Sunday, November 14, 2010

Starving the Beast: Ten Things You Can Do To Take America Back ANS

Here is another brilliant article by Sara Robinson (coincidentally saying what Joyce has been saying for years...).  It's about a real solution to the Corporatization of America and the takeover of our government by Big Money. 
I've included the comments thus far because people are really engaging with the idea in them.
Find it here: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010114511/starving-beast-ten-things-you-can-do-take-america-back#comment-13294  
--Kim


«« Businesses Do Not Create Jobs  | Blog Home The Sales Pitch Proves the Point  »»

Starving the Beast: Ten Things You Can Do To Take America Back

Sara Robinson's picture

By Sara Robinson

November 11, 2010 - 8:47am ET



If last Tuesday showed us anything, it's this: We are not going to get America back on the right road -- the one that leads to a progressive, just, carbon-free, equal-opportunity future -- by political means alone.

That was an illusion, and it's time to give it up. We are up against powers so massive that their leaders rightly describe themselves as Masters of the Universe (MOTUs, for short). They've got so much money that they can buy off any politician in the world; and so much clout that they maintain branch offices right inside the West Wing. Because of their influence, our courts and our Congress no longer work for us. Our media no longer tells us the truth. Our votes are the prizes in corporate bidding wars. Our jobs are mere chips in a global poker game. Our doctors can only give us the health care corporate insurers willing to pay for, even when better choices exist.

Everything from the food on our table to the content of our kids' education is chosen for us on the basis of what will put the most money in the pockets of people who are already rich beyond the imagination of a Caesar. Increasingly, we have no say about anything that happens to us. Every choice we make is predetermined to deliver our money, time, and life energy into the service of this increasingly remote and amoral aristocracy.

It goes way beyond Washington. It's the whole rotten system. And if we really want that system to change, forget taking to the streets. (The MOTUs long ago learned to tune out public protests.) It's time to take our non-compliance to the next level. It's time to get serious about not participating in this system at all, until it either breaks or changes.

It will not be easy. The overblown corporate-driven economy exists because we allow it to -- and we allow it to because there's so much that passively cheap and easy and comfortable about being part of it. Compared to a lot of the world, we don't have it so bad; and the MOTUs are counting on that inertia to keep the money and power flowing their way. But it's beyond obvious now that we cannot change things unless we're willing to give up those comforts, and take matters into our own hands.

The good news is that if we're willing to do that, there are plenty of high leverage points in this system, places we can jam in a hard stick and whang on it and actually hope to create some change. And since we know now that Washington will be totally gridlocked for the next two years, this is as good a time as any to start.

A starting place
The ten suggestions below are just a starting place. (I'm thinking of turning them into a book, and would love your additions to the list.) But they all turn on two basic assumptions about where our leverage lies.

The first assumption is: Big national corporations and the MOTUs who profit from them only have money in the first place because we give it to them. So stop giving it to them.

The second is: People in government only have power because we give it to them. So, wherever possible and appropriate, pull that power away from the federal level, and bring it back to the local level, where we can keep an eye on it -- and where the best solutions to our most pressing problems are already being worked out.

With those two core assumptions in mind, here's what we need to do to defund the Masters of the Universe and get our country back.

1 Live within your means
Taking apart the systems that sustain our comfort is a risky business. The first task, then, is to insulate ourselves from those risks to the extent we can. And the first step is living within our means.

It's not that big a reach, though it feels like that at first. We just need to resurrect the values of our Depression-era grandparents, who gauged someone's status on the basis of their thrift and prudence rather than their extravagance. For them, it wasn't about what you drove or what you wore on your back; it was about what you had in the bank, and what you could give back to your community.

Buy a car you can pay for outright, or hang on to the one that's already paid off. Let go of the things you don't use -- the toys and trinkets that are just taking up space. Give up junk food and start a garden. Ask if you could get by with a smaller, cheaper house. And consider the possibility that, after you've pruned your life down to something more manageable, you might just be happier (and healthier) for it.

Having enough surplus salted away, plus some to share with others, gives you personal resilience in the face of hard times. It means you can lose a job or get sick, and still have a margin to fall back on. It also means that nobody owns you: America's bosses would treat us a lot better if more of us had a take-this-job-and-shove-it fund in the bank that enabled us to walk away from bad conditions or abusive treatment.

