Utter Hypocrisy: The tax cut spectacle

And to think there are some people who actually wonder why so many people don’t vote. As far as I’m concerned the tortuous discourse and analysis that took place recently regarding the tax cuts demonstrated just how wide the chasm is between many of the politicians in Washington and the people they are supposed to represent.

I came across an essay a while back that pointed out one of the problems with representative democracy, which is essentially what we have here in America. The author of the essay- Stephen Shalom, who teaches political science at William Paterson University in New Jersey- wrote that one of the problems with representative democracy is that “…representatives, for many reasons, don’t, in fact, represent their constituents. Representatives say one thing to get elected and then change their positions once in office. They have no real connection to the hundreds of thousands of people they represent. Their different life circumstances lead them to develop different interests from those of their constituents.”

One of the life circumstance changes that takes place is that prior to being elected the representatives say and do what they have to do to get elected, and then once elected, they say and do what they have to do to stay in office. In an article titled Obama Caves on Tax Cuts, Endorses ‘Bush-McCain Philosophy,’ Ari Berman, a contributing writer for The Nation magazine, points out:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama said over and over that he was running to “put an end to the Bush-McCain philosophy.” Campaigning in Colorado just days before the election…Obama clearly stated his opposition to Bush-era economic policies and ridiculed the idea that “we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires and hope that it trickles down on everybody else. It’s a philosophy that gives tax breaks to wealthy CEOs and to corporations that ship jobs overseas while hundreds of thousands of jobs are disappearing here at home.” 

Some argue that President Obama’s compromise on the tax cuts could turn out to be political suicide while some argue that the compromise could turn out to be political salvation. Political realties change, sometimes overnight. What doesn’t appear to change so quickly is the powerlessness of the electorate to affect real change. There’s a difference between having the power to put people in and out of office and the power to truly influence policy. 

In a representative democracy the ideal is to influence policy through the folks that we send to Washington or our state capitols to represent us. One of the most disturbing viewpoints that came out of all of the analysis that was taking place was presented by Mr. Berman when he wrote:

Obama and Congressional Democrats bungled the tax debate from the start, even though it was clearly a winning issue for the president and his party. Even though everyone knew the Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of this year, Democrats failed to develop an overall strategy for this issue last summer or force a vote in the Congress before the election…Democrats refused to put the GOP on the spot or talk about the tax cuts during the campaign, blurring what should have been a core distinction between the parties; Democrats for the middle class, Republicans for the rich. 

This assessment was echoed in a New York Times editorial, dated 12/8/10:

By temporarily extending income tax breaks for the richest Americans, and cutting estate taxes for the ultrawealthy, the deal will redistribute billions of dollars from job creation to people who do not need the money. But the Democrats should vote for this deal, because it is the only one they are going to get. The president, and particularly Congressional Democrats, might not be in this bind if they had fought harder against the high-end tax cuts before the midterm elections.

In other words, according to these assessments, the Americans that President Obama said were being held hostage by the Republicans were in that predicament because he and the Congressional Democrats allowed them to be taken as hostages, which begs the question: How thin is the line between compromise and hypocrisy?

A tale of two economies

“I’m sick and tired of people going to congress in Washington D.C. and making a living out of it while we starve to death.”

Those words were spoken by a resident of Newton Iowa during a segment of CBS’s 60 Minutes titled “Anger in the Land,” which aired on October 31, just days before the 2010 mid-term elections. The words were simple yet as savage as a sledgehammer striking at the foundation of the frustration shared by citizens across the land.

Newton is one of the small towns in America that has been decimated during the Great Recession. The 60 Minutes segment was devoted to capturing the mood in the country just before the elections that would be taking place in the midst of unrelenting economic hardship. A CBS/New York Times poll was cited that revealed that 80 percent of the people polled said they want most incumbents out of Congress regardless of whether that incumbent is a Democrat or Republican.

Though understandable, much can be said about the unsophisticated and suicidal aspects of this sentiment, which speaks to just how deep in the dark the majority of Americans are as it regards the jigsaw puzzle that is governance in this country. But in fairness to those of us who are languishing in the darkness, it’s extremely difficult to connect the pieces when we’re disconnected from the process. Note this exchange that took place during the 60 Minutes segment:

“What’s surprised you the most about this recession?” correspondent Scott Pelley asked business owner David McNeer.

“I think the depth of it, and the length of it. I think what surprised me the most about this one is it doesn’t wanna end,” he replied.

“You know, the economists say that the recession’s over,” Pelley pointed out.

