mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

Tens Of Thousands Rally In Wisconsin To Declare: “This Fight Is NOT Over!”

Protest fatigue? Not in Wisconsin.

Three months after Governor Scott Walker proposed to strip state, county and municipal employees and public-school teachers of their collective bargaining rights, the governor’s agenda remains stymied. Legal challenges,moves to recall Republican legislators who have sided with the governor and the fear on the part of legislative leaders of mass protests have prevented implementation.

That fear is well-founded.

The Wisconsin protests have inspired similar demonstrations in states across the country, including state Capitol confrontations in Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and, most recently, California and New York.

Yet, the energy in Wisconsin remains unmistakable, and unrelenting.

Three months to the day after the first large demonstration against Walker’s proposal, tens of thousands of Wisconsinites returned to the great square around the state Capitol and to town and village squares across the state to declare: “This Fight is NOT Over!”

“We’ve stopped Governor Walker’s plan to take away workers rights for three months — but he is not done. He has expanded his attack to seniors, college students, local schools and more. And he is still intent on ending collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin,” went the message from the Wisconsin unions and their allies — along with the “This Fight is NOT Over!” battlecry.

Saturday’s mass rally in Madison and other demonstrations came at a time when the Republican-controlled state legislature is weighing Walker’s budget proposal, which seeks to cut more than $1.5 billion from education and local services, while restructuring state government to take power away from elected school boards and local governments.

The fight inside the Capitol over the budget, and the rest of Walker’s economic, social and political  agenda will be intense in coming weeks. Wisconsin AFL-CIO President Phil Neuenfeldt warns that Walker and allies are rushing “to ram through their right wing priorities on corporate deregulation, school privatization and voter suppression before recall elections.”

The union leader was referring to special elections, which are expected as soon as July, that will determine the control of the state Senate.

Six Republican state senators face the threat of recall elections that could remove them, while three Democratic senators are similarly threatened.

The political intensity of the moment has kept the state on high alert, as Saturday’s demonstrations illustrated.

Organizers of the Madison demonstration — the We Are Wisconsin and Wisconsin Wave coalitions — estimated that Saturday’s rally drew between 15,000 and 20,000 Wisconsinites. Smaller rallies and events were held over the weekend across the state.

The crowd in Madison extended far beyond the base of public employees and teachers to include farmers, small business owners and students.

The demonstration in Madison took place on the same day as University of Wisconsin graduation ceremonies. A number of new graduates, wearing their caps and gowns, made their way to the Capitol after collecting their degrees.

One young woman stood outside the Capitol with a large sign that read: “UW Graduate — Thanks to Wisconsin Public School Teachers!”

By: John Nichols, Washington Correspondent for The Nation: Editor, Capital Times, Madison, WI.

By:

May 18, 2011 Posted by | Class Warfare, Collective Bargaining, Conservatives, Democracy, Elections, GOP, Gov Scott Walker, Governors, Ideology, Labor, Lawmakers, Politics, Public Employees, Republicans, Right Wing, Seniors, State Legislatures, States, Union Busting, Unions, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Republicans | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Dangers Of Repealing Birthright Citizenship

People born on American soil are guaranteed automatic citizenship by a provision found in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This provision, often referred to as “birthright citizenship,” has recently come under intense attack by conservative politicians. Conservative lawmakers in state legislatures throughout the country have introduced bills aimed at blocking children born in the state to undocumented immigrants—as well as professional workers and other noncitizens with long-term visas—from claiming a right to citizenship. House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) has declared his intention to hold hearings on the subject.

Opportunistic politics helps explain the reasoning behind this attack on the citizenship clause of the Constitution. A broken national immigration system coupled with a slow economic recovery characterized by sluggish job growth creates an opening for certain politicians to create short-term electoral gains by demonizing immigrants. Nonetheless, numerous conservative scholars and politicians such as Linda Chavez and James Ho voice grave concerns about the political and policy ramifications of this trend.

