor was once a muscular way for working people to push back against plutocracy. In union there is strength -- that was the old saying and it was true. But the percentage of union members in the American workforce has declined in the last sixty years from 35 to 12 percent, and labor has faced a pounding series of setbacks of which the Supreme Court?s Knox decision is just the latest. And yet, with corporations continuing to put the squeeze on employees, with joblessness and inequality rampant, now would seem the perfect time for people to turn back to unions to fight for them against the monied interests. Why haven?t they?

Stephen Lerner has spent more than three decades as a labor and community organizer, and as architect of the Justice for Janitors campaign. He was director of SEIU?s Private Equity project ? which worked to expose the Wall Street feeding frenzy that would end in catastrophe especially for the working class. Bill Fletcher Jr. graduated from Harvard and went to work as a shipyard welder, along the way becoming a labor activist fighting for racial justice and union democracy. He has worked with SEIU and the United Auto Workers, among others. He?s the author of this upcoming book. ?They?re Bankrupting Us ? And Twenty Other Myths about Unions.?

Welcome to both of you.

STEPHEN LERNER: Thank you.

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: Thank you.

BILL MOYERS: Corporate profits are at an all-time high. Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all time low and fewer people are employed than anytime in the past 30 years. Why isn't this the opportunity for an old fashioned, good old fight for the working people?

STEPHEN LERNER: The question is less is it the right moment to organize, but what are the ways we organize and what are the things that we have to start doing that really let us take on corporate power.

BILL MOYERS: Such as?

STEPHEN LERNER: Massive, non-violent civil disobedience. The labor movement was built when it occupied factories which weren?t, wasn't legal either. That we need to look at a set of tactics and be willing to take risks and things that we haven't done in years because when somebody wants to destroy you, giant corporations, they pass laws to make it illegal for you to exercise your democratic rights. Then we need to look at movements of the past and other countries. And what they've done again and again is that we're willing to go to jail. We're willing to take tremendous risks to win our country.

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: The difficulty in developing and moving in the direction that Stephen is suggesting is that the leaders themselves have to begin by recognizing that this is not 1970. That, that there's no going back to what we once had.

BILL MOYERS: You're talkin' about the leaders of unions?

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: Leaders of unions.

BILL MOYERS: And you're saying they don't recognize it?

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: They don't. They continue, they are fearful, Bill, of fundamentally becoming organizations that are viewed as disreputable. They're very worried about being in a situation where they're no longer invited to the White House dinners. And what we have to understand is that unions did not get started based on White House dinners. They got started based on exactly what Stephen is suggesting. That you have to be ready to throw the dice. And most of the leaders of the movement, unfortunately at this point, remain fearful of shaking the table. We need battle stations. A new level of vitality, a new level of tactics, new strategies, new forms of organization that we have not previously used. That's where we are.

STEPHEN LERNER: I think many of us at least have spent our life sort of waiting for the great leader to come and, you know, come and save us. And I actually am not waiting. I don't think that there's going to be somebody in Washington that's going to emerge and do that. I think instead we have to look at where are the battles that we can have that we can both win but also become symbolic and exciting that inspire and move people. Because the labor movement's suffering very a version of the Stockholm Syndrome. That we've been held captive by capital for so long, we're so used to losing, that we almost identify with our oppressor. And that part of what has to happen here is brilliant strategies and tactics, but there's another piece which is that we just have to be willing to say slowly dying is worse than having a really big fight and trying to win.

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: Let's use this Wisconsin example. Labor has spent very little time focusing on educating its own membership. Thirty-eight percent the families of union members voted for Walker as opposed to voting for the recall. People look at their self interests in very different ways and it's up to the unions to really create a framework where there's a dialogue. Not simply telling people what to believe, but really a dialogue about what's happening with working people in the United States. There are 16 million union members.

BILL MOYERS: Private and public?

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: Private and public. The organized labor needs to look to educate those 16 million people, because it's not simply about building alliances between the leaders of different unions and various community organizations or social movements. It's that the members of the unions have to feel themselves that they're part of something larger. People have to have that bigger picture. Unions can do that. They should be doing it now. But that necessitates putting resources that many leaders feel could best go elsewhere.

STEPHEN LERNER: It's too easy to blame the bad guys. That sort of corporations try to destroy unions 'cause that's what they do. Is that the labor movement, really for 30 years, 40 years, has, with, you know, with some exceptions of great work, not been focused on organizing private sector workers. It's not been focused. And I think workers are much more likely to organize if they think the consequence of organizing is life gets better than you get your brains blown out, which is really, when I knock on a door and say, "Do you want to join the union?" what most workers are thinking, "Oh, do I want to lose my job?" And so I think part of, we have this funny moment where we have to both inspire people to take a risk 'cause there's a vision grand enough to fight for, but also people have to think there's some hope of winning and that's not what we've offered?

BILL MOYERS: But there was a lot of hope of winning in Wisconsin and workers and their families did exactly what you are recommending. They got out in the streets. They had strikes. They had protests. They prolonged their demonstrations. And still you lost.

STEPHEN LERNER: Well, you know, what I would raise as a question is whether the primary field where we're going to change the country is through elections. And that that may not be the place. That may be, that's where, you know, one of the things a good organizer does is try to figure out is where can we maximize our power and how do we play in the field where we're most successful. And it's important we win the presidency and important we do politics, but thinking we're going to vote our way out of this mess when we have a declining base I think is a mistake.

BILL MOYERS: President Obama stayed on the sidelines in Wisconsin as he has in so many of these labor fights of the last three years. Do you feel betrayed by Obama?

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: Not at all. First of all, I think that it was correct for Obama not to go into Wisconsin because he would have become the issue. But the deeper question is I don't feel betrayed by Obama. I feel disappointed in Obama. But I think that if anyone has looked at who he was in 2008 they would have understood, this is a corporate liberal.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean by that?

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: He is someone who sees his relationship with Wall Street, with the major corporations, that's the critical alliance for Obama. He was, he saw himself as preserving capitalism and he saw himself not as a champion of working people. He saw himself, he gave wonderful speeches to working people, but he does not see himself as the person who was saying, "We're going to take on the economic royalists."

STEPHEN LERNER: I think in 2008 the labor movement failed because we thought one human being was going to fix everything and we went into neutral. And, I think the real moment of lost opportunity was when the economic crisis hit. That unions and other progressives were waiting for somebody to fix it versus being in the street and really challenging the power of Wall Street. There was a moment where the entire country was questioning.

BILL MOYERS: Trade unions keep giving money to the Democrats because they, you think they'll come to your rescue and they don't. I mean why do, why does labor keep depending on a party that is always hanging it out to dry?

STEPHEN LERNER: I think the things that unions, and it's not just unions, but progressives need to think about, is who really has the country in a mess? And I think we've been very nervous about really, with red-hot anger, naming who the bad guys are and then talking about it in terms that resonate with people. Not abstractions about trillions of dollars. But talking about this teeny group of people at the top that are pillaging the country. And I think when we start to focus that and then have ways that people can act that's not just about rhetoric. I'll give you a specific example.

In California there is a program to pass a series of laws that defend homeowners and protect them from their homes being foreclosed on illegally, protect, if a bank forecloses on a home they now get fined $1,000 a day every day if they don't maintain the home. There's a whole set of legislation that's been passed.