“Really? They should come to Newton, Iowa,” McNeer replied.

But of course they won’t be coming to Newton because the people in Newton really don’t matter. They are no more a part of the economic recovery process that truly matters than they are a part of the political empowerment process that truly matters. And that goes for the majority of us living in America.

Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor under President Clinton, put it this way in a recent article:

There are two American economies. One is on the mend. The other is still coming apart.

The one that’s mending is America’s Big Money economy. It’s composed of Wall Street traders, big investors, and top professionals and corporate executives.

But there’s another American economy, and it’s not on the mend. Call it the Average Worker economy.

Simply put: There’s the American economy that matters to the folks that matter in Washington D.C. That’s the economy that’s composed of those that have the wealth and power to shape policy to their advantage. They are the ones that, for example, rule Wall Street and were able to contribute 15 million dollars to presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign and have the monetary muscle to lobby against any meaningful legislation to regulate the Wall Street investment banks “whose missteps caused a global financial crisis and economic slowdown two years ago,” as pointed out in an article that appeared in Bloomberg.com the other day. These are the people responsible for the economic catastrophe that has produced the suffering that is taking place in Newton IA and throughout the country and the world. 

Then there’s the Average Worker economy. The majority of us are plugged into the one that doesn’t really matter. Well, at least at the moment that’s the case. I’ll simply close with the ominous warning that Mr. Reich issued at the end of his article:

“…if nothing changes in the Average Worker economy, there will be hell to pay.”

Money in Politics: The High Price of Democracy

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.  ~Oscar Ameringer

After witnessing the 2010 mid-term campaigns I seriously doubt that any sane observer would describe politics as a “gentle art.” And according to a recent article in the Washington Post, getting votes from the poor these days is an art form that has gone the way of participatory democracy in this country.

In the Post article Deborah Weinstein, executive director of the Coalition on Human Needs, an alliance of national organizations that advocates for the poor, commented on the reluctance on Capitol Hill to address the issue of poverty in this country, which she says is “a national emergency.” 

Weinstein noted that there are people in Washington who realize that “…poverty is important and is a blight on our nation.” She goes on to say, “But we are also up against a general recognition that poor people don’t vote in great numbers. And they certainly aren’t going to be making campaign contributions. That definitely puts them behind many other people and interests when decisions are being made around here.”

Which leads me to the video clip featuring Robert Kaiser, who coincidently is associate editor and senior correspondent of the Washington Post. Mr. Kaiser was on tour, promoting his book titled So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and The Corrosion of American Government.

During his talk Mr. Kaiser makes several points that pretty much echo what Ms. Weinstein said as it concerns the lack of representation for the poor on Capitol Hill. But there was one particular point that he made which was staggering in its summation of just how much of a factor money has become in politics. Kaiser said that in 1974 the average winning Senate campaign cost $450,000. In 2008 the average cost of a winning Senate campaign had risen to approximately $10,000,000.

What that suggests to me is that not only the poor, but every other economic class except for the wealthy has pretty much been priced out of what we have been made to believe is the premier model of democracy in the world and it’s a price tag that both major political parties are responsible for attaching to the system of government that impacts our lives from the cradle to the grave. It’s no wonder that we have the level of disillusionment and rage that we have among the electorate in this country…

Infected by the talking points puppets

As I watched Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Republican Representative Eric Cantor being interviewed on MSNBC last night I got the feeling that I was watching a really bad “B” horror movie, the type that comes on well after midnight when most people are asleep.

These two politicians’ robotic repetition of  inane and unconscionable talking points were such an affront to human intelligence that at one point, while he was interviewing Ms. Bachmann, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was compelled to ask her “Are you hypnotized?” I suppose that he couldn’t ask her if she was high. Of course the video of that exchange has gone viral.

But that’s not the only thing that has gone viral. The Matthews/Bachmann spectacle is indicative of what the political discourse in this country has degenerated to.  Though last night’s results were by and large typical by mid-term election standards, it’s obvious that the contagion of regurgitated rhetoric was prevalent enough to instigate a power shift in Washington that will more than likely result in gridlock over the next two years.

So, in all likelihood the mangled mindset that is illustrated in the “Hi, I’m a Tea Partier” video will play a major role in paralyzing the government of the United States, negatively impacting millions of citizens. Need I say more?

The Real Story of the 2010 Election

For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and they that are lead of them are destroyed.