A CAP report released this month from CAP Senior Fellow Sam Fulwood III and Director for Immigration Policy Marshall Fitz explains the cascading effect of unforeseen, unintended, and unwanted consequences a retreat on birthright citizenship would set in motion, among them:

  • “Big Brother” in every hospital delivery room, a profoundly costly and intrusive process of checking and verifying documents for every baby born in the United States
  • A new underclass of less-than-citizens who are marginalized from society and detract from our future economic competitiveness
  • Women burdened with childbearing decisions depending on citizenship parentage, endangering the newly born and their mothers in our country
  • An America that is suddenly and deeply anti-immigrant—contrary to our historical heritage and core national values and undermining our cherished democratic system, built by and for immigrants

Nevertheless, the matter is not dead in the eyes of some politicians. On January 25, 2011, Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and David Vitter (R-LA) introduced legislation to amend the Constitution and restrict citizenship to those newborns who can prove that one of their parents is a U.S. citizen, a legal immigrant, or an active member of the Armed Forces at the moment of the child’s birth.

The Center for American Progress and the American Constitution Society jointly hosted an event earlier this month featuring leading civil rights thinkers who discussed what our nation would look like should the birthright citizenship provision in the 14th Amendment be repealed, as well as its effect on all Americans.

“It’s important to look at the arguments that people are making to repeal the 14th Amendment,” said Fulwood at the event. “It goes to the core of what it means to be an American.”

Margaret Stock, a professor at the University of Alaska, noted that “The 14th Amendment [was the] crowning achievement of the Republican Party after the civil war. … it’s appalling Republicans have proposed this amendment.”

As President Barack Obama said in his speech in El Paso on May 10:

It doesn’t matter where you come from; it doesn’t matter what you look like; it doesn’t matter what faith you worship. What matters is that you believe in the ideals on which we were founded; that you believe that all of us are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. All of us deserve our freedoms and our pursuit of happiness. In embracing America, you can become American. That is what makes this country great. That enriches all of us.

Amending the 14th Amendment to end birthright citizenship would create a very different America, one characterized by dual classes of residents born here—citizens and less-than-citizens.

By: Philippe Nassif, Center for American Progress, May 17, 2011

May 18, 2011 Posted by | Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Democracy, Elections, Equal Rights, Freedom, GOP, Human Rights, Ideologues, Ideology, Immigrants, Immigration, Lawmakers, Politics, Populism, Republicans, Right Wing, State Legislatures, States, Women | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scott Walker Quietly Consolidating Power In Wisconsin

Republican Gov. Scott Walker is steadily remaking the Wisconsin government, implementing conservative ideals and quietly consolidating power under the office of the governor. His actions range from the much-publicized move to strip collective bargaining rights from powerful public unions to the less-noticed efforts to add more political appointees at state agencies and take away responsibilities from Wisconsin’s democratically elected secretary of state.

Supporters have praised what Walker and his allies are doing as a long-overdue steps to cut spending and unnecessary bureaucracy. But critics fear a loss of public input and transparency in the way the state government operates.

“It’s a power grab,” said Doug La Follette, Wisconsin’s Democratic Secretary of State. “[Walker] wants to control everything.”

“It’s turning Wisconsin’s state government from a body that is charged with serving the needs of the people of Wisconsin, into making its first priority serving corporations — both inside and outside of Wisconsin,” added Scot Ross, executive director of the progressive group One Wisconsin Now. “This is the most massive turn toward privatization of public services in not only the history of the state of Wisconsin, but possibly across the country.”

Walker’s office did not respond to a request for comment for this report.

TURNING THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INTO A ‘CHARTER AGENCY’

The Walker administration is developing a proposal that would turn the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) into the state’s first “charter agency,” a designation that would make it a self-contained entity able to operate outside many of the bureaucratic guidelines other agencies must follow.

Most significantly, DNR would have wider latitude over the hiring, firing and merit pay of employees — issues that also played out in the collective bargaining controversy a few months ago.

“We would be freed up from a lot of the red tape that slows things down,” DNR spokesman Bob Manwell told the Wisconsin State Journal. “We would still be a state agency; we would just be operating under a different set of guidelines.”

But what worries some environmentalists is how the agency will now view its central goals. According to a draft Walker administration document with “talking points” about the plan, DNR will be committed to “increasing customer outreach and assistance” and reducing “permit times for major air and water permits.”

“It’s implying that the customer is those who are seeking permits, so DNR employees will be encouraged to pump out permits with more leniency,” explained Anne Sayers, program director of the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters. “And none of that is about protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink or the places where we hunt, fish and hike.”