Many of the people who should support it haven't supported it. Right? And so the way we've gone about getting them to support it is not to say we would or wouldn't support them, but we actually took people that were facing foreclose and took them to the lawn of some of those politics and did ads saying, "Here's Mary Smith. She faces foreclosure. This is her state representative and he won't, he won't do, support the law that would save her home.? It's those kinds of things that are pressuring politicians to do something that really matter. That are about workers saying, "We want to start getting our money back from Wall Street."

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: I think that the two party system is so undemocratic that it makes it very difficult for a third party to emerge. But labor needs to be thinking in those terms. We need to be creating worker candidates who are running. People that are representing the interests of economic justice, not simply funding someone who's going to kick our rear end the least.

STEPHEN LERNER: We feel like we've been screaming to the public for years, "You destroyed unions, you're going to destroy democracy," and folks didn't hear it. So I've sort of moved beyond, you know, the panic that labor movement's in trouble and start, you know, saying, "What is it that we actually do that doesn't make us dependent on, you know, liberals who don't really support unions who might be good on social issues?" And what are the kinds of things that let us start to build a movement that workers want to be part of and that can really challenge the power of capital.

I think the problem has been, is that people know they're weak and they're terrified of getting wiped off the face of the Earth. And so?

BILL MOYERS: Why are they weak?

STEPHEN LERNER: They're weak because we've been under a corporate assault for years going back to the '50s. I think the question that I wonder about is there are moments where we've won. You know, in my own life, in the Justice for Janitors campaign, hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers stood up to the real estate industry. There's right now, a strike in Louisiana of guest workers that work at a crawfish factory that's a supplier to Wal-Mart.

And I think we need to look at these moments where people are taking action and say, "How do we magnify those and what are, what are the seeds of a movement that we can learn from in there?" Because I think if we can spend all our time that we keep talking about why we're weak or why somebody did something that wasn't strong enough, we need to figure out what are the things that we can do.

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: But I would say we're weak because in the late 1940s in the face of the Cold War organized labor ceased being a social movement. It gave up being the champion of economic justice and took on more of the form of a trade association. And so in that it lost the moral standing that it held with millions and millions of people. There was a point when people would say, even if they weren't in the union, "I'm not going to cross that picket line. I'm with the union."

Their issues are correct. Over the years as unions stepped further and further away from being the real champions of economic justice and I'm not just talking about a good speech. I mean real champions of economic justice, real allies of community groups that are fighting for them. When we stepped away from that of course we were going to become weaker. We were going to become more isolated. And we'd be looked at as special interests.

BILL MOYERS: Why the resentment among so many working and middle class people who've been exploited themselves? Why are voters not standing up?

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: Because it's it is easier for regular working people to start blaming someone that they can physically identify, someone that is not very strong, someone that cannot penalize them, rather than actually taking on the real powers. They're focusing on other weak, and I'm using the term broadly, weak sections of the population rather than focusing their attention on who really, who holds the power.

STEPHEN LERNER: But the thing on this that I think is really important is none of what's happening now is a surprise. For 30 years many people have said again and again and that if the private sector isn't organized and private sector workers lose pension plans and private sector workers lose their healthcare that they'll then be convinced they shouldn't fund it for other workers. In going forward there is no way out of this mess unless we organize millions of private sector workers. You will not have a public sector labor movement that survives if private sector workers are, have been impoverished in the country.

BILL MOYERS: And private sector are now how much, what percentage of the workforce?

STEPHEN LERNER: Only 6.9 percent of private sector workers are now in unions. It is now lower than it was at the start of the Great Depression. What the right wing has managed to do is get workers who have been crushed angry at somebody else. You know, their neighbor her, their neighbor who has a little bit better, than against Jamie Dimon. And we shouldn't be afraid to name names. Or the guys who are the cause of--

BILL MOYERS: Which raises the question why conservatives have been more successful than progressives in appealing to populist anger and populist aspirations?

STEPHEN LERNER: We don't connect with people 'cause we're not saying who the bad guys are. And the second part is if we're in bed with and afraid to take on the people who have caused the crisis in this country, then why would people rally behind us?

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: But there's another issue, Bill, which is that the right wing has a story. And they have a story, particularly right wing populists have a story that is very compelling, particularly to white people. A story that's intertwined with the myth of the American dream. And they use that story as a way of focusing on scapegoats. Of moving people away from real issues of power. Of playing upon people's resentments. And what we on the left side of the aisle often do is throw facts at people. You know, we'll say to people there's this vast polarization of wealth. Well, that's true. But people can draw different conclusions about that, including that maybe if they play the right number they too can be on the upside of that.

We have to have a story that puts these pieces together. That explains to people how does Wall Street operate. What does this mean when we're talking about changing taxes? What is this issue of power? Who is to blame?

BILL MOYERS: But why haven't you done that? I mean?

STEPHEN LERNER: Totally. Well, here's the?

BILL MOYERS: We've been through the biggest economic collapse since the 1930s. And yet four years later the capitalist class that brought it on is riding high in politics. It's far more influential than labor is.

STEPHEN LERNER: But this is why I think we need to look at some of the good things that are happening. When we did the demonstrations at the shareholder meetings of Bank of America and Wells Fargo, we did a version of what Bill just described, which is we talked about housing, we talked about how they treated workers, we talked about their role in funding private prisons and we talked about their role in destroying the environment and we talked about money in politics. And all the groups who normally don't work together came together. And in the case of Wells Fargo, lots of people are arrested, both inside and outside the meeting we sat in. And we took all those issues and said, "You know what? It all stems, the story, from the same problem which is the power of giant banks." And so when we were in Charlotte, North Carolina, the city invoked an emergency order and said, it suspended civil liberties in downtown Charlotte for this march. But we built enough pressure that we backed them off and we sat down and took over downtown Charlotte for two hours.

But the thing I'm trying to pull out of this is issues that are normally separate and siloed, became the same issue. It's how to giant banks hurt the environment. How do they hurt workers. How do they hurt communities. How do they hurt immigrants. And in looking at that you can imagine the kind of movement we need to build. That's not separate movements. One movement to focus on who these guys are.

BILL MOYERS: I can understand and appreciate the victories that you win here and there. But there's another side of the ledger too. And I looked at the details of those votes in San Diego and San Jose where voters who went for Barack Obama in 2008 voted by large margins to cut the pensions of public employees. The folks you care about.

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: I'm not surprised when people vote to cut pensions because what they look at is that they say, it's like crabs in the barrel. "These folks have something I do not have." And almost no one is saying to them, "Yes, that's true, but you lost it because of what happened and we need to fight to get it back."

STEPHEN LERNER: So let me give a specific example of what public employee unions could do that would make a different. What I'd love to see, which I think could actually demonstrate leadership, and the Chicago Teachers' Union actually did this. They said that they would take a wage freeze if the mayor would move his money out of all the banks that are continuing to foreclose on people in Chicago.

I think one of the things that we could do that would really make a difference. Is we need to turn collective bargaining into a vehicle not just for the narrow group of people who are bargaining, into a battle for the common good. So if public employee unions said, "We're willing to strike to force the city or the state to renegotiate debt with Wall Street," then I think people would rally behind them and say, "Oh, that's where the money went. It went to Wall Street. It's not goin' to those workers."

