We have known for a couple of days that the Department of Justice planned to sue North Carolina, as it has sued the state of Texas, over new voting laws. What we didn't have information on is the extent of the suit.
Here is the latest information:
"The suit, set to be filed in Greensboro,
N.C., will ask that the state be barred from enforcing the new voter-ID
law, the source said. However, the case will also go further, demanding
that the entire state of North Carolina be placed under a requirement to
have all changes to voting laws, procedures and polling places
"precleared" by either the Justice Department or a federal court, the
source added."
Good start. Now let's extend the voting rights preclearance requirement to all fifty states.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Economist Mark Thoma On Inequality And The Republican Shutdown Shakedown
In a column in the Fiscal Times, economist Mark Thoma explains the real reason for the current fight over the debt limit. He actually puts it more politely than I do, but the article explains pretty clearly what is at stake.
"We have lost something important as a society," Thoma explains, "as inequality has grown over the last several decades, our sense that we are all in this together. Social insurance is a way of sharing the risks that our economic system imposes upon us. As with other types of insurance, e.g. fire insurance, we all put our money into a common pool and the few of us unlucky enough to experience a “fire” – the loss of a job, health problems that wipe out retirement funds, disability, and so on – use the insurance to avoid financial disaster and rebuild as best we can."
One of the themes that jumps out at me from my reading of actions during World War II: American servicemen completely grasped that we were all in this together - they didn't abandon their fellow soldiers and sailors to the enemy. The order to "abandon ship" didn't mean "abandon your shipmates." It didn't mean "you're on your own." The French say "sauve qui peut," literally "save [oneself] who can" or "every man for himself." That wasn't the way of the American warrior. It is the way these days of wealthy Republicans.
"But growing inequality has allowed one strata of society to be largely free of these risks while the other is very much exposed to them." The two strata Thoma is referring to are the 1% at the top of the ladder and the other 99%. "As that has happened," Thoma goes on, "as one group in society has had fewer and fewer worries about paying for college education, has first-rate health insurance, ample funds for retirement, and little or no chance of losing a home and ending up on the street if a job suddenly disappears in a recession, support among the politically powerful elite for the risk sharing that makes social insurance work has declined."
During World War II, even the wealthy dared not violate rationing, even when they could easily afford black market prices. Nor did they dare evade the draft. It wasn't patriotic.
"Rising inequality and differential exposure to economic risk has caused one group to see themselves as the “makers” in society who provide for the rest and pay most of the bills, and the other group as “takers” who get all the benefits. The upper strata wonders, “Why should we pay for social insurance when we get little or none of the benefits?” and this leads to an attack on these programs."
I didn't miss the Republican message conveyed during last year's election. The theme was "you hard working white folks have to pay taxes to support those lazy, shiftless blacks and hispanics (all illegal immigrants)." Across the nation, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Jewish Americans and recent immigrants of all varieties got the same message: The Republican Party has become the party of White Supremacists. Indeed, both supporters and opponents of the GOP understand that "politically conservative" is another way of saying "White Supremacist."
"Even worse, this social stratification leads those at the top to begin imposing a virtue and vice story to justify their desire to stop paying the taxes needed to support social insurance programs. Those at the top did it all by themselves." ( in their own imaginations) "They “built that” through their own effort and sacrifice with no help from anyone else." Balderdash!
The American industrial planner who most clearly articulated the antidote to this nonsense was the late W. Edwards Deming. He understood that success was a result of collective rather than individual effort and particularly opposed bonuses. He described giving a manager a bonus for his organization's quarterly success as akin to rewarding the weatherman for a pleasant sunshiny day.
"Those at the bottom, on the other hand," the comfortably wealthy assert, "are essentially burning down their own houses just to collect the fire insurance, i.e. making poor choices and sponging off of social insurance programs. It’s their behavior that’s the problem," according to the Koch Brothers and their ilk, "and taking away the incentive to live off of the rest of society by constraining their ability to collect social insurance is the only way to ensure they get jobs and provide for themselves." And how did the Koch brothers provide for themselves? The old fashioned way. By choosing wealthy parents.
The people who have made poor choices in recent decades are our political leaders who dismantled very effective protections put in place eighty years ago. We are all suffering as a result.
"Of course, this is a false view of how the system operates," Thoma explains. "The wealthy would not have the opportunity to make so much money if it society didn’t provide the infrastructure, educated workforce, legal protections, and other building blocks critical for their success. And we shouldn’t forget that many of the wealthy got where they are through the privilege and advantage that comes from familial wealth rather than their own merit."
I might add that another way the super wealthy got that way is by buying politicians to change the rules by which we all live. To their advantage, of course. They have rigged the system.