“What really bothers me about it is, it sets up a pay-to-play mentality where they can reward DNR employees who are getting polluters sweetheart deals for their big contributors,” added Rep. Brett Hulsey (D-Madison), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Amber Gunn, the director of economic policy at Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Olympia, Wash., has been one of the leading voices advocating charter agencies around the country. In 2007, she wrote that it’s a “revolutionary concept” intended to “unravel the bureaucratic red tape that plagues many state agencies and replace it with results-driven motivation that promotes flexibility and innovation.”

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Gunn said one of the reasons the charter agency model is being discussed more widely is that it’s a way to cut spending without directly slashing services.

Washington’s Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire has expressed support for exploring charter agencies. But according to Gunn, one of the reasons she wasn’t able to move forward with the change was the state’s strong collective bargaining laws, which have strict restrictions on contracting out for services.

“We would have to modify the collective bargaining agreements — at least in Washington — in order to oppose charter agencies. And no one wanted to touch that,” said Gunn.

The changes Walker and his GOP allies in the state legislature made to Wisconsin’s collective bargaining laws are currently on hold, while a court considers their legality.

Iowa has also experimented with charter agencies, but a 2011 report by the state auditor found that those agencies failed to deliver what they promised.

But what is most troubling to some Democratic legislators in Wisconsin is that this remaking of a government agency was originally going to be pushed through in an executive order — without any say by the legislature or any public hearings.

“If we’re playing our role as a separate branch of government correctly, we should — Democrats and Republicans alike — be questioning. How is it you can completely reform a state agency … without an act of the legislature?” asked Rep. Cory Mason (D-Racine), one of the lawmakers investigating the legality of such a move.

STRIPPING POWER FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE

The Joint Finance Committee is expected to vote Thursday on a proposal to scale back the responsibilities of the Wisconsin Secretary of State, moving its notary public and trademark duties to the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI). The Department of Administration, which is part of the governor’s office, would take on other duties.

La Follette is adamantly opposed to the proposal, telling The Huffington Post that he was not consulted at all by the governor’s office about the changes and is lobbying committee members to vote against it.

“It’s a very dumb idea,” he said. “First of all, it won’t save money, which some people claim it would. Second of all, it will make Wisconsin difficult for people to do business. The governor’s slogan is, ‘Wisconsin is open for business,’ and I’m all in favor of that. … But in 46-47 states around the country, the Secretary of State has the responsibility for trademarks and notaries, and those are two of the functions he wants to move to this obscure agency called DFI. No other state has DFI.”

GIVING THE GOVERNOR POWER TO CHOOSE THE VETERANS AFFAIRS SECRETARY

Currently, one of the main duties of the seven veterans appointed by the governor to the Board of Veterans Affairs is to choose the secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. But under a proposal being considered by the Assembly, that power would be transferred directly to the governor. The bill would also change the number and tenure of board members.

Walker has not directly taken a position on the legislation, however, he was critical of the board’s membership during his campaign.

Veterans groups are divided on the proposal. The American Legion has said allowing the governor to choose the secretary would politicize the agency, whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars has said it would “elevate this important role to a cabinet level position equal to all other agency heads where it rightfully belongs.”

But what most upsets outgoing Veterans Affairs Board member David Boetcher, who was appointed by former Democratic governor Jim Doyle, is this provision in the proposal: “Under current law, all of the members must be veterans, and at least two of the members must be Vietnam War veterans. Under the bill, all of the board members must have served on active duty, but need not have served in any particular war or conflict.”

According to Boetcher, that would bar National Guard and Reserve members from serving.

“It’s like, I guess their military service just wasn’t good enough for the governor, so he’s blocking them out,” said Boetcher, who himself was enlisted in the Wisconsin National Guard. “It’s strange, because with a lot of the benefit programs, some of the major users are National Guard and Reserve members — especially like the GI Bill. … Either way, a lot of the people served by the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs are currently in the Guard and Reserve, but they’re going to be locked out of being on the board. Which I think is very unfortunate.”

Boetcher said there’s a possibility that the Assembly, which has been adding amendments to the bill, may change the language and allow National Guard and Reserve members to continuing serving on the board. The sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Kevin Petersen (R-Waupaca), did not return a request for comment.

CONSOLIDATING MEDICAID DECISIONS

Tucked into the budget repair bill Republicans initially proposed earlier this year was a provision granting the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) sweeping authority to make changes to the state’s Medicaid program — which covers one in five residents — with virtually no public scrutiny. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the Walker administration can use “emergency” powers to allow DHS to restrict eligibility, raise premiums and change reimbursements — all moves traditionally controlled by the legislature.