Isaiah 9:16

I believe that it’s safe to say that if the absence of knowledge can lead to destruction, then the absence of truth almost assures it. The video pretty much speaks for itself; but I also want to share a newsletter that I received from Media Matters on Oct. 29, 2010, which I believe will provide relevant narration for the video.

The focus of the newsletter is Fox News and its “…massive influence over the coming elections…” It’s a scathing indictment which takes the position that the emergence of Fox News upon the national consciousness is “…perhaps the most significant development in the country’s political landscape over the past two years.”

And it’s hard to argue with that point, when you consider the present climate in this country and the fact that Fox News has the power to influence millions of citizens “…with shameless smears, lies, misrepresentations, and fabricated stories.” The danger underlying this development goes far deeper than the violation of journalistic ethics.

When you have blatant hatred and bigotry being openly and freely expressed under the guise of objective reporting and malignant messages that are reaching the hearts and minds of millions who, for whatever reason, are receptive to those messages, to simply dismiss all of it as the behavior of a bunch of buffoons and clowns would be error of the highest magnitude.

For those of us who truly cherish the freedoms that we enjoy in this country, that’s a level of error that we cannot afford to engage in…

Media Matters: The real story of the 2010 election By most accounts, the Democrats stand to lose seats in both the House and Senate this coming Tuesday. There are, of course, a wide range of explanations for why this is the case.However, in endeavoring to explain how the GOP has seemingly managed to reverse its political fortunes in such a short amount of time, media outlets would be remiss not to mention one of the most important factors. In fact, we don’t need to wait for Tuesday’s results to pinpoint perhaps the most significant development in the country’s political landscape over the past two years.One of the two major political parties in the country is run by a “news” network.Since President Obama’s inauguration, Fox News has transformed from simply the mouthpiece and oppo research shop of the Republican Party into its headquarters. For the GOP, Fox fundraises, campaigns, gives strategic advice, picks candidates (and then provides them a comfortable platform to reach millions of voters, free of charge), throws and promotes rallies, gets out the vote, and, perhaps most importantly, sets the narrative.They do all of this while continuing their time-honored tradition of tearing down liberal initiatives and politicians with shameless smears, lies, misrepresentations, and fabricated stories. But before we get to Fox’s massive influence over the coming elections, some back-story is necessary. Less than two months after Obama’s inauguration, Fox News senior vice president Bill Shine gave an interview with NPR about how the network’s ratings were soaring at the time. During the interview, Shine noted that some people were “rooting for [Fox] to go away” after the election, but “[w]ith this particular group of people in power right now and the honeymoon they’ve had from other members of the media, does it make it a little bit easier for us to be the voice of opposition on some issues?” Fox’s programming has effectively answered Shine’s rhetorical question with a forceful “yes.” Right out of the gate, Fox led the charge against the stimulus, eschewing the views of economists to attack deficit spending and rewriting history to attack FDR and the New Deal. The network was certainly “the voice of the opposition” on health care reform, spewing countless falsehoods about both our broken health care system and the proposals to fix it while promoting disruptions of health care town halls and GOP initiatives to kill reform. And of course, Fox operates as a perpetual dishonesty machine, trotting out a steady stream of overhyped scandals and faux-outrages to dent the administration and Democrats (mustard on Obama’s “fancy” hamburger, anyone?) The network was integral to fostering discontent with Democrats and the administration through their relentless promotion of the Tea Party movement. Fox gave the Tea Party a huge assist last year in the run-up to the original protests, which Fox took ownership of by sending several of their top hosts to throw “FNC Tax Day Tea Parties.” Since then, Fox has shown that there is no Tea Party gathering too small to treat as a news event, and their personalities continue to regularly appear at Tea Party events around the country. But Fox has done far more this cycle than foster an environment conducive to a GOP electoral victory, having assumed a more hands-on role in Republican electioneering. In addition to Fox’s parent company donating $1.25 million to the Republican Governors Association and another million to the GOP-aligned Chamber of Commerce, more than thirty Fox Newsers have supported GOP candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances in at least 47 states, as we detailed in a report this week. While it would be nearly impossible to run through Fox’s influence in all of the individual races this year, their “coverage” of a select few races is indicative of the network’s complete transformation into GOP headquarters. The network tipped its hand for how it would handle covering elections in the “voice of the opposition” era during the run-up to January’s senate election in Massachusetts. Not only did Fox portray Scott Brown as a heroic Founding Father-like figure while smearing his opponent, it also actively aided Brown’s campaign by hosting him repeatedly in the days leading up the election and allowing him to direct viewers to his website so they could find out how to “help with donating and volunteering.” After Brown’s victory, the network was jubilant.   