BILL MOYERS: Twenty California counties allow some public workers to make more in retirement than they did while working. And then there's one county executive retired at 62 so she could bring down a pension of $272,000 a year for life. In a county whose public pension system is underfinanced by 3/4 of a billion dollars. Now, against that minute particular, a telling story repeated over and again in an election, you're trying to say there's another story that will mitigate that example?

STEPHEN LERNER: Well, I tell you a funny piece of it is one of our weaknesses is that we're not, that we're afraid to sometimes just to say, "Yeah, that's wrong." And here are things?

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: Yeah, exactly.

STEPHEN LERNER: --and we have this knee jerk defense. Of course it's absurd.

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: People will respond to the story the you just told, because, again, it relates to something I was saying before, that it's easier to blame that public sector worker who is gaming the system than to go after the people in Wall Street who have walked away with billions. It's much easier.

BILL MOYERS: But Bill, with all due respect, the voters in San Diego, and San Jose see the particularities of this particular county?

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: But--

BILL MOYERS: --executive more clearly than they do Jamie Dimon's situation.

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: We have to provide some answers, better answers than we're giving. I don't mean just in simply explanations, but what people can do about the morass that they find themselves in. In addition to saying, "Yeah, this is a problem," we've got to say, "This is how we would--"

STEPHEN LERNER: So let me give a very specific example. There's 16 million homes, which is really 30 million people are underwater. Their homes are worth less than they paid for them. They're overlaid with all the key battleground states. So we've launched a thing called The Home Defender's League?

BILL MOYERS: We being?

STEPHEN LERNER: We being a bunch of different community groups and unions. We've, in the last couple weeks, called half a million people. We're having meetings around the country. We have a very simple demand. Every mortgage should be reset to current market value.

That would put $700 billion in the economy, create a million jobs, save the average homeowner $5,000 a year and it would extract the money from Wall Street who stole it from them in the first place. Very concrete. An answer. Good math. Economist supported. And we have a chance to win that.

BILL MOYERS: What?s the website?

STEPHEN LERNER You go to homedefendersleague.org.

BILL MOYERS: Many of the people who are in their homes are not losing them. They're property owners. They're paying taxes. And they're fed up with what they perceive to be the heavy burden imposed on them by public employees.

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: And the person that you're describing that's paying those taxes and is feeling squeezed, we need to begin with the fact, you are being squeezed. There is a squeeze. It's not your imagination. So the question is then where is the money? Is the money to be found in crushing public sector workers or is the money to be found in reversing a practice over the last 50 years of decreasing taxes on corporations and on the wealthy?

Because the problem is that what's happened as the tax burden on the wealthy has shrunk, of course the people in the middle are bearing more and more of that. And they're resentful. And they should be.

STEPHEN LERNER The majority of those people, as mad as they may be at a public employee, know when in every poll, every discussion, the systems imbalanced, the people at the top are sucking up all the wealth. Financial capitalism is failing as a model in this country and in Europe. And I think as they start, if we survive this period and if we go on offense and let me just be clear. Offense is not defense yelling louder. Offense?

BILL MOYERS: So what is offense? What's your strategy? What do you want people to do who believe in what you've just said?

STEPHEN LERNER: So I would say, one, we should take the fight on underwater homeowners and foreclose that's already stopping, where people are occupying homes around the country. A wonderful way to connect with regular people in the fight against banks that's happening all over the country. There's a woman in Arizona, Lily Washington. Bank of America foreclosed on her while she was visiting her son who had been shot in Afghanistan and threw away her purple heart. A wonderful moment when they foreclosed when veterans, not radicals, regular veterans delivered a purple heart to her house saying, "We are with you in your battle against Bank of America." We need to look at the places where we can have battles we can win that put people in motion, that name Wall Street, that start winning victories. I'm worried less about Washington and much more worried about what happens to communities all over this country and how we start to fight back and win in those. And that's the kind of thing that builds the excitement and the energy to take on the bigger fight about how the system's been co-opted.

BILL MOYERS: Stephen Lerner, Bill Fletcher, thank you for joining us.

BILL FLETCHER, JR.: Thank you very much.

BILL MOYERS: Faithful viewers of this broadcast know that from time to time we ask poets to drop by and share their work with us. This time, our guest is the versatile Philip Appleman, whose creativity spans a long life filled with verse, fiction, philosophy, science, religion, and above all, moments of every day experience captured like the glint of the sun sparkling through a crystal glass. Just take a look at a sample of his legacy: Darwin, Apes and Angeles, Darwin?s Ark, In the Twelfth Year of the War, Open Doorways, and this, my favorite: Summer Love and Surf, about the joys and wonders of loving and living. His latest book of poems is Perfidious Proverbs.

A fellow poet said that to watch Philip Appleman ?sling words is to be richly regaled.? I quite agree.

Welcome Philip.

PHILIP APPLEMAN : Wonderful to be here, Bill.

BILL MOYERS: I have long thought of poetry as music to be heard best in the voice of the composer. So let's go right to some of your poems.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Good. I love it.

BILL MOYERS: Here's one of my favorites. And I think it's one of your favorites, too, ?Eve.? Tell me about that poem.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Twenty years ago, I published a book called Let There Be Light. It was a series of satires on various Biblical stories. And Eve being one of the first came out at the head of the list. And, shall I read it?

BILL MOYERS: Please.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Eve is kind of reflecting on the snake, at first.

Clever he was, so slick he could weave words into sunshine. When he murmured another refrain of that shimmering promise, ?You shall be as gods,? something with wings whispered back in my heart, and I crunched the apple?a taste so good I just had to share it with Adam. And all of a sudden we were naked. Oh yes, we were nude before, but now, grabbing for fig leaves, we knew that we knew too much, just as the slippery serpent said?so we crouched all day under the rhododendrons, trembling at something bleak and windswept in our bellies that soon we'd learned to call by its right name: fear.

God was furious with the snake and hacked off his legs, on the spot. And for us it was thorns and thistles, sweat of the brow, dust to dust returning. In that sizzling skyful of spite whirled the whole black storm of the future: the flint knife in Abel's heart, the incest that swelled us into a tribe, a nation, and brought us all like driven lambs, straight to His flood. I blamed it on human nature, even then, when there were only two humans around, and if human nature was a mistake, whose mistake was it? I didn't ask to be cursed with curiosity. I only wanted the apple, and of course, that promise?to be like gods. Maybe we are like gods. Maybe we're all exactly like gods. And maybe that's our really original sin.

BILL MOYERS: The original sin. Hubris, right?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: You've said that's one of your favorites. What makes it a favorite?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: I like the personal tone of Eve, who, you know, doesn?t get to say anything in the Bible, to speak of. And to turn her into a kind of down to earth reinterpretor of that kind of tickles me, that's all.

BILL MOYERS: She finally gets to tell her own story.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Right.

BILL MOYERS: Did you ever wonder about the silence in that story of the first woman, as it says?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Yeah. No woman I know would tolerate it.

BILL MOYERS: Exactly. Here's one that we like, especially. It's one of the five poems of pagans that you did. And this is one of the short ones. Would you read that one? And by the way, tell us what Mammon is, for those who haven't been reading the Bible lately.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Well, Mammon is the love of money and greed and he?s the god of wealth. I call it my Bernie Madoff poem.