Living with less also means fewer expenses, fewer distractions, and more time and energy for the things that matter. Which is good, because some of the other things we need to do will take a little more time, energy, and money than we've been used to spending.

Read more about this: Your Money Or Your Life

2 Stop using credit cards
Conservatives howl that sales taxes are a huge drag on the economy, since they take a little bite out of the value of every transaction. But you never hear them howling about the 3% sales tax we pay to the banks for every credit card transaction. There's a whole lot to be said about the perverse economics of this; but the short summary is that if we're going to defund the powers that are choking the life out of our democracy, the first thing we need to do is stop handing over 3% of almost every transaction we make.

The second is to stop paying out an even larger percentage of our annual income in interest. The average American household pays $1500 a year in credit card interest; in some households, it's much more than that. Bet you can find a better use for that money than the bank can.

If you can't manage life without plastic, there are still better options than sending your wages to Citi or Chase. Move your credit card to a local bank, which will invest its earnings in your town's economy. Use a debit card (which takes lower fees) for online transactions, and start doing everything else possible with cash. (As an added bonus: using cash gets your personal business out of the data stream, increasing your personal privacy as well.)

Credit cards are the single biggest hook the MOTUs have into us after our mortgages, student loans, and car payments. It's also one we have the most control over, so let's stop sending them that money.

Watch here: In Debt We Trust

3 Move your money to a local bank
Arianna Huffington deserves credit for putting the "slow money" movement on the progressive map. It's a powerful concept, because it directly defunds the people who are trying to buy our government.

The idea is simple: take your banking -- your savings, checking, mortgage, car payment, 401K and other retirement funds, and credit cards -- away from the bankasaurs, and give it to a local or regional bank or a credit union. These banks are often safer these days than the big boys, since they're less likely to get caught up in big finance scams. And, even better: they're far more likely to put your money to work financing local homeowners, businesses, and farms.

Keeping that money in the hometown economy is an investment in resilience for the long haul. It ensures that your neighbors will have good jobs, that house prices will remain stable, and that small entrepreneurs can find the capital to start companies that are far less likely to relocate. These small businesses usually return far more in spending, jobs, and taxes to the local economy than big out-of-town businesses do, so keeping your money close to home is one way to invest in a stronger community.

Read more: Move Your Money

4 Eat local. Eat organic. Cook your own.
More and more of us are aware that the processed foods that fill the center aisles of the supermarket aren't particularly good for us. They're full of sugar, salt, fake fat, fake flavorings, preservatives, and GMO frankenstuff. They come from factories thousands of miles away. And we're sometimes suspicious that the food safety isn't all it should be.

This is why farmer's markets, community-supported farms, and food co-ops can now be found in almost every corner of the country, with more coming on line each year. People want alternatives -- preferably fresh, organic fare produced by farmers who are close enough to get to know.

I love the fact that my food dollar isn't going to Cargill or ADM. It's not adding tons of petroleum-based fertilizers (those damned oil companies again) to the soil and the watershed. It's not paying to truck food two thousand miles to my store. Instead, it's going to Mike Finger, my CSA farmer, who lives five miles from my house. It's keeping our town's outrageous Saturday farmer's market alive and lively. It's providing hundreds of jobs for dairymen and women, cheese and butter makers, bakers, farmers, small meat operations, co-op workers, chicken ranchers, and all kinds of other talented folks in my community. And it's creating an alternative food stream that banishes the big corporations (and the big banks that fund them) out of my kitchen and off of my family's plates.

Read more: La Vida Locavore

5 Don't shop in big-box stores; support local merchants instead
We all know how Wal-Mart bleeds small town Main Streets dry, kills mom-and-pop merchants, decimates local tax bases, and replaces good-paying jobs with non-union McJobs that pay so low that people holding them still qualify for welfare and food stamps.

But it's not just Wal-Mart. Every dollar you spend at any big box store or chain restaurant is doing pretty much the same thing. The money you give them doesn't stay in town, creating decent jobs and supporting prosperous middle-class families. It's going to some corporate HQ in Far Yonder. And from there, in this new post-Citizens United world, a lot of it will be going to lobbyists, who will be using it to more fully corporatize our government.

Cut them off at the knees. Find and use local options wherever you can. Local merchants often carry a wider and more interesting selection (and can order anything they don't have in stock). They pay higher wages. They know their merchandise -- and special tastes of the local clientele. And they pay into the local tax base, supporting your own teachers and firefighters and cops.

And don't even assume that you'll be charged more. In some areas, you may pay 5-10% more in a local shop; in others, you may be surprised to find prices comparable to what you'll find over at the big box. A local restaurant may have better food at better prices, and pay their staff better as well. Not all of the mom-and-pops are good enough to deserve our support; but the great ones are irreplaceable assets in our local economies, and deserve all the support we can give them.

Read more: The Small-Mart Revolution

6 Make your own energy
In our economy, energy is money -- which is why the big energy producers have more money than anybody else. If we want them to have less power over us, we need to stop buying their product. And that goes for the big private energy utilities, too, which are the biggest coal users in the country.

Adding solar panels or geothermal pumps to your house isn't cheap (or even easy); but if you plan to be in the house for many years, it's an investment that's worth making. If that's not feasible, look into community power solutions, and encourage your town to invest in clean, local sources of power. At the very least, the odds are overwhelmingly good that your energy company offers a green power option where you can pay a bit more per month to subsidize the development of clean power sources for your region.

Whatever you can do to replace coal, oil, and gas as your household and community power sources adds a bit more leverage to the effort to remove Big Fossil from its powerful political perch.

Read more: The Renewable Energy Handbook

7 Buy used whenever possible
The Big Consumer Machine runs on our constant appetite for new stuff. One of the best ways to jam it is to simply stop buying what they're selling. It's better for our wallets, better for the Earth, and it takes money directly out of the pockets of people who are (literally) banking on our poor impulse control.

Over the past century, our massive consumer engine has manufactured so much stuff that odds are the perfect item you're looking for -- a sturdy winter coat for your kid, extra plates for Thanksgiving dinner -- already exists out there somewhere. And it's increasingly easy to find it, thanks to eBay and Craigslist and Freecycle. Why go to K-Mart when there's undoubtedly someone local looking to unload something that's one-of-a-kind (and probably better quality) for a fraction of the price -- and will help you raise the finger to the corporate consumer machine while you're at it?

Read more: The Compact
The Great American Apparel Diet

8 Buy American. Buy union.
If you've got to buy it new, and there's no choice but to buy it from a big chain retailer, at least make sure your money is going to support another American worker's family. Living without imported Chinese goods is almost impossible (as this woman found out); but again, going out of our way to make better choices is an important way we can shift the leverage in the entire system that's killing our democracy.

Buying American is good. Buying union is even better. Unions have always been our biggest, strongest, best bulwark against creeping corporatocracy. The more support we can give them -- and the more unionized workers we have -- the more leverage we have against the big money interests, and the more likely we'll be able to take our country back in the long run. If we want to restore the middle class, we need to be deadly serious about buying union-made stuff.

Read more: UNITE's guide to buying union-made goods

9 Cut your use of fossil fuels
There are a hundred good reasons to do this, but the big four are:

1) It reduces our dependence on foreign oil, which also reduces our need to spend 58% of our federal budget on defense. Since defense contractors are among the biggest lobbyists in Washington, defunding the military-industrial complex is an important strategic objective in taking our country back.

2) It cuts the profits of Big Fossil -- the oil and coal industries -- who are the biggest and most influential donors in Congress, period.

3) Your choices and investments will spur the market for clean technology options, which will accelerate our progress in moving toward a greener future -- again, at the expense of Big Fossil.

4) Over time, moving to non-fossil alternatives in food, transit, manufacturing, and so on will make your household and community far more resilient in the face of energy price shocks and climate change itself -- an important step toward empowering local governments over higher-level ones.

There are a thousand books and ten thousand websites full of suggestions for how to move beyond the basics like changing out your light bulbs and recycling. But now you have another reason to do it: it's one of the best things we can do to defund the MOTUs who own our country.

10 Hire a better employer
Our choices as consumers matter, no doubt. But the biggest contribution we make to this system isn't in our spending; it's in our earning. The fact is that the best jobs in America in terms of salary and benefits are also too often the same ones that are most deeply involved in the corporatization of our government. And we need to confront and deal with the truth: when we give 40 or 50 hours of our lives to these enterprises, week in and week out, we are contributing far more to the problem than we can ever make up for by anything we do on our own time.