Part of the reason that advocates were so alarmed at the legislation was that the man who heads DHS is Dennis Smith, someone who has advocated for states to leave the Medicaid program.

Jon Peacock, research director of the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, equated it to if President Obama gave Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius total power to rewrite Medicare policy, even though it wouldn’t save any money in the current fiscal year.

“That’s what you have here,” said Peacock. “If President Obama proposed that, there would be rallies all over the country, and we would be marching out there arm in arm with Tea Party members, protesting against it.”

The legislation that was eventually signed into law eliminated the “emergency” powers but still gave the DHS administrator broad power to write regulations through the regular rule-making process.

By: Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post Politics, May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011 Posted by | Class Warfare, Collective Bargaining, Conservatives, Consumers, Corporations, Democracy, Democrats, GOP, Gov Scott Walker, Government, Governors, Ideologues, Ideology, Lawmakers, Medicaid, Middle Class, Politics, Public Employees, Public Opinion, Regulations, Republicans, Right Wing, State Legislatures, States, Union Busting, Unions, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Republicans | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Republican “Need for Greed” Meets the Fockers

The bet was audacious from the beginning, and given the miserable, low-down tenor of contemporary politics, not unfathomable: Could you divide the country between greedy geezers and everyone else as a way to radically alter the social contract?

But in order for the Republican plan to turn Medicare, one of most popular government programs in history, into a much-diminished voucher system, the greed card had to work.

The plan’s architect, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, drew a line in the actuarial sand: Anyone born before 1957 would not be affected. They could enjoy the single-payer, socialized medical care program that has allowed millions of people to live extended lives of dignity and decent health care.

And their kids and grandkids? Sorry, they would have to take their little voucher and pay some private insurer nearly twice as much as a senior pays for basic government coverage today. In essence, Republicans would break up the population between an I’ve Got Mine segment and The Left Behinds.

Again, not a bad political calculation. Altruism is a squishy notion, hard to sustain in an election. Ryan himself has made a naked play for greed in defending the plan. “Seniors, as soon as they realize this doesn’t affect them, they are not so opposed,” he has said.

Well, the early verdict is in, and it looks as though the better angels have prevailed: seniors are opposed. Republicans: Meet the Fockers. Already, there is considerable anxiety — and some guilt — among older folks about leaving their children worse off financially than they are. To burden them with a much costlier, privatized elderly health insurance program is a lead weight for the golden years.

This plan is toast. Newt Gingrich is in deep trouble with the Republican base for stating the obvious on Sunday, when he called the signature Medicare proposal of his party “right-wing social engineering.” But that’s exactly what it is: a blueprint for downward mobility.

Look at the special Congressional election of next Tuesday. What was supposed to be a shoo-in for Republicans in a very safe district of upstate New York is now a tossup. For that, you can blame the Medicare radicals now running the House.

And a raft of recent polls show that seniors, who voted overwhelmingly Republican in the 2010 elections, are retreating in droves. Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the Ryan plan is a “watershed event,” putting older voters in play for next year’s presidential election.

Beyond the political calculations, all of this is encouraging news because it shows that people are starting to think much harder about what kind of country they want to live in. Give the Republicans credit for honesty and showing their true colors. And their plan is at least a starting point compared with those Tea Party political illiterates who waved signs urging government to keep its hands off their government health care.

When the House of Representatives voted to end Medicare as we know it last month, it was sold as a way to save the program. Medicare now covers 47.5 million Americans, but it won’t have sufficient funds to pay full benefits by 2024, according to the most recent trustee report. Something has to be done.

Many Republicans want to kill it. They hate Medicare because it represents everything they are philosophically opposed to: a government-run program that works and is popular across the political board. It’s tough to shout about the dangers of universal health care when the two greatest protectors (if not creators) of the elderly middle class are those pillars of 20th-century progressive change, Social Security and Medicare.

For next year’s election, all but a handful of Republicans in the House are stuck with the Scarlet Letter of the Ryan Plan on their record. Soon, there will be a similar vote in the Senate. It will not pass, but it will show which side of the argument politicians are on.