BILL MOYERS: Read on.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: O Mammon, Thou who art daily dissed by everyone, yet boast more true disciples than all other gods together, Thou whose eerie sheen gleameth from Corporate Headquarters and Vatican Treasury alike, Thou whose glittering eye impales us in the x-ray vision of plastic surgeons, the golden leer of televangelists, the star-spangled gloat of politicos-- O, Mammom, come down to us in the form of Treasuries, Annuities, & High-Grade Bonds, yield unto us those Benedict Arnold Funds, those Quicksand Convertible Securities, even the wet Judas Kiss of Futures Contracts?for unto the least of these Thy supplicants art Thou welcome in all thy many forms. But when Thou comest to say we?re finally in the gentry-- use the service entry.

BILL MOYERS: Do you ever go back and say, "Oh, that's one of my first children. I mean, I remember-- I've forgotten that kid, but now I realize that it is my poem."

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Yeah, I love reading the early poems as much as the late ones. I brought along a poem which it would be an interruption, sort of, of the thrust here. But--

BILL MOYERS: That's what life is about, a series of constant interruptions, Philip, go ahead.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: The first thing you see in this book is a dedication that's for Margie, who happens to be my wife. We're looking forward to our 62nd anniversary this summer. And the dedication says, "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight." But because Margie is home and has had a stroke and is ill, I would like to read a poem for her, if you don't mind.

BILL MOYERS: Please do.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: It's from a book called ?Summer Love and Surf,? which came out in 1968. And it's the most beautiful book. It's so beautifully designed that it won the?

BILL MOYERS: Oh it is.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: --design contest for that year. And was written when we were living out in Malibu, in one of those houses that are built on stilts. And it's so far on the beach that at high tide, the ocean is gurgling under your bedroom. And we love it there. And this is a young love poem. And in recent years, I've written poems for our 50th anniversary and our 60th anniversary, which are very old love poems. But this is sort of back at the beginning.

?Summer Love and Surf?

Morning was hesitating when you swam at me through wave on wave of sheet and blanket, glowing like some dimly sighted flora at the bottom of the sea. Around your filmy hair, light was seeping in with water sounds, low growling in the distance, like dragons chained.

After our small storm dwindled, we faced the rage outside, swells humping up and charging in to curl and pause and dash themselves to soapsuds on the stork-legged pilings of our house. The roar was hoarser now, The wrecks of kelp were heaping food for flies, our long-nosed sand birds staying close to dry land; farther out, pelicans arched their wings in quick surprise and gulls scream urgently. The call was there: we fought the breakers out and rode their fury back, triumphant and again triumphant, till at last, ears stuffed with brine and heads a-spin like aging boxers battered, we flopped face down on hot sand, smelling sun and salt and steaming skin. Your eyes were suddenly all sleep and love, there in the sun, with sea birds calling.

The sky goes metal at the end, water, gray and hostile, lashing out between the day and night. Plastic swans are threatened; deck chairs, yellow towels, barbecues stand naked to the peril, as if it were winter come by stealth. Still later, in the lee of dark and warmth, we probe the ancient fear: at night the sea is safer under glass, the crude, wild thing half tamed to shed its past? galleons sent to fifty fathoms, mountains hacked to rubble, cities stripped. At night, the sea, barbaric bellows stifled, sprawls outside the window, framed like a dark, unruly landscape. Behind us is a darker kind of dark: I watch your eyes for signals.

The music makes a pause for prophecy: ?Tomorrow, off-shore breezes and?? Warmth to each other's warmth, we do not listen.

BILL MOYERS: That was how long ago?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: 1968.

BILL MOYERS: You had been married--

PHILIP APPLEMAN: We had been married 18 years, at that point.

BILL MOYERS: How does love change from then to now?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: It's more profound and more essential. It was very strong right from the beginning. We met on the first day of French class at Northwestern University in 1946. And we've been together ever since.

BILL MOYERS: She became a playwright, didn't she?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: She was a playwright. And her plays have been produced about 60 times in mostly New York and Los Angeles.

And I appreciate her work on my poetry and other things I write. She is a wonderful critic. Four years ago, she had a stroke. And that kind of put an end to her writing. So that was a very sad thrust.

BILL MOYERS: I?m curious as to this poem, ?This Year's Valentine.? Where did that come from? What's it about?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: I wrote this right after the Twin Towers went down. This was a poem I wrote for the next Valentine's Day.

They could pump frenzy into air ducts and rage into reservoirs, dynamite dams and drown the cities, cry fire in theaters as the victims are burning, but I will find my way through blackened streets and kneel down at your side. They could jump a median, head-on, and obliterate the future, fit .45's to the hands of kids and skate them off to school, flip live butts into tinderbox forests and hellfire half the heavens, but in the rubble of smoking cottages I will hold you in my arms.

They could send kidnappers to kindergartens and pedophiles to playgrounds, wrap themselves in Old Glory and gut the Bill of Rights, pound at the door with holy screed and put an end to reason, but I will cut through their curtains of cunning and find you somewhere in moonlight.

Whatever they do with their anthrax or chainsaws, however they strip-search or brainwash or blackmail, they cannot prevent me from sending you robins, all of them singing: I'll be there.

BILL MOYERS: A year after 9/11 in that huge climate of fear, how could you have such faith in love?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: It's always been there for me. And it keeps me consciously aware that I'm not alone on this earth yet. We're up in our eighties now, so there'll be a time in sometime soon when I will be alone. But while I'm here the thing that I most value is that, love.

BILL MOYERS: Is that the source of the meaning in your life? I mean, you have this remarkable essay, that had a profound impact on me a few years ago, on how the meaning of life comes out of the moment you're acting, out of your choices every moment, of how you will live that life. "Meaning is not out there," you say, "it is in the doing of the moment."

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Right you create your own definition, you create your own meaning, as you act. I was brought up in a small Indiana town, went to a fundamentalist church. And when I was about 13, thought my mission was to be a missionary to darkest Africa and bring the message. That cleared away a couple of years later. But--

BILL MOYERS: Why did it clear away?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: I kept reading books and finding out things. And after a while, I realized that what I believed in didn't have much to do with reality. And I studied Catholicism for a while. And I went on to take on all the other belief systems. I read all the holy books of, you know, the Koran and the Buddhist and the Hindus.

And I spent years doing that, searching for the meaning of life out there, you know. And eventually, having gone through it all, decided I had to decide on these things for myself. And so I left the holy books behind and started making my own philosophy of life, which pretty much is in the essay you were talking about.

I consider myself a humanist, not just an atheist, but a humanist.

BILL MOYERS: Which means?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Means someone who wishes he could work for the betterment of the human condition without reference to a supernatural thing.

BILL MOYERS: Well, you do often, in your poems. I think of another poem that also has been a favorite of mine, called simply, ?Gertrude.? Would you tell me about this one and read it?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: My mother was one of those saintly mothers, some of us are lucky enough to have. Her name was Gertrude. And she was struck by rheumatoid arthritis when she was about 40. And spent a great part of her life after that in bed or in a wheelchair or something. She was hit very hard. And all of her children, my three sisters and I, did everything we could to help, but nothing worked.

And finally she died at the age of 75. I wish that all the people who peddle God could watch my mother die: could see the skin and gristle weighing in at seventy-nine, every stubborn pound of flesh a small death.