With the successful trial run out of the way, Fox copied the Brown blueprint in several other races around the country. In the Nevada Senate race, Fox has spent months promoting Sharron Angle and attacking Harry Reid. While Angle has mostly refused to grant interviews to news outlets, she has made an exception for Fox. In fact, their welcoming atmosphere led Angle to brag about how “friendly” outlets like Fox help her with fundraising. Fox personalities have also worked overtime to aid her race. Fox contributor Sarah Palin endorsed Angle and her PAC gave $2,500 to the campaign. Fox contributor Karl Rove’s GOP slush fund (aka American Crossroads) has indicated it will invest in GOTV efforts to aid Angle. It is also aired an ad targeting Reid. Fox’s Dennis Miller appeared at an October fundraiser for Angle. And then there’s Dick Morris. Fox’s human ethics scandal has repeatedly fundraised on Angle’s behalf while also touting on-air the anti-Harry Reid group that he’s advising. And as Election Day rapidly approaches, Fox kicked off this week by launching an evidence-free smear of Reid. After Reid’s office responded to Fox’s desperate attempts to create a new “political scandal,” Fox’s flagship news program, Special Report, deceptively quoted a statement from Reid’s office in order to continue to push the story.  And, just in case their blatant efforts to get Angle elected fail, Fox already has their backup plan in place. This week, Fox News has been hyping comically flimsy allegations of “voter fraud” in Nevada. As top Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston explained to a confused Bill Hemmer, the fraud allegations are merely a “preemptive” strike so the GOP can “cry fraud” in the event Angle loses. But a candidate doesn’t even need to be in a close race in order to receive the benefits of FoxPAC support. In Delaware, Fox News has thrown their full weight behind Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, Karl Rove’s short-lived detour questioning O’Donnell’s qualifications for office notwithstanding. Rove quickly got with the program and endorsed O’Donnell. He was joined by fellow Fox personalities Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin. The network’s hosts have heaped praise on O’Donnell while playing dumb in order to claim her opponent has admitted to being a “bearded Marxist.” While it would be difficult to list all of the effusive O’Donnell praise, one characteristic outpouring of affection came from Fox Business host Stuart Varney, who labeled her precisely the kind of “new face, new blood that we need to get in there.” Following in Angle’s footsteps by bragging about the love she gets from Fox, Christine O’Donnell told GOP insiders at a strategy meeting that she has “got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys.” A host who was concerned about maintaining any credibility may have bristled at being portrayed this way, but Sean Hannity has long-since demonstrated his lack of concern for ethics. Far from being upset, Hannity is still welcoming O’Donnell on his show. The Ohio gubernatorial race features Republican candidate John Kasich, who just so happens to be a former Fox News host. Kasich repeatedly used his platform as a Fox host to position himself for a run, and continued to appear regularly as a Fox contributor and host from the time he announced that he was paving the way for a gubernatorial run in March 2008 until he officially declared his candidacy on June 1, 2009. Since declaring his candidacy, Kasich has continued to reap benefits from his cozy relationship with the network. Several Fox News personalities campaigned for him and openly root for him. Two Fox hosts – Glenn Beck and Mike Huckabee — have told Kasich that they “love” him. Hannity has appeared at a fundraiser for Kasich, invited Kasich onto his show to plug his website, and reportedly “pledged to give $10,000 to Kasich’s campaign should he run, as well as have his wife give another $10,000.” Rupert Murdoch and his wife also donated $10,000 each to Kasich, and Murdoch initially explained News Corp.’s donation to the RGA as resulting from his “friendship” with Kasich. After Kasich’s opponent (accurately) criticized Fox as a “propaganda network” that is “committed to getting Republicans elected,” Bill O’Reilly responded by attacking him for “whining.” Those are just three races. I haven’t even detailed Fox’s love for “rock star” Marco Rubio, or the fact that Glenn Beck (along with the rest of the network) has transformed his show into a GOTV operation for the GOP. So when reporters sit down to explain the results of next Tuesday’s election, it’s important that they include the role of Fox News in shaping the outcome. And if you think the last few months were bad, just wait until Tuesday’s election wraps up and attention shifts to 2012 and the GOP’s presidential primary. Fox currently employs no fewer than five potential contenders for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, and things could get awkward as they try to figure out which of their friends they want to help elect. It looks like FoxPAC is just getting started. This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Ben Dimiero, a research fellow at Media Matters for America.