For an HTML version of this please go to www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org/eNewsletter78.htm
The links will not show up in the text version. If your html is off, you are missing a lot (colors, bolding, links, highlights, etc.). Under every word "HERE" there is a link to the corresponding article, but either HTML must be on or you must go to the above page to see it.

Bimonthly on election and health care reform. Unsubscribe instructions at the bottom.

Unsubscribes: My computer crashed and I reverted to an old database. If you unsubscribed, may I ask your indulgence to do it once more? Sorry.

 

eNewsletter #78

September 29, 2008

 www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org

Newsletter Archives

 

I GOT IT!!!    We need another tax break for the wealthy! It worked great the first time, it has to work even better now.

.

In this issue:

1) Health Care

2) Campaign Reform

3) Politicians

4) Instant Runoff Voting

5) Tidbits

6) Give me a Break!

7) Book Recommendations

8) Contact Information

9) Unsubscribe Instructions

.

 

1

Health Care

 

2

Campaign Reform

Voter Reforms, boring but necessary

By Jack E. Lohman

We wonder why the current crop of politicians keep getting re-elected, even when they fail to put the public interest first.

There's a reason. The deck is stacked against newcomers.

The battle between Jim Burkee and Jim Sensenbrenner, two Republicans, is just one example. Sensenbrenner won 78% of the vote even though he has voted against the public's best interest on numerous occasions. But he has mastered the skill of making people believe him even when he's insincere, and the taxpayer-funded mailing privileges and free townhall meetings certainly haven't hurt his cause.

But would he survive the following two reforms?

  1. We need a "None of the Above" option in the polling booth. If NOTA wins the race, a new election must be held for that district with all new candidates. This is the only way voters can affect a complete turnover in a district, even if there is only one candidate the majority does not support. Conflicted incumbents will not survive such a vote (see nota.org)
                
  2. We need Independent Redistricting. Redistricting is now controlled by the two major parties to the detriment of third-party challengers. This allows politicians to stack the deck by selecting the voters rather than the other way around. In a carefully crafted conspiracy they jury-rig the districts to have mostly Republicans or mostly Democrats, which essentially locks out challengers, helps preserve incumbents' 95% re-election rate, and reduces the (badly needed) political turnover.

I don't like term limits, though they are sometimes good but too often are bad. Yes, guys like US Rep Robert Byrd would be (and should be) forced out, but so would have been former Senator Bill Proxmire who spent a total of $500 on his last two elections and was beholden only to the voters. 

 

As well, with term limits, politicians always face a "last term" where they cannot be reelected and are not accountable to the electorate. They also give the unelected legislative staff too much influence, which is not a good deal at all.

 

Nor do I like the line item veto that gives the governor or president and party greater access to campaign cash. It also circumvents the balance of power that works to the benefit of voters.

The biggest reform would be getting private cash out of our public electoral system with public funding of campaigns, and maybe we should have term limits until that happens. We can start that process in November!  :-)

Illinois: Ethics law on the books

Senate joins House in passing bill that limits political donations 

Ending months of political gamesmanship, state lawmakers put into law Monday their attempt at ethics reform through limits on political donations by government contractors.

The Senate voted 55-0 for the original version of House Bill 824, which bars people with contracts worth $50,000 or more from giving political donations to state officeholders who dole out the business. The House already backed that measure, so it’s now law.

Lawmakers and reform advocates who had pushed for the crackdown on “pay-to-play” politics breathed a big sigh of relief after a competing proposal by Gov. Rod Blagojevich had threatened to derail their measure.