I wish the people who peddled God could see her young, lovely in gardens and beautiful in kitchens, and could watch the hand of God slowly twisting her knees and fingers till they gnarled and knotted, settling in for thirty years of pain.

I wish the people who peddle God could see the lightning of His cancer striking her, that small frame tensing at every shock, her sweet contralto scratchy with the Lord's infection: Philip, I want to die.

I wish I had them gathered round, those preachers, popes, rabbis, imams, priests?every pious shill on God's payroll?and I would pull the sheets from my mother's brittle body, and they would fall on their knees at her bedside to be forgiven all their faith.

BILL MOYERS: That's very powerful. And in contrast to all of the people both of us know, some of them who find faith a consolation at the time of death. That's intriguing how the human beings walk such different paths, when it comes to religion.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: When Margie's mother died-- she was another saint. But she died regretting to herself all the sins she had had in her life. And because she hadn't really had any sins, but little shortcomings, she forgot to say thank you to someone or something like that. And the whole thing came crashing in on her and she was convinced she was going to go to hell.

BILL MOYERS: This one is from ?Karma, Dharma, Pudding and Pie.? Will you read that?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: This poem has an epigraph from Job. It says, "God will laugh at the trial of the innocent." The poem is called ?God's Grandeur.?

When they hunger and thirst, and I send down a famine, When they pray for the sun, and I drown them with rain, And they beg me for reasons, my only reply is: I never apologize, never explain.

When the Angel of Death is a black wind around them And children are dying in terrible pain, Then they burn little candles in churches, but still I never apologize, never explain.

When the Christians kill Jews, and Jews kill the Muslims, And Muslims kill writers they think are profane, They clamor for peace or for reasons at least, But I never apologize, never explain.

When they wail about murder and torture and rape, And unlucky Abel complains about Cain, And they ask me just why I had planned it like this, I never apologize, never explain. Of course, if they're smart they can figure it out-- The best of all reasons is perfectly plain. It's because I just happen to like it this way-- So I never apologize, never explain.

BILL MOYERS: Job kept asking why--

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Poor thing, yeah.

BILL MOYERS: --and never got an answer.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: No.

BILL MOYERS: Jesus himself, "Oh God, why hast thou forsaken me?" No answer.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: I'm not so impervious to the world that I don't know that religion does a lot of good sometimes. That some religious people really are good and they want to do good. But unfortunately, so many religious people let the religions lead them into hatred.

BILL MOYERS: Let's have a little fun with one from ?Perfidious Proverbs.? It's actually called ?Parable of the Perfidious Proverbs?. And proverb, as people I hope know, is an epigram of wisdom contained in the ?Book of Proverbs? in the-- in what Christians call The Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Okay, yeah.

BILL MOYERS: How better it is to get wisdom than gold.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Money buys profits and teachers, poems and art, So listen, if you're so rich, why aren't you smart?

BILL MOYERS: He that spareth his rod, hateth his son.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: That line gives you a perfect way of testing your inner feelings about child molesting.

BILL MOYERS: He that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: But here at the parish, we don't find it overly hard To accept his dirty cash or credit card.

BILL MOYERS: Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: That's just why the good Lord made it mandatory To eat your heart out down in Purgatory.

BILL MOYERS: Wisdom is better than rubies.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Among the jeweled bishops and other boobies It's also a whole lot rarer than rubies.

BILL MOYERS: He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Trusting your heart my not be awfully bright, but trusting proverbs is an idiot's delight.

BILL MOYERS: I like that. I like that. That's from ?Perfidious Proverbs,? which is your new book. What gives you happiness? What gives you joy?

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Poetry does, music does, theater does, but mostly I think it's just having my wife and living quietly and enjoying being together. I think that's the greatest thing in my life.

BILL MOYERS: Philip Appleman, thank you very much for being with me.

PHILIP APPLEMAN: Thank you.

BILL MOYERS: That?s it for this week. At our website, BillMoyers.com, you can see and hear Philip Appleman read more of his poems. There?s also more on the Supreme Court?s recent decisions and how they may affect your life.

That?s all at BillMoyers.com. I?ll see you there and see you here, next time.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/bill-moyers-labor-lost-cause

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Roubini: 2013 may be worse than 2008 economic
crisis

Paul Krugman has already been saying we're in a depression and Nouriel Roubini is not sounding very confident in the future either. What was too-big-to-fail in 2008 is now even bigger and the banking problems remain. Because the bankers could not control themselves and have continued to shower themselves with riches, it won't be possible politically to bail them out the next time.While...

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/UrTv9bOp6Uw/roubini-2013-may-be-wor
se-than-2008.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

This weekend in Republicanism

And now for a little Allen West, America's Dumbest Congressman. Now he's upset that media (again) reported (again) that stuff he says (again), specifically:

"What we're doing is we're creating a welfare entitlement class," West told Fox News on Sunday, naming the rising number of Americans on Social Security disability and the poverty roll as well as increase in food stamp recipients and extension of unemployment benefits. ?So once again we are creating the sense of economic dependence which, to me, is a form of modern, 21st-century slavery.?

Got it? Social Security, food stamps and unemployment is like slavery. Except:

West blasted the ?liberal media? for reporting that he equated Social Security and slavery in the comment. West suggested his Facebook followers watch the interview for themselves.

Yeah, he didn't mean it was like slavery, when he was comparing it to slavery. Just that it and slavery were, um, things you could put in the same sentence together. Oh, and ...

?It seems that there is absolutely no level the attack machine will sink to deliberately distort my comments,? he wrote. ?I was clearly talking about the number of people on Social Security disability- a completely separate issue then claims that I said I am against Social Security.?

So it's Social Security disability, not Social Security, that is like slavery. Because, like food stamps and unemployment insurance, keeping people fed is, well, enslaving them.

This has been your daily moment of Allen West, America's Dumbest Congressman. Stay tuned next week, when the Republican will compare giving people health insurance to the acts of Nazi Germany. Wait, what's that? Another Republican already beat him to it?

[Maine Gov. Paul LePage] in his Saturday speech blasted the Supreme Court for upholding the health care law, telling listeners the decision ?has made America less free. We the people have been told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo ? the I.R.S.?

LePage on Monday issued a statement responding to the criticism, saying that his reference to Nazi Germany?s secret police ?clouded? his message on the individual mandate.

?It was not my intent to insult anyone, especially the Jewish Community, or minimize the fact that millions of people were murdered,? LePage said in the statement. ?Clearly, what has happened is that the use of the word Gestapo has clouded my message.?

Ya think?

I swear, could we just have one week go by in which government helping people to get food, jobs or medical care is not comparable to either slavery or the Nazis? Just one? It's early yet, but in terms of overblown rhetoric and Hitler references, I'm beginning to think that this election season will be even worse than the Health Care Reform Summer from Hell.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/pvZyIV20k04/-This-weekend-in-Repub
licanism

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

July 9: Poll Doldrums

Few new polls have been published apart from the national tracking polls, which have been moving in opposite directions for the past few days. The FiveThirtyEight presidential forecast is essentially unchanged.

Read The Full Article:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/july-9-polldrums/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

The "common" people just don't get it, and Mitt
will address "you people".

Before I start this post I would like to give a shout out to Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, the field Negro and fellow Pistolvanian who performed the first open heart surgery in these divided states of America, some 119 years ago.