"We have lost something important as a society," Thoma explains, "as inequality has grown over the last several decades, our sense that we are all in this together. Social insurance is a way of sharing the risks that our economic system imposes upon us. As with other types of insurance, e.g. fire insurance, we all put our money into a common pool and the few of us unlucky enough to experience a “fire” – the loss of a job, health problems that wipe out retirement funds, disability, and so on – use the insurance to avoid financial disaster and rebuild as best we can."
One of the themes that jumps out at me from my reading of actions during World War II: American servicemen completely grasped that we were all in this together - they didn't abandon their fellow soldiers and sailors to the enemy. The order to "abandon ship" didn't mean "abandon your shipmates." It didn't mean "you're on your own." The French say "sauve qui peut," literally "save [oneself] who can" or "every man for himself." That wasn't the way of the American warrior. It is the way these days of wealthy Republicans.
"But growing inequality has allowed one strata of society to be largely free of these risks while the other is very much exposed to them." The two strata Thoma is referring to are the 1% at the top of the ladder and the other 99%. "As that has happened," Thoma goes on, "as one group in society has had fewer and fewer worries about paying for college education, has first-rate health insurance, ample funds for retirement, and little or no chance of losing a home and ending up on the street if a job suddenly disappears in a recession, support among the politically powerful elite for the risk sharing that makes social insurance work has declined."
During World War II, even the wealthy dared not violate rationing, even when they could easily afford black market prices. Nor did they dare evade the draft. It wasn't patriotic.
"Rising inequality and differential exposure to economic risk has caused one group to see themselves as the “makers” in society who provide for the rest and pay most of the bills, and the other group as “takers” who get all the benefits. The upper strata wonders, “Why should we pay for social insurance when we get little or none of the benefits?” and this leads to an attack on these programs."
I didn't miss the Republican message conveyed during last year's election. The theme was "you hard working white folks have to pay taxes to support those lazy, shiftless blacks and hispanics (all illegal immigrants)." Across the nation, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Jewish Americans and recent immigrants of all varieties got the same message: The Republican Party has become the party of White Supremacists. Indeed, both supporters and opponents of the GOP understand that "politically conservative" is another way of saying "White Supremacist."
"Even worse, this social stratification leads those at the top to begin imposing a virtue and vice story to justify their desire to stop paying the taxes needed to support social insurance programs. Those at the top did it all by themselves." ( in their own imaginations) "They “built that” through their own effort and sacrifice with no help from anyone else." Balderdash!
The American industrial planner who most clearly articulated the antidote to this nonsense was the late W. Edwards Deming. He understood that success was a result of collective rather than individual effort and particularly opposed bonuses. He described giving a manager a bonus for his organization's quarterly success as akin to rewarding the weatherman for a pleasant sunshiny day.
"Those at the bottom, on the other hand," the comfortably wealthy assert, "are essentially burning down their own houses just to collect the fire insurance, i.e. making poor choices and sponging off of social insurance programs. It’s their behavior that’s the problem," according to the Koch Brothers and their ilk, "and taking away the incentive to live off of the rest of society by constraining their ability to collect social insurance is the only way to ensure they get jobs and provide for themselves." And how did the Koch brothers provide for themselves? The old fashioned way. By choosing wealthy parents.
The people who have made poor choices in recent decades are our political leaders who dismantled very effective protections put in place eighty years ago. We are all suffering as a result.
"Of course, this is a false view of how the system operates," Thoma explains. "The wealthy would not have the opportunity to make so much money if it society didn’t provide the infrastructure, educated workforce, legal protections, and other building blocks critical for their success. And we shouldn’t forget that many of the wealthy got where they are through the privilege and advantage that comes from familial wealth rather than their own merit."
I might add that another way the super wealthy got that way is by buying politicians to change the rules by which we all live. To their advantage, of course. They have rigged the system.
This
political dispute over the debt limit is, plainly and simply, about the
size and role of government. In particular, it’s an attempt by
Republicans to use undue fear about the debt to scale back or eliminate
spending on social insurance programs such as Medicare, Social Security,
Obamacare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. And it’s no
accident that this attack on social insurance coincides with growing
income inequality. - See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
This
political dispute over the debt limit is, plainly and simply, about the
size and role of government. In particular, it’s an attempt by
Republicans to use undue fear about the debt to scale back or eliminate
spending on social insurance programs such as Medicare, Social Security,
Obamacare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. And it’s no
accident that this attack on social insurance coincides with growing
income inequality. - See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from
the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem
until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin
increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So
finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems
to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See
more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from
the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem
until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin
increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So
finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems
to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See
more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
In
fact, the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest
estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a
debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does
finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health
care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that
already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt
problem. - See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
In
fact, the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest
estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a
debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does
finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health
care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that
already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt
problem. - See more at:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
Which Wolf Do You Feed?