See the complete article HERE

 

Wall Street Shake-up Connects to Washington Through Contributions, Personal Investments

Wall Street's grim news this week has plenty of people worried about their pocketbooks. Lawmakers are among them, not only concerned with how to boost the economy but with their own personal finances tied to companies that are struggling. They may also be worried that the campaign contributions these companies have showered on them for many years will dry up. » Read More

Bundlers for McCain, Obama Are Among Wall Street's Tumblers
How did Wall Street's largest firms also become some of the largest donors to John McCain and Barack Obama's presidential campaigns? Take a look at the candidates' rosters of bundlers on OpenSecrets.org, and it becomes clear. McCain's list includes at least 69 individuals who, according to his campaign, have raised a total of at least $11.4 million for his campaign. That makes the struggling investment industry his top source of bundlers. The securities and investment industry is Obama's second-largest source of bundlers, after lawyers, and at least 56 individuals have raised at least $8.9 million for his campaign. Obama's list gives the appearance that he has not leaned so heavily on Wall Street, although since his campaign has ignored repeated requests from the Center for Responsive Politics and other watchdog groups to disclose his bundlers' employers and occupations, these figures are probably undercounts. 

Read More

 

 

 

3

Politicians

You can see Sarah Palin’s earmark requests at: http://stevens.senate.gov/earmarks/Approps-StateofAlaska.pdf

Here are the official results of the Wisconsin state primary

Here's Mr. Fair-Weather fiscal hawk at it again, voting against spending bills when his vote doesn't count.

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the Highway Trust Fund balance

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to the S
09/11/2008
House Roll Call No. 587
110th Congress, 2nd Session

 Passed: 376-29 (see complete tally)
 

How the U.S. House from Wisconsin voted:

voted

   • Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-2)

Y

   • Rep. Steve Kagen (D-8)

Y

   • Rep. Ron Kind (D-3)

Y

   • Rep. Gwen Moore (D-4)

Y

   • Rep. David Obey (D-7)

Y

   • Rep. Thomas Petri (R-6)

Y

   • Rep. Paul Ryan (R-1)

N

   • Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-5)

N

 

Wall Street crisis is culmination of 28 years of deregulation

WASHINGTON — No one cog in the federal government's machine of financial regulation let down the country by failing to prevent the latest shakeout on Wall Street. The entire system did.

"They just haven't done a particularly good job," said James Barth, a senior finance fellow at the Milken Institute, a nonpartisan research group based in Los Angeles.

Kathleen Day, a spokeswoman for the Center for Responsible Lending, a consumer-oriented research group, explained the regulatory lapses more starkly: "The job of regulators is that when the party's in full swing, make sure the partygoers drink responsibly," she said. "Instead, they let everyone drink as much as they wanted and then handed them the car keys."

Analysts and politicians are raising serious questions about the nation's financial regulatory system, which dates to the New Deal era.

See the complete article HERE

Of course. Deregulation was bought and paid for by the politicians who work for us but take money from them.

As Politifact writer John Frank pointed out earlier this year, McCain has rarely sought pork but he has on a few occasions, such as his 2006 legislation that asked for $10 million for an academic center at the University of Arizona to honor the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Or McCain's 2003 effort to use federal funds to buy property to create a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, or his 1992 request that the Environmental Protection Agency provide $5 million toward a wastewater project in Nogales, Ariz.

While McCain advocates have argued in the past that these projects don't meet the definition of pork barrel spending, pork critics disagree. "If it doesn't meet the technical term of earmark, it would probably meet the public idea of one," Pete Sepp, a vice president at the conservative, anti-pork National Taxpayers Union, told the New York Times in reference to the Rehnquist center request.

See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/16/mccains-pork-project/
 

The McCain and Obama tax plans (chart) http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/

 

 

4

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
 

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

Preferential voting seen as crucial voter reform

By Jack E. Lohman

Our winner-take-all electoral system contributed to the Florida fiasco in 2000 and promises to plague us many times over. We should switch to a voting system called Instant Runoff Voting, or preferential voting, as proposed by www.fairvote.org.

Australia has used the system for years, and several U.S. cities are now switching to IRV (which is sometimes called “majority voting” because the winner must get a majority). Both Obama and McCain are supporters, as are the majority of voters.

How it works:

Each ballot contains check boxes for your first, second, third and subsequent choices. It is simple, fair and easy to administer with optical card reading systems, which have proven to be the most reliable and easily accommodate both computer counting and hand count verifications.