Doctor, that was truly field Negro behavior.

So anyway, now we understand a little more about the mindset of the folks who want to restrict the rights of those of us in the 99% when it comes to voting.

Gotta love those republican snobs.

 "As if voters needed any more evidence to show them where the big guns of ?class warfare? reside, ThinkProgress flagged an LA Times report in which donors en route to a $25,000-per-head Mitt Romney fundraiser in the Hamptons hold forth on the cognitive weaknesses of ?lower-income people? (which, given the amount of the donations involved, would seem to include everybody but them).

The money quote, however, demonstrates the central flaw in Republican ?thinking? about the economy.

A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. ?I don?t think the common person is getting it,? she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. ?Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

?We?ve got the message,? she added. ?But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies ? everybody who?s got the right to vote ? they don?t understand what?s going on. I just think if you?re lower income ? one, you?re not as educated, two, they don?t understand how it works, they don?t understand how the systems work, they don?t understand the impact.? [Source]

Yeah, I know, maybe we should bring back the poll taxes.

Finally, I am looking forward to Flipper's speech to the NAACP.(O, you might want to reconsider your decision not to attend.) Apparently, when it comes to civil rights, this apple falls far from the tree. Still, I am sure that Mitt will have some interesting things to say. Like for instance, some of his best friends are black. (Sorry, I couldn't resist)  

Everyone is giving Mitt advice on how he should handle his speech to a house full of Negroes. Touré thinks that he should talk about things like the unemployment rate among blacks and the education gap. That's all true, but the problem is that Mitt has no set plan to address any of these issues. Heck he doesn't have a plan to address the overall economy. So how can he address something that he has no plans to fix?

Still, Mitt should do just fine. He will find that those Negroes are quite a polite group, and they will applause right on cue. I just hope that he takes Steve Kornacki's advice and stay away from the "you people" references.


  







Read The Full Article:
http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2012/07/common-people-just-dont-get-it-and-mitt.h
tml

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Fathers & Sons: Willard Inc. is no George Romney,
and it appears to be no accident that he keeps his finances under such tight wraps

You may or may not want to read about "Smart Alec," or "How Microsoft Lost Its Mojo," but the August Vanity Fair also contains the above e-referenced poke into Willard Romney's finances, based on the limited publicly available documents, by Nicholas Shaxson.

"The contrast between George Romney and his son Mitt -- a contrast both in their business careers and in their willingness to come clean about their financial affairs -- dramatically illustrates how America has changed."
-- Paul Krugman, in his NYT column today, "Mitt's Gray Areas"
"Not only was George Romney, that loser, ironclad in his ideological commitments; his vision of how capitalism should work was in every particular the exact opposite of the one pushed by the vulture capitalist he sired."
-- Rick Perlstein, in a January rollingstone.com column,
"What Mitt Romney Learned From His Dad"
by Ken

I got a jolt this morning when I noticed this in the NYT's "Today's Headlines" e-mail:

Cuomo for President? Who Said That? Well, Dad
By DANNY HAKIM
Andrew M. Cuomo has said he wants to concentrate on being "the best governor I can be," but Mario M. Cuomo has higher ambitions for him.

No, I didn't actually read the piece. The blurb told me as much as I wanted to know about it. (And I was damned if I was going to waste a precious nytimes.com click on it. That's the same reason I'm not providing a link. If you want to read the piece, I'm sure you can find it for yourself. Waste your own damn click.)

For all the twists and complications of his political career, Mario Cuomo remains one of my dwindling band of political heroes, someone who came to public prominence championing the proposition, increasingly under attack by the benighted forces of the greed-and-ignorance Right: We're all in this together. Young Andrew, however, seems more attuned to the thinking of an older, slightly less benighted Right: Some of us are in this together, and if we serve the interests of us folk who matter, it will like magic benefit all those other people, the one who don't matter so much, as well.

I've wondered how Mario and Matilda Cuomo have felt about the political odyssey of Young Andrew. I guess I hoped there was at least a vein of disappointment, even disapproval. I've been led to believe that Birch Bayh (another of my political heroes) has never been thrilled with the "centrism" (to use a polite word) of Young Evan B. Heck, even George W. Bush reportedly grew weary of disapproving phone calls from "Poppy" -- kind of ironic considering how George H.W. is said to have come to dread those incessant calls from his mother browbeating him in the name of his moderate-Republican father, Sen. Prescott Bush.

As I've written before, I'm fascinated and appalled by what seems to me an unbridgeable gap between the Two Romneys: the unspeakable Willard Inc. and his father, onetime Michigan Gov. (and presidential candidate) George Romney. George R wasn't one of my political heroes, but maybe in some retrospective way he should qualify. He was a remarkable political figure: a certified titan of American industry who at the same time felt a commitment to promote social and economic justice for Americans as a whole. This gap was beautifully explored by Rick Perlstein in a January rollingstone.com column, "What Mitt Romey Learned From His Dad," which I wrote about here as "Willard Inc. may be his father's biological offspring, but politically speaking, he's no George Romney." Rick P is a reliably terrific writer, but this column was something else -- a must-read if you've never read it, or haven't read it recently.

Now Paul Krugman is reviewing the subject with an economist's perspective on the financial side of the father's and son's careers, with an eye to what the differences may tell us about ways in which the country has changed. I guess I've already spoiled the sleight of hand of the opening:

Once upon a time a rich man named Romney ran for president. He could claim, with considerable justice, that his wealth was well-earned, that he had in fact done a lot to create good jobs for American workers. Nonetheless, the public understandably wanted to know both how he had grown so rich and what he had done with his wealth; he obliged by releasing extensive information about his financial history.

But that was 44 years ago. And the contrast between George Romney and his son Mitt . . . . [for the rest of this sentence, see the quote atop this post].

THERE IS, FIRST, AN UNBRIDGEABLE GAPBETWEEN THE TWO ROMNEYS' CAREERS

What did George Romney do for a living? The answer was straightforward: he ran an auto company, American Motors. And he ran it very well indeed: at a time when the Big Three were still fixated on big cars and ignoring the rising tide of imports, Romney shifted to a highly successful focus on compacts that restored the company's fortunes, not to mention that it saved the jobs of many American workers. . . .

Now fast-forward to Romney the Younger, who made even more money during his business career at Bain Capital. Unlike his father, however, Mr. Romney didn't get rich by producing things people wanted to buy; he made his fortune through financial engineering that seems in many cases to have left workers worse off, and in some cases driven companies into bankruptcy.

THEN THERE'S THE STARK CONTRAST IN HOW
THE TWO ROMNEYS DEALT WITH FINANCES

And in particular -- for two public figures -- their disclosure thereof. The differences are even more damning to Willard when you consider that in his father's time there was nothing automatic about release of even the now-common release of two or maybe three years' worth of tax returns, whereas Willard himself is not only a veteran political candidate but a former governor.

As Willard is no doubt tired of hearing by now, when his father made his run for the presidency, he released an astounding 12 years' worth of tax returns ("explaining," says PK, "that any one year might just be a fluke"), revealing that he made a lot of money ("in his best year, 1960, he made more than $660,000 -- the equivalent, adjusted for inflation, of around $5 million today") and "he paid a lot of taxes" ("36 percent of his income in 1960, 37 percent over the whole period"), both because he "seldom took advantage of loopholes to escape his tax obligations" and because "taxes on the rich were much higher in the '50s and '60s than they are now" ("once you include the indirect effects of taxes on corporate profits, taxes on the very rich were about twice current levels").