There is a story, thought to be of Cherokee origin, quoted in today's New York Times. It goes like this:
A girl is troubled by a recurring dream in which two wolves fight viciously. Seeking an explanation, she goes to her grandfather, highly regarded for his wisdom, who explains that there are two forces within each of us, struggling for supremacy, one embodying peace and the other, war. At this, the girl is even more distressed, and asks her grandfather who wins. His answer: “The one you feed.”
A girl is troubled by a recurring dream in which two wolves fight viciously. Seeking an explanation, she goes to her grandfather, highly regarded for his wisdom, who explains that there are two forces within each of us, struggling for supremacy, one embodying peace and the other, war. At this, the girl is even more distressed, and asks her grandfather who wins. His answer: “The one you feed.”
Saturday, September 28, 2013
The Intentional Destruction Of Public Education
I recommend everyone concerned with public education to read Jonothan Kozol's review in the New York Times of Diane Ravitch's new book:
This Is Only a Test
‘Reign of Error,’ by Diane Ravitch
By JONATHAN KOZOL
Published: September 26, 2013
I also recommend following education issues Diane Ravitvh's blog: http://dianeravitch.net/
She also has a web site at http://dianeravitch.net/
I recently tried to recall when I first heard newspaper commentary about how our schools were failing. I can't pin it down exactly, but my best recollection is that the drumbeat of criticism began about 1970. That was when, across the South, public schools began to integrate as required by the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. [Some may recall the Supreme Court's order that this be accomplished with "all deliberate speed."] I had a few words to say about this back in June.
Across the South, White parents began removing their children from public schools to "home school" them or to enroll them in "Christian" academies.
Now, across the land, wealthy Americans are engaged in a vast struggle to destroy public schools and replace them with corporate, for profit undertakings.
One element in the attack on public schools is "Teach For America." The premise of TFA is that bright, committed college graduates can do what trained, experienced teachers cannot. In short, it is an attack on American public education. This recent article in Atlantic calls that whole enterprise into question.
What's The Health Care Fight All About?
"The Republican Party is bending its entire will, staking its very
soul, fighting to its last breath, in service of a crusade to....
Make sure that the working poor don't have access to affordable health care."
Kevin Drum
Another way to put it:
When the exchange opens, 1,346,603 uninsured and eligible North Carolinians will have access to affordable care.
Up to 95,000 young adults in North Carolina can now stay on their parent's health insurance until they're 26 years old.
People from North Carolina with Medicare saved nearly $209 million on prescription drugs because of the Affordable Care Act.
Up to 4,099,922 non-elderly North Carolinians with pre-existing conditions, including 539,092 children, can no longer be denied coverage.
And this is what Republicans are trying to take away.
By the way, this is the party that claims to be "Christian" and to reflect "family values."
Someone has to explain that to me.
Make sure that the working poor don't have access to affordable health care."
Kevin Drum
Another way to put it:
When the exchange opens, 1,346,603 uninsured and eligible North Carolinians will have access to affordable care.
Up to 95,000 young adults in North Carolina can now stay on their parent's health insurance until they're 26 years old.
People from North Carolina with Medicare saved nearly $209 million on prescription drugs because of the Affordable Care Act.
Up to 4,099,922 non-elderly North Carolinians with pre-existing conditions, including 539,092 children, can no longer be denied coverage.
And this is what Republicans are trying to take away.
By the way, this is the party that claims to be "Christian" and to reflect "family values."
Someone has to explain that to me.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Voter Suppression In New Bern
They are at it again! Today's Sun Journal highlights an e-mail campaign by the Craven County Republican Party to stir up concern over a supposed need to purge the county's voter registration rolls. The article, by reporter Sue Book, makes it clear that the e-mail is contrary to provisions of North Carolina general statutes governing elections. The restrictions of NC election law that the article describes concerning voters presumed to have moved are dictated by federal election law, namely the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Craven County election officials got it right.
It seems worth mentioning that the State Board of Elections, now dominated by its republican members, also got the law right when they overturned county actions in the case of a student who filed to run in the Elizabethtown municipal elections. Neither that county board action or the one in Boone, NC closing a precinct at Appalachian State University, relied on recent changes to state election laws.
Stand by for more of the same.
It seems worth mentioning that the State Board of Elections, now dominated by its republican members, also got the law right when they overturned county actions in the case of a student who filed to run in the Elizabethtown municipal elections. Neither that county board action or the one in Boone, NC closing a precinct at Appalachian State University, relied on recent changes to state election laws.
Stand by for more of the same.
Voter Suppression In NC: More Than Just Voter ID
Professor Dan Carter of the University of South Carolina has written a very illuminating article explaining what has happened in North Carolina in the past two legislative sessions. The article is here.
It is plain from this and other sources that the voter suppression
legislation in North Carolina is part of a national GOP scheme to
suppress voting by African Americans, college students, women, the poor,
and democratic voters in general. Carter explains clearly how this is
done.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