Suppose there are three candidates, Satan, Saint, and Angel. Most people (60%) prefer Angel or Saint over Satan, but their votes are split — 35% for Angel and 25% for Saint. Nonetheless, Satan wins with 40%, well short of a majority, and proceeds to advance the cause of evil over the period of his term. That’s the current system!

Instant runoff voting solves this “spoiler” dilemma by eliminating the person with the least votes (Saint), and holding an immediate, second computerized round in the election, dividing Saint’s votes amongst their 2nd choices so that voters elect a candidate that the majority (>51%) prefers over the loser. In this case, assuming all of Saint’s supporters would prefer Angel over Satan, Angel would win with 60% to Satan’s 40%.

This is easily done with a simple matrix ballot and immediate computerized totaling on the first visit. If the voter is confused about the ballot and makes an error, it is automatically rejected and the vote can be immediately recast (you can only have one “first choice,” one “second choice” and so on).

Example:

Vote for Saint, but if Saint fails to get 51%, your vote is automatically applied to Angel, and Angel wins on the 2nd count.

Candidates

1st
 Choice

2nd
 Choice

3rd
 Choice

1st
 Count

2nd and
 Final Count

Angel

 

X

 

35%

60%

Saint

X

 

 

25%

0

Satan

 

 

X

40%

40%

Too confusing? Then vote for one person the old fashioned way. You are not obligated to mark a second choice, but those who have a second choice may mark that candidate too. See an online sample HERE.

The advantage to incumbents and challengers alike is that they need only run one campaign, the general election. Primaries would no longer be needed. And because challengers will not want to alienate voters who may give them their “second choice” on the card, they are not as likely to sling mud and incumbents are not as likely to have their reputations trashed (deserving as that sometimes may be).

Third-party candidates:

This system gives third-party candidates a chance to demonstrate their real support, and we’d really know where Democrat and Republican support is lacking. But that’s also why the current duopoly will oppose it. They’d rather keep third-party support to its absolute minimum, and the current system forces the Green, Reform and Libertarian voters to cast their precious vote for the lesser of the two evils. If they vote their conscience they in effect throw their vote away completely.

Under the current system the two parties appear to be the most popular, even though there are many independents with more popular positions. But since the R’s and D’s are calling the shots, our only chance to change the current system will require extreme public pressure (or a totally new regime in November).

IRV makes total sense and will benefit the public, but perhaps nothing will change until we have a complete turnover in our elected officials. (Now, there’s a thought!)

This system is fair, and that may be its biggest downfall. The last thing in the world today’s politicians want is “fair.” They like their 90% reelection advantage just as it is, and they like the two-party see-saw to themselves and don’t want to share. 

The benefits:

Instant runoff voting (IRV) would do everything the current runoff system does to ensure that the winner has popular support – but it does it in one election rather than two.

·  It saves counties, taxpayers and candidates money now used to hold two elections.

·  It ensures higher voter turnout than when voters are asked to return for a runoff.

·  It eases the administrative burden on election officials who run one election, not two.

·  It improves campaign tone; candidates want their opponents’ voters to rank them #2.

·  It better shows the voter support each of the parties really have

·  It improves the chances of third-party candidates by eliminating the “wasted vote” syndrome

For an online demo go to www.DemoChoice.org

 

http://img.getactivehub.com/images/space.gif

 

5

Tidbits

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's (Heavy) Hand in Government Affairs

This week's government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac marked the shutdown, apparently, of one of Washington's most robust influence machines. Together, the two mortgage buyers spent nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions over the last two decades, throwing their weight around more like corporations than the government-sponsored enterprises they were. And when Fannie and Freddie faced collapse, those in government were there to help, ironic considering that for so many years the companies' political strategy was to avoid government involvement in their business. So how much did Fannie and Freddie's contributions and lobbying contribute to Congress's hands-off approach? That's hard to determine, but we do have hard data to measure the companies' investment in politicians. Not only have more than 350 current members of Congress collected a total of $4.8 million in campaign contributions associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since 1989, but 28 lawmakers had up to $1.7 million of their own money invested in the companies last year.

The Fiscally Insane Bailout Bill Might Not Pass -- Here's 5 Reasons It Shouldn't

The scheme would force taxpayers to absorb the pain, while Wall Street execs reap the gain.

by David Sirota

See: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/100700/?page=entire

Workers need jobs and a raise-not a psychiatrist

During the last eight years. almost all of the nation's income growth went to executives and investors. As a result, while the productivity increased and the economy grew to more than $13 trillion a year, most Americans fell further and further behind.

Between 1976 and 2006, the numbers of hours worked by the median two-parent household increased by 400 hours per year.

Productivity increased by 18% between 2000 and 2007 alone. Yet middle-income, working-age households-those headed by someone less than 65-lost ground over these years. Their median income, after adjusting for inflation, fell by $2,000 from $58,500 to $56,500 (2007 dollars).

See the complete blog article HERE

OF COURSE when you have a pie that has become fixed in size because of the exporting of jobs and cash to other countries, and the wealthy are increasing their piece of the pie by 15-25% per year, that "wealth growth" has to come from somewhere. And it comes from the middle class in the reduction in jobs and health care coverage.

That's because the wealthy are funding the political campaigns and the middle class aren't. The wealthy are keeping elected the very politicians that set the rules of the game, that set the regulations and deregulations to favor the campaign contributors rather than the benefit the people and the country.

I've also written about the problem here: Are we having fun yet?

Only when we have full public funding of campaigns will the public win back its congress.

Even after the new president and congress are elected, the same old special interests remain in power. Only when we have public funding of campaigns will that change.

I found this guy’s definition of liberal and conservative interesting:

Speaking on health care:

Comments

I would amend your definitions:

Liberal: Can't we do what other countries have done by assuming we have a collective responsibility to each other? That taking care of someone else means they will take care of us? And how can we politically do this against a stubborn belief in "free" markets? Let's face it, the value of a doctor's care when one is having a heart attack is infinite. How can we pay that?

Conservative: We can't allow those less deserving to drag the rest of us down. We must make sure that the undeserving don't get benefits. We must make sure that there is corporate reward for taking the risk of insuring people. We must make everyone pay for his or her misfortune, uninformed decisions, and long-term outcomes that no one can guess. Only then can we assure short-term growth that might trickle down in the form of a doctor's attention.

This is according to my jaundiced view, mind you.

Define "more affordable?"

In an era where "rich" means "have lots of paper worth phony money that only has value so long as we don't all try to redeem that paper at once," "more affordable" really translates to "slightly less ruinous to the average paycheck-earner."

The average Joe and Jane sweat over whether the 10-year-old Ford's transmission really will cost them $2000 to replace when they have $159 in the bank. The average of us see a less-than-major operation costing tens of thousands of dollars as fly-to-the-moon territory. We simply don't have the money. We likely never will. Never mind something catastrophic.

According to some, we simply must work harder and pay more. But there's a problem: if everyone is "rich," then no one is, right? It's like everyone being above-average. For our culture to work, there has to be a gap. Someone with a few million earned won't sweat that transmission, that operation, that kid's cough. Good for them. And the rest of us? Isn't this a form of rationing? Nah. It's the "Free" market in which we charge what it will bear and let people die instead of caring.

I would go so far as to say there are some extremists who believe that there are people you see every day who don't deserve to live. They haven't become "rich" enough, by their own fault, lack of drive, or incorrect belief. They must be punished for not having the right attitude. Therefore they must hand over all their earnings for the next ten years to pay for that car accident.

Does this seem fair? I do hear that "life isn't fair," but, really, in situations like this, isn't it really that we choose not to be fair. We wake up every morning and accept that there are people unworthy out there.

We treat people like things, and things like people.

I can't help [but] think that what's missing is that sanctity of life thing. Dignity, too. Everyone deserves that.

Let's start from there.

Yeah, I know. Naive. Idealistic. But we haven't really tried, have we? We've certainly tried it the money way. How's that working for us?