There is a very simple way to make Medicare whole through the end of this century, far less complicated, and more of a bargain in the long run than the bizarre Ryan plan. Raise taxes. It hasn’t sunk in yet, but most American pay less taxes now than anytime in the last 50 years, according to a number of measurements. And a majority of the public now seems willing to pay a little extra (or force somebody else to pay a little extra) to keep a good thing going. Both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush raised taxes, by the way.

Given a choice between self-interest and the greater good, voters will usually watch out for themselves — unless that greater good is their own family. For Republicans intent on killing Medicare, it was a monumental miscalculation to miss that logical leap.

By: Timothy Egan, Opinion Writer, The New York Times, May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011 Posted by | Class Warfare, Congress, Conservatives, Elections, GOP, Government, Health Care, Ideology, Lawmakers, Medicare, Middle Class, Politics, Public Opinion, Republicans, Right Wing, Seniors, Taxes, Tea Party, Voters | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Republican Supreme Court Sticks It To The Little Guy (Again)

Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air.  Like Citizens United, the recent 5-4 ruling in AT&T’s favor gutting the power of consumers to file class-action lawsuits against giant corporations tips the scales of justice against the people and renders the enormous power of corporations even more enormous.

When I first heard about the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion there was little doubt in my mind that the Gang of Five — John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would figure out a way to ignore Supreme Court precedent and again apply their judicial activism in service to the corporations, and by extension, to the oligarchy they apparently believe the “founders” intended.

It’s kind of funny when we see Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romeny, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich pandering to the “little guy” denouncing “elites” who are trampling on their rights only to remain mute on the fact that their beloved Republican Supreme Court never, ever rules in favor of the “little guy.”

The Republican president Ronald Reagan gave us Scalia and Kennedy; the Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush gave us Thomas; and the Republican president George W. Bush gave us Roberts and Alito.  This cabal has shown over and over again where its true loyalties lie, not to “the law,” not to “the Constitution,” not to “calling balls and strikes,” but to a 21st century version of corporate feudalism.  This new corporate feudalism that the High Court is determined to thrust on the nation is even more exploitative than the earlier brand of Medieval feudalism because it is absent noblesse oblige.

The serfs toiling on the corporate plantation can only continue to pay Chase and Bank of America for their underwater mortgages, ExxonMobil and Chevron for their $4 a gallon gas, and AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile and the rest for the privilege of communicating in a modern society.  And if the serfs seek redress the High Court will slap them down before they can get anything substantial off the ground.  With Citizens United placing a stranglehold of corporate power over our state, local, and federal system of elections, we cannot turn to our political “leaders” for redress, we can’t turn to the courts, and we certainly can’t turn to trying to morally persuade sociopathic non-human entities called corporations — so where does that leave us?

In the current context of unrestrained corporate dominance it’s unconscionable that the Obama administration has not done more to blunt its disastrous effects.  The Justice and Treasury Departments, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, etc. could be doing a hell of a lot more in bringing balance to the equation of corporations versus people.  The administration’s lagging performance in holding Wall Street accountable is well known, but it won’t even lift a finger to block grotesque mergers like the one between Comcast and NBC Universal, and AT&T and T Mobile.  In all these mergers and acquisitions it’s always the consumers and the employees who lose, while the CEOs and a select few of shareholders and financiers make out like the bandits they are.

Nothing illustrates the corruption rampant in Washington more than the recent resignation of Federal Communications Commission member, Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican who Obama appointed to show how “bipartisan” he can be, who is now going to work as a lavishly paid shill for the very industry she was supposedly “regulating.”  Ms. Baker will now make the big bucks serving Comcast/NBC Universal after she voted for the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal.  Sweet.   And few in the Beltway see anything unsavory about it.

Our political leaders, our Supreme Court, our captains of industry and finance, are so out of touch it’s going to be a long, long time before ordinary working people see any relief.  All of our institutions, political, economic, even religious, social, and cultural, all of them, are failing the people miserably in pursuit of the Almighty Buck.  The cunning game of appointing young ideologues to the bench has paid off handsomely for the corporate power structure.  Someone should tell those people running around in tri-cornered hats and talking about the “founders” that it might be wise to save an ounce of their collective wrath for the Republicans who have appointed five Justices who are trampling on individual freedoms in service of corporations.

By: Joseph A. Palermo, The Huffington Post, May 15, 2011

May 15, 2011 Posted by | Big Business, Businesses, Congress, Consumers, Corporations, Elections, Justice Department, Lawmakers, Politics, Regulations, Supreme Court | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »