If you cannot read this file please go to www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org/eNewsletter17.htm

 

Wisconsin Clean Elections Coalition

Promoting fair elections for all parties and candidates

eNewsletter #17

July 3, 2006

 www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org

 

Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently and for the same reason.

 

Okay, so it was a slow news day and you're stuck with some of my rantings.

 

In this issue:

1) A new 'center' party? 

2) Line Item Veto, Do we really want it?

3) Kaufert and the Kerry Defense

4) Tidbits

5) Internet Neutrality 

6) David Sirota and the Wall Street Journal 

7) Book recommendations

8)  Contact Information

9)  Removal instructions
.

This is a periodic newsletter on election and health care reform. If you wish not to receive it please unsubscribe at the bottom and accept my apologies for the intrusion. Please do not respond to this email address. It is used for cleanup purposes only. Please use jelohman@gmail.com

 

1

A new 'center' party?  
Let's hope so. Get behind it today!

www.Unity08.com is an excellent opportunity to clean up the system. I was particularly impressed with this article and the reader comments.

A Chance to Refocus Politics

posted by Michael Turk on June 20, 2006 - 7:26pm
 
Michael TurkI’m a Republican. For the vast majority of my adult life, I have fought for Republican principles – small, effective government, personal freedom, and strong national security. I spent the last 12 years working in Republican politics helping candidates at every level get elected. I’ve worked on two presidential campaigns; one successful, one unsuccessful. In all that time, I have never questioned my commitment to my party, but lately I question my party’s commitment to its own ideals.

Don't miss the complete article at http://www.unity08.com/node/146

_________________________________________

Submitted, not yet published.

By Jack Lohman

Finally, a “center” party!  

Populated with disenchanted Republicans, Democrats and independents, Unity08.com promises to make badly needed changes at the top. To be successful it must accomplish two critical changes. It can be done and the American people will do it.

First we must work to throw the current regime out of office. Whether they are Republicans or Democrats, 80% of them are at least inept or worse, corrupt, and they must be “term limited” by the voters in November. The public must support challengers who will reform the political system from top to bottom. Where qualified challengers do not exist we must field good candidates. Without proving our electoral clout we will get nowhere with a government that is owned and operated by Corporate America rather than the voters.

Secondly, we must eliminate the corrupt moneyed political system. Totally! The current system virtually demands that politicians take private money and give away taxpayer assets in return. There are only two types of money, public and private, and politicians have thus far refused to implement full public funding of campaigns. Why? Because they like things just as they are, with re-election rates of greater than 90% and lobbyist-paid trips to every corner of the earth. That they must give away over $300 billion in taxpayer assets to stay in office does not bother them.

That’s a real cost of over $3000 per taxpayer per year that must offset government giveaways so politicians can get re-elected! I’m not happy with that; are you?

Today’s politicians, from both political parties, are hopelessly addicted to the moneyed political system. It simply doesn’t matter what your issue, follow the money and you’ll find a politician at the other end with his hand out. Connect the dots and you’ll see that special interest money has fueled the tax shift from the wealthy to the middle class, has helped block efforts to stop illegal immigration, has helped to maintain a health care system whose costs are growing at 15% a year and consuming even more of the GDP, has prompted a government giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry and, although not lastly, has created a government hands-off policy as companies pollute our air and waters and the petroleum industry eliminates its competition by merging, thus driving gas prices and profits through the roof.

That’s not a good deal for those of us without the funds to bribe our congressmen, yet our congressmen seem not at all worried about the health of the country as long as the moneyed interests keep them in office.

I could accept the writing of even bad laws if I knew that political money wasn’t changing hands in the process. If I had an employee giving away company assets while taking bribes on the side, I’d have him jailed. But we Americans are not very bright. When politicians do this we just re-elect them and don’t even question their allegiances.

In Mexico, Italy or any other country, we’d call our political system corrupt. In America our politicians choose to call it freedom of speech. However, speech is not free when only the wealthy can afford it.

But if we eliminate the privatized electoral system we must replace it with full public funding of campaigns. Ouch, you say? At the federal level that cost would average $10 per taxpayer per year to fund all elections. That’d be a bargain at 200 times the price, but only then can we expect to see taxes lowered and budgets balanced.

Both the taxpayer costs and savings are half that at the state level, as Arizona and Maine have successfully demonstrated. In these states 55-78% of their politicians have rejected private money, and each state has increased voter turnout by over 10% (see www.azclean.org). What’s not to like about that? Ask their voters. Both systems were passed by voter initiative over the objections of the politicians who, incidentally, now embrace the Clean Money system. It turns out to be a lot more fun when you’re clean.

So support the challengers regardless of party. We need new blood, and that means replacing the old blood. Remember the old saying: “Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed frequently and for the same reason.” See how your representative stacks up at www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org.

 

2

Line Item Veto
Be careful of what you ask for... You just may get it!

 

(Submitted, will publish shortly)

US Rep. Paul Ryan introduced and the House passed HR 4890, a bill to allow the president to line item veto. Ryan’s heart seemed in the right place, but he forgot that when you push the balloon in one spot it pops up in another.

Follow the dominoes and you’ll see that the campaign bribes that went to congressmen to get the pork inserted in the first place, will just be duplicated for the president so the pork is not vetoed when signed. Unless, of course, you are already a political briber of the right persuasion, then it’s a shoo-in.

They say things will have to get much worse before they get better, and the line item veto will clearly make things much worse. It will give voters the false sense that things are being fixed when it is just increasing the cash flow in an already corrupt political system. It is a misconception that ‘bad’ things will get vetoed and ‘good’ things left in. It will be just the opposite. As well, the line item veto gives the president and governors far too much power and violates the separation of powers doctrine.

No, the real answer is to get the private money entirely out of the political system, and that can only be done with full public funding of campaigns. Where was Paul Ryan when US Rep John Tierney (D-MA) needed support for his Clean Money elections bill in the 108th Congress? Probably out raising cash for his re-election.

Congressmen seem not very bright when it comes to math. For $10 per taxpayer per year we could fully fund the federal elections and eliminate the bribery that fuels the annual $300 billion of congressional giveaways to campaign contributors. That’s over $3000 per taxpayer per year, so a $10 investment would be a bargain at 100 times the price. 

Or maybe they’re too smart. The current moneyed campaign system ensures politicians a 95% chance of re-election, and they thus like things just as they are. That they must give away $300 billion of taxpayer assets to achieve re-election seems not to bother them.

If I had an employee giving away company assets while taking bribes on the side, I’d have him jailed. We Americans are not very smart. When politicians do this we re-elect them and we don’t even question their allegiances.

We have similar corruption problems at the state level. After six state legislators have gone through various stages of being convicted or serving time in jail or federal prison, our Republican-led legislature still doesn’t get it. They have refused to let campaign reform move forward and even voted down a very sensible ethics reform bill that would have provided the beginnings of a clean political system. Had these simple rules been implemented five years ago, the six politicians would likely be enjoying the outside world and the balance would not have their heads on the chopping block. And these are the people running our state?

There is an old saying that seems appropriate here: “Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently and for the same reason.” For that reason we’ve developed a new web site to both help challengers and force incumbents to defend their records. Let’s see if they can.

Jack E. Lohman
Founder
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org

 

In Wisconsin we saw Governor Doyle veto 95% of the words in a bill while the remaining words skillfully transferred funding from road construction to schools. I'm happy with (that) result, but I am appalled by the tactic. This is a terrible abuse of power, violates the separation of powers doctrine and goes against the will of the people who voted their representatives into office (though a solid argument could be made that such violations also occur when moneyed interests warp legislative outcomes).

No, the real solution is to get private money out of the public electoral system altogether, and then the legislature will do the right thing in the first place.

Other excellent resource on the Line Item Veto: Center on Budget and Policy Policies

 

3

Kaufert and the Kerry defense

Ethics reform dance embarrasses Kaufert
(Appleton Post Crescent, June 24, 2006)

Give me a break. So now state Rep. Dean Kaufert, in his June 15 guest column, is invoking the Kerry Defense: First he supported the Senate Ethics Bill (SB1) before he voted against it? He should be ashamed of his role in this travesty, not writing an editorial covering up the truth of it.

Kaufert's was one of 51 votes that prevented SB1 from coming to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Republican John Gard had refused to move it forward and Kaufert backed him on it, even though his vote was totally against good government and totally against the best interests of his constituents. The Democrats had no choice but to force the issue.

Let's face it. Virtually all Republicans and a handful of Democrats do not want an independent ethics board. They much prefer one that they can control though funding. The kind of board, incidentally, that gave Scott Jensen the thumbs up to accept a simultaneous second job receiving $114,000 per year working part-time for a lobbying group.

That's the kind of ethics committee Kaufert supported and he should be honest with the voters and 'fess up.

With several state politicians in various stages of serving time in work release, jail or federal prison, just what is it that Republicans don't understand about ethics and campaign reform?

Jack Lohman, director, ThrowTheRascalsOut.org, Colgate

Source: http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060624/APC0601/606240568/1036/APCopinion
 

 

4

Tidbits

See What's New at ThrowTheRascalsOut.org

What's new is a page called Other Reforms. Please check it out and give me your feedback. I'm interested in all sides of the arguments.

Better late than never, this decision against federal whistleblowers is disturbing. In essence the Supreme Court has said that government employee's responsibility to their employer overrides both their conscience and obligation to society and the people of the United States. Tie-breaking vote by newly appointed Judge Samuel Alito.