Posted by: Rob | Sep 11, 2008 5:47:34 AM

Dear Editor:

So the bailouts continue in order to avert a worldwide economic collapse.  Bear Stearns-$29 billion; Fannie Mae-$100 billion; Freddie Mac-$100 billion; AIG-$85 billion and home mortgage bailouts up to $700 billion. All financed by the American taxpayers.  Over one trillion dollars!

But the signs were there.  Republicans have been in the White House for 20 of the last 28 years.  They have not produced a single balanced budget.  President Bush inherited a $236 billion surplus and has turned it into annual $400 billion record deficits.  The national debt has gone up $4 trillion on his watch. 

 But what did you expect with the Republicans continually giving tax breaks and credits to the wealthiest Americans and corporations (aka:  Bush's base), payback for all those large campaign contributions and lobbying fees?   As long as the rich kept getting richer and the GOP remained in power, they did not seem to take the deficits or spending seriously.  Now it has all hit the fan and the Republicans should be running for cover.

The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression -- brought to you by the Republican Party.  Thank you President Bush!   To paraphrase the Who, " Don't get fooled again."  Please,  for the sake of the nation, vote for Obama-Biden on November 4.

Tim Daley
Union Grove, WI 53182

Got work?

Since December 2006, the number of job seekers per job opening available has skyrocketed more than 60%. The number of job seekers per job opening is now firmly in recessionary territory--at a higher level than during any month of the official 2001 recession--and it shows no signs of leveling off. This week's Economic Snapshot and a companion Issue Brief look at current job openings trends, an important counterpart to the more commonly cited measures of unemployment.

The Prospering Swedes

David Cay Johnston….

“…. why is it that countries with very high taxes are also simultaneously very prosperous, in fact by the standards that matter, more prosperous by far than the United States?”

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/120TN1085.pdf

The Power of Oil Consumers

By Henry A. Kissinger and Martin Feldstein

The tripling in the price of oil from $30 a barrel in 2001 to around $100 today represents the largest transfer of wealth in human history. The 13 OPEC members alone are expected to earn more than $1 trillion this year from oil sales. Inevitably, this will bring with it major political consequences. Not the least significant aspect of this political and economic earthquake is that it is being exacted upon the world's most powerful nations by some of the world's weakest. Yet the victims stand by impotently as if the price of oil were some natural event determined by a competitive economic market that is not and cannot be influenced by political forces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091702969.html

 
 

 

 

6

Give me a Break!

This short video will explain the current financial crisis in terms we can all understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g

Super pictures of Blue Angels

China is ready for the Olympics and the resulting influx of English speaking tourists...

And we let THIS happen!

Chinese negotiations with a hostage taker….

http://www.snopes.com/photos/crime/negotiation.asp

In this country, we would block off the street, take 12 hours to talk him out of it, spend $5 million giving him a fair trial, and pay his food and lodging for life. No wonder their products are cheaper than ours.

 
 

 

7

Book Recommendations

See other reviews on Amazon.com

 

 
 

 

8
Contact information

Lohman is a retired business owner that 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)

http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
 www.WiCleanElections.org
www.BusinessCoalition.net

 

www.MoneyedPoliticians.com (my book: Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America)

www.SmokeFreeDining.net (A searchable restaurant database)

Wisconsin State Assembly pages: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/leginfo/contact/legislatorslist.aspx?house=assembly

Wisconsin State Senator pages: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/leginfo/contact/legislatorslist.aspx?house=senate

 

9
 Unsubscribe 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 either fails please notify me directly at jelohman@gmail.com. Thanks.

Disclosure: I am a center-right Republican that (regrettably) voted for Bush twice. But the Republicans look worse here because they (are/were) in power and the party blocking reform. Next year it may be the Democrats taking center stage. Were I to have a political choice it would be for a strong third-party reform candidate in all seats. I do not like our very costly and ineffective duopoly. Jack Lohman

See Lohman's complete disclosure HERE.