By contrast, Willard "grudgingly release[d] one year's tax return plus an estimate for the next year." Which "show[ed] that he paid a startlingly low tax rate."

But as the Vanity Fair report points out, we're still very much in the dark about his investments, some of which seem very mysterious. Put it this way: Has there ever before been a major presidential candidate who had a multimillion-dollar Swiss bank account, plus tens of millions invested in the Cayman Islands, famed as a tax haven?

"And then," PK writes, "there's his Individual Retirement Account."

I.R.A.'s are supposed to be a tax-advantaged vehicle for middle-class savers, with annual contributions limited to a few thousand dollars a year. Yet somehow Mr. Romney ended up with an account worth between $20 million and $101 million.

There are legitimate ways that could have happened, just as there are potentially legitimate reasons for parking large sums of money in overseas tax havens. But we don't know which if any of those legitimate reasons apply in Mr. Romney's case -- because he has refused to release any details about his finances. This refusal to come clean suggests that he and his advisers believe that voters would be less likely to support him if they knew the truth about his investments.

And that is precisely why voters have a right to know that truth. Elections are, after all, in part about the perceived character of the candidates -- and what a man does with his money is surely a major clue to his character.

Oh, says PK, there's "one more thing":

To the extent that Mr. Romney has a coherent policy agenda, it involves cutting tax rates on the very rich -- which are already, as I said, down by about half since his father's time. Surely a man advocating such policies has a special obligation to level with voters about the extent to which he would personally benefit from the policies he advocates.

Yet obviously that's something Mr. Romney doesn't want to do. And unless he does reveal the truth about his investments, we can only assume that he's hiding something seriously damaging.

THE VANITY FAIR ARTICLE:
"WHERE THE MONEY LIVES"

Nicholas Shaxson's tantalizing, exhaustive poke-athon into leads gleaned from such public disclosures as Willard's people have grudgingly made of his finances, "Where the Money Lives," begins:

A person who worked for Mitt Romney at the consulting firm Bain and Co. in 1977 remembers him with mixed feelings. "Mitt was . . . a really wonderful boss," the former employee says. "He was nice, he was fair, he was logical, he said what he wanted . . . he was really encouraging." But Bain and Co., the person recalls, pushed employees to find out secret revenue and sales data on its clients' competitors. Romney, the person says, suggested "falsifying" who they were to get such information, by pretending to be a graduate student working on a project at Harvard. (The person, in fact, was a Harvard student, at Bain for the summer, but not working on any such proj ects.) "Mitt said to me something like 'We won't ask you to lie. I am not going to tell you to do this, but [it is] a really good way to get the information.' . . . I would not have had anything in my analysis if I had not pretended.

"It was a strange atmosphere. It did leave a bad taste in your mouth," the former employee recalls.

This unsettling account suggests the young Romney -- at that point only two years out of Harvard Business School -- was willing to push into gray areas when it came to business. More than three decades later, as he tried to nail down the Republican nomination for president of the United States, Romney's gray areas were again an issue when he repeatedly resisted calls to release more details of his net worth, his tax returns, and the large investments and assets held by him and his wife, Ann. Finally the other Republican candidates forced him to do so, but only highly selective disclosures were forthcoming.

Even so, these provided a lavish smorgasbord for Romney's critics. Particularly jarring were the Romneys' many offshore accounts. As Newt Gingrich put it during the primary season, "I don't know of any American president who has had a Swiss bank account." But Romney has, as well as other interests in such tax havens as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

Eventually the article takes us into what Shaxson calls "Tax Haven U.S.A.," increasingly a haven, not just for domestic tax dodgers, but for "tax-evading and other criminal foreign money . . . predominantly channeled not into productive investment but into real estate and financial business."

One cannot properly understand Wall Street's size and power without appreciating the central role of offshore tax havens. There is absolutely no evidence that Bain has done anything illegal, but private equity is one channel for this secrecy-shrouded foreign money to enter the United States, and a filing for Mitt Romney's first $37 million Bain Capital Fund, of 1984, provides a rare window into this. One foreign investor, of $2 million, was the newspaper tycoon, tax evader, and fraudster Robert Maxwell, who fell from his yacht, and drowned, off of the Canary Islands in 1991 in strange circumstances, after looting his company's pension fund. The Bain filing also names Eduardo Poma, a member of one of the "14 families" oligarchy that has controlled most of El Salvador's wealth for decades; oddly, Poma is listed as sharing a Miami address with two anonymous companies that invested $1.5 million between them. The filings also show a Geneva-based trustee overseeing a trust that invested $2.5 million, a Bahamas corporation that put in $3 million, and three corporations in the tax haven of Panama, historically a favored destination for Latin-American dirty money?"one of the filthiest money-laundering sinks in the world," as a U.S. Customs official once put it.

Bain Capital has said it did everything required by the U.S. government to check that the investors were not associated with unsavory interests. U.S. law doesn't require Bain to enforce the tax laws of its investors' home countries, but the presence of Swiss trustees, Bahamas trusts, and Panama corporations would raise red flags with any tax authority.

Many Americans might react with a shrug to the idea of shady foreign money such as Robert Maxwell's being invested here. But, says Rebecca Wilkins, of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, "It is shocking that a presidential candidate should think that is O.K."

EVEN DIE-HARD BUSINESS TYPES GET THAT
WILLARD HAS TO RELEASE THE RETURNS

Here defrocked Wall Street tech analyst turned Internet entrpreneur (CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider) and Daily Ticker blogger Henry Blodget talks to The Daily Ticker's Aaron Task.


Henry B has been persistently on Willard's case about releasing his tax returns in his own interest. (See, for example, his Daily Ticker post today, "Yes, Mitt Romney Should Release His Tax Returns," and his Friday post on his own Business Insider site, "Dear Mitt Romney: It's Time To Release All of Your Tax Returns").

Some excerpts from the above clip:

AARON TASK: Henry, what is it that you think is in those returns that you want to see?
HENRY BLODGET: I don't know! Let me see them and I'll tell you what is in the returns that we want to see. I think the issue is that there's been no president or presidential candidate in the last 20, 20, 30 years who hasn't released all of the tax returns that people think might be at all relevant to what's going on. . . . The question that everybody is asking, and not just from a partisan perspective, is: What is Romney hiding?

AARON: Look, I think there's a lot of things that he probably could have done that were legal, the way the tax code is set up, for wealthy people -- a lot of them do this, they park money overseas and there's nothing technically wrong with it. But if you want to be president of the United States, it's a question you're going to have to address to the American people, of why aren't you keeping that money here in America? Especially when his tax rate was 14 percent in 2010, which is pretty low by historical standards.
HENRY: Unbelievably low. And again, his whole plank is "taxes are too high," "there's too much regulation," "we've got to free business," "it's great that people can get rich in this country." And look, it is great that people can get rich, and he has been tremendously successful, and if he's going to run on the whole plank of individual responsibility -- "go out and accomplish your goals" -- he should be proud of that, and he should say, "Look, I have been tremendously successful, and here are all the taxes I have paid, and I have paid every dime I owed, and of course I'm going to take advantage of the loopholes and things like that, because that's what everybody does. He should just stand up and say that, instead of hiding behind it.