 

From Citizens for Tax Justice: House of Representatives Approves Proposal to Gut the Estate Tax The House of Representatives approved a bill Thursday slashing the federal estate tax by over $60 billion a year. Touted by Ways and Mean Chairman Bill Thomas as a "compromise" between conservatives who want to fully and permanently repeal the tax and those concerned about the fiscal implications, the proposal would cost 75 percent as much as full repeal according to figures from the Joint Committee on Taxation. The House had earlier approved legislation to permanently repeal the estate tax but Republican leaders in the Senate failed on June 8 to garner the 60 votes necessary to consider that bill. State factsheets released by CTJ earlier this month showed that only those inheriting the very largest estates (less than one percent of estates) can possibly benefit from this costly proposal.

From FollowTheMoney.org. Who is running the state? Click on the chart to find out. It's not a pretty sight.

 

From Democracy 21: Democracy 21 strongly endorses the legislation introduced in the Senate by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) and in the House by Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) to replace the Federal Election Commission (FEC) with a new agency to enforce the nation's campaign finance laws. The bill was introduced last Thursday.

Drug Wars: No, this one is where normal people are getting ripped off by the drug industry. Read this from TruthOut.org and the New York Times article about Drug Industry gifts. And this from Online Journal. Think there's no connection to over-prescribing? Or getting FDA approval on bad drugs?

THE 100 WORST CORPORATE CITIZENS: Phil Mattera, Corporate Research Project There's no point in rewarding companies that play pick and choose when it comes to business ethics. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/37824/

 

 

5

Internet Neutrality
From CapitalEye.org

Debate Over Internet Equality Is Hardly Neutral

Senators take up the network neutrality issue, which pits entrenched telecom interests against the Internet’s newcomers.

June 23, 2006 | The Senate is now considering legislation that would ensure the Internet remains based on a principle of equal and open connectivity. Opponents of so-called network neutrality legislation have contributed to senators’ campaigns and political action committees more than three times as much money as the legislation’s proponents. That disparity may have helped sink a similar provision earlier this month in the House of Representatives.

See complete article at: http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=221

But like all issues, follow the money and you, too, can predict the winner.

 

 

6

WSJ Report

 

WSJ: Report Proves Exec Payouts At Root Of America's Pension Crisis

By David Sirota

In Hostile Takeover, I note that the Wall Street Journal's Ellen Schultz is, arguably, the best journalist working today. And in the last week (stories attached), she has produced some of the most important reporting in the last few years, singlehandedly blowing away all the rhetoric about what's destroying America's pension system that's coming from Corporate America and their bought off cronies in government.

The public is led to believe that companies are slashing workers' pensions and backing out of their retirement promises to workers because these companies face a cash squeeze caused by the market. But in a major investigative report (attached), Schultz points out that an "analysis of corporate filings reveals that executive benefits are playing a large and hidden role in the declining health of America's pensions." The key findings are stunning:
 
- Boosted by surging pay and rich formulas, executive pension obligations exceed $1 billion at some companies. Besides GM, they include General Electric Co. (a $3.5 billion liability); AT&T Inc. ($1.8 billion); Exxon Mobil Corp. and International Business Machines Corp. (about $1.3 billion each); and Bank of America Corp. and Pfizer Inc. (about $1.1 billion apiece). 

- Benefits for executives now account for a significant share of pension obligations in the U.S., an average of 8% at the companies above. Sometimes a company's obligation for a single executive's pension approaches $100 million. 

- These liabilities are largely hidden, because corporations don't distinguish them from overall pension obligations in their federal financial filings. 

- As a result, the savings that companies make by curtailing pensions for regular retirees -- which have totaled billions of dollars in recent years -- can mask a rising cost of benefits for executives. 

- Executive pensions, even when they won't be paid till years from now, drag down earnings today. And they do so in a way that's disproportionate to their size, because they aren't funded with dedicated assets.

See the complete reports here (but you best have a beer first): http://www.throwtherascalsout.org/Sirota_WSJReport.htm

 

7

Book Recommendations

 Read the reviews at Amazon.com

Shakedown: How the Government Screws You from A to Z
by James Bovard (ISBN: 0140258191)


This from a reader: I read this book for a government project. It gives ironic stories of government mess-ups. The government has put itself in between a rock and a hard place when it comes to certain acts and laws. Such self-entrapments are: doctors that sue for losing their jobs because they have hepatitis and under the laws, they have the right to claim disability. This book is a quick read and does not seem to give very many sources. (The title says it all. I've read it and liked it.)

 

 

8
Contact information

Lohman is a retired business owner in Colgate WI and volunteers’ time on the issues of Election reform and Universal health care -

Contact: Jack E. Lohman
jelohman@gmail.com or jelohman@charter.net
Phone 414-477-8686 (cell)
www.WiCleanElections.org
www.wi-cfr.org (old but has some resources)
www.SmokeFreeDining.net

 

9
Removal Instructions

To leave the list, send a blank email to jelohman@gmail.com with “Remove eNewsletter” in the subject line

To subscribe, send a blank email to jelohman@gmail.com with “Subscribe eNewsletter” in the subject line

The system is automatic and you must send from the email address you want added or removed.

If removed successfully you should receive a confirmation. If it fails please notify me directly at jelohman@gmail.com