HENRY: Again, it's not a partisan thing. I think even people who are violently pro-Romney and want change should just want to see these returns. How did he make his money? Where is his money? [Something about] loopholes? . . . If he's running on his personal success and his integrity and having paid every dime, good! Show us! And then again, if you're going to make the argument that the problem with the U.S. economy is that taxes are too high, especially on rich people, what I would like to hear him say is: If I hadn't paid these tens of millions of dollars in taxes -- and again, last year he paid 3 million in taxes on 22 million of income -- if I hadn't had to pay those taxes, here's why the economy would have been better. I'd like to hear him say that, and effectively that's what he's arguing, that his 14-percent rate should be lower, because there's too much tax. I think he has a point. Of course Obama is using this to try to distract people from the economy, which is not doing well. But there is a very easy way to end that distraction in one minute, and that is: release the returns. Then you're done. You can say it's all out there, say what you will, Obama, and you can't run from the economy.

WILLARD KNOWS HE WON'T BE "DONE"IF HE "JUST" RELEASES THE RETURNS

Right-wing types who imagine that the only problem with releasing the returns is that they'll make Willard "look" bad -- like, say The Simpsons' Mr. Burns. Oh, they'll do that, all right, and that could cost him a certain amount of support. Even with the lapdog right-wing-controlled media, a certain number of folks hit hard by the meltdown brought on by right-wing governance may begin to wonder whether Willard is really on their side. But the real danger is that, however adroitly those tax returns were massaged -- within Willard's people's expansive idea of the boundaries of the law -- they're apt to be riddled with stuff that more than looks bad. The minute those returns go up online, all over the country there are going to be forensically fanatical troublemakers on their case, turning up funny stuff that threatens to explode into a 21-smoking-gun salute, and even the spin-happy infotainment noozers are going to have to keep tabs on the story for fear of being left inspinnably behind.

Henry Blodget makes the point -- every time he tackles the subject -- that eventually what's being hidden will come out. This is a good point, and one that cover-uppers all too often forget. My guess, though, is that there's so much funny stuff buried among Willard's financials that lots of really gruesome stuff isn't going to come out without sustained pressure for disclosure.

OH, HE WEARS THE MORMON UNDERWEAR,
BUT DOES HE WALK THE MORMON WALK?

One last point from Henry B: Releasing the returns, he says, is "the right thing to do."

Mitt Romney is campaigning to become President of the United States. Americans have every right to want to know how he made his money and and how he manages it, as well as what sorts of taxes he pays. Regardless of who you're rooting for in the campaign, it is is far better that this information come out now, rather than later (and it will come out). Given that Mitt Romney is campaigning on financial expertise and economic know-how, these questions are even more relevant for him than for any other candidate, which Mitt Romney obviously knows. And if Mitt Romney persists in refusing to release the returns, this issue really will become a distraction.

The Mormon Church advocates doing the right thing without delay regardless of the cost. [Boldface emphasis added. -- Ed.]

Mitt Romney should stop denouncing people asking perfectly reasonable questions and, instead, follow that advice.

I love that! Willard's famous faith commands him to do the right thing without delay regardless of the cost! Unless he wants to tell us that he's not serious about that faith, he just likes to wear the underwear.

But of course that's not all there is to Willard's Mormonism. There's money. As Henry B himself reported last week: "The Vast Majority Of Mitt Romney's Charitable Donations In The Past Two Years Have Gone To The Mormon Church." As long as the church elders are getting their cut of the loot, I don't think Willard will be hearing so much as a harsh word from the defenders of his faith.
#

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2011/07/fathers-sons-willard-inc-is-no-george
.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Former GOP Prodigy Lowers the Boom on the 'Grand
Old Party' [sic]

Click here to view this media

Jonathan Krohn just came out with a scathing and funny piece at Salon.com yesterday called "I was a right-wing child star". CNN had him on to talk about it. And no doubt Krohn would be completely insufferable if he didn't seem to have a wicked sharp sense of humor and perspective on things.

This sort of stuff won't make conservatives happy campers:

But then, earlier this week, Politico released an interview in which I announced I wasn?t a conservative anymore ? and the proverbial crap hit the fan. Since then, I have been treated by the political right with all the maturity of schoolyard bullies. The Daily Caller, for instance, wrote three articles about my shift, topping it off with an opinion piece in which they stated that I deserved criticism because I wear ?thick-rimmed glasses? and I like Ludwig Wittgenstein. Why don?t they just call me ?four-eyes?? These are not adults leveling serious criticism; these are scorned right-wingers showing all the maturity of a little boy. No wonder I fit in so well when I was 13.

Boom!

And the close is a thing of beauty:

So this is what this story boils down to: A 17-year-old has different opinions than he did at 13. People may be disappointed by how underwhelming that is, but it?s how the world works. Some people move on with life, mature, and realize that they don?t know everything nor will they ever know everything. Then again, some don?t.

I would love it if a bunch of angry right-wingers stopped saying stupid things about me. I also want a six-pack, a mansion in the Hamptons and a beautiful woman with cans the size of my head. None of these things will happen, and I?m pretty comfortable with that. More accurately, I?m comfortable with who I am, which is all I can ever hope for anyway.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/scarce/former-gop-prodigy-lowers-boom-grand-old-pa

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Another Negative Poll on Obama from The Hill

Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America ? but it?s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority. A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama?s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership. – The Hill Poll: Majority of voters believe Obama has changed country for worse

CONSERVATIVE BLOGGERS loved this poll today, just look at the swarm around it via Memeorandum. Voters think Pres. Obama has changed American for the worst! Woo-hoo! Now, I’m no polling expert, which is one reason I rarely offer polling, except to point out specific issues as a snapshot in time. But when I saw yet another poll from The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, at the very least it required a few links.

Right-wingers probably liked this poll from The Hill, too: Hill Poll: Voters: Obama over-reached blocking ‘Fast and Furious’ docs.

This one as well: The Hill Poll: Voter gloom over President Obama?s jobs, gas, debt policies.

It’s as easy as entering your credit card. To quote an article on Frum Forum, “Rasmussen?s Newest Venture Could Change Bar Fights Forever.”

?Soon, anyone can go to the [Pulse] website, type in their credit card number, and run any poll that they wanted, with any language that they want,? said Rasmussen. ?In effect, you will be able to do your own poll, and Rasmussen will provide the platform to ensure that the polling includes a representative national sample.?

If it all sounds a little suspect to you, wait until you read Mark Blumenthal, who has analyzed Rasmussen polls before, finding that Pres. Obama’s approvals are usually lower in all of their polling, “though not the lowest.” Well, that’s something.

Perhaps the Pulse Opinion Research polling for The Hill all being negative towards Pres. Obama is simply reality, because the economy isn’t doing what it should and people are freaked, with Obama getting the blame.

I’ve written for The Hill, so I assure you it’s not all one-sided over there.

But as far as I’m concerned these polls by Pulse Opinion Research in The Hill are as important as the Frum Forum headline; good for solving bar fights, but not much else.

Read The Full Article:
http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2012/07/another-negative-poll-on-obama-from-the-hill/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!