Of course, it's too much to ask people to walk away from a good-paying, stable job in the teeth of devastating recession. But as a long-term goal, we might be thinking about how to arrange our lives and our communities so that we can stop giving our time, energy, talents, and best efforts to the same aristocrats who want to enslave us. If we get out of debt and off credit cards, build up local businesses and create resilient economies, and learn to live a little smaller, we may in time, also be freer to make career choices that are better aligned with our values, and put our labor beyond the reach of the system that oppresses us.

As I said: none of this will be easy. But we've tried to create change while staying within our circle of comfort; and it hasn't worked. It's time to move outside that circle, and get on with the work of creating the future we want our children to have -- even if that means changing our most familiar and intimate habits and routines.

Still, you're probably already doing at least a few of these things, for all kinds of good reasons -- as economizing measures in hard times, as an effort to reduce your carbon footprint, or out of solidarity with your local community. But there's added motivation -- and even some sweet revenge -- if we bear in mind that the things that we're already doing to protect ourselves in the present and prepare for the next future are also some of the best things we can do to take our money, our lives, and our broken democracy back from the MOTU bastards as well.




Related Topics: Discuss (11 Comments)
Hide comments
Rate It!
(0)
Broadcast
Join the discussion below, and/or Post a New Comment.

Individual action will go nowhere

By Mark Erickson | November 11, 2010 - 12:46pm GMT

I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint and goals, and these ideas are mostly good things to do, but they are individualistic. Yes, if most people did at least a few things on this list, our society would be drastically different, but working people wouldn't have a smidgen more political power than they do now. And these individual decisions aren't mutually reinforced by anything but a tribal feeling "We're good people." That's not enough to sustain systemic change.

Example: dieting. Everybody knows deep down that extra weight is bad for you and the only way to lose weight and keep it off is eating less and exercising more. But people jump at the chance to skip the hard work through the latest fad diet. So what actually works? Self-supporting groups like Weight Watchers meetings. Individuals accountable to the group to keep them on the straight and narrow. So there has to be organizing, not moralizing. (I don't know if you've noticed, but people don't like to be told what to do)

You talk about leverage points, but who's holding the lever? The economic power you advocate can't be used to effect change. Buy union/American for instance. Let's say a large number of people in a community insist on buying union/American. Who negotiates with your local hardware store to say if you stock this more union/American product, which costs more, we'll buy just as many so your net revenue is the same? Nobody. Who enforces the agreement? Nobody. The local hardware store has to have faith - and significant marketing, probably - that people will buy just as many more expensive union/American products. Ain't gonna happen.

On the other hand, Card Check legislation would increase unionization and promote working people's interests. Yeah, it's hard, but it could actually work, too. To offer some more positive ideas, I'll mention two. Recreate ACORN. There are people in your community that know how to do this work. Get together and do it. Another is electoral change, my personal favorite. Ranked Choice Voting (or Instant Runoff Voting) would allow more progressive candidates to compete for offices without any danger of splitting the liberal vote and handing the election to a conservative. Besides developing candidates and sending a message to the Democratic Party, the main-stream candidate would likely co-opt some of the platform of the left-wing movement. And sometimes they'll win! And of course public finance of campaigns. Start with these two ideas at the city level and work your way up.

Again, I know your heart is in the right place. But this agenda isn't going create systemic change.

That's not true

By Sara Robinson | November 11, 2010 - 2:12pm GMT

I'm writing this from a place that's actually an incredible proof of concept on the power of localization -- so powerful that books have been written on it, and PBS's NOW actually did an episode on it. You absolutely can save a local economy by clawing back the money that would otherwise flow right out of town; and these suggestions are built on the story of how Bellingham (and a number of other small towns) have done it.

One of the books above, "The Small-Mart Revolution" describes both the process and its potential in careful detail.

You're right that a lot of people will need to do this stuff. But a) we have to start somewhere; and b) a lot of people around the country have already started, in order to cut costs or shrink their carbon footprint. This is an emerging movement, but one with some real legs.

The main thing is to realize that we will have the system we have until we stop supporting it. There are many ways to withdraw our complicity; and we need to start by recognizing the direct link between where our money, energy, time, resources, and labor go and the fact that these people control almost everything. If even 15% of us drop out, that's a 15% shrinkage in their money and clout. And that may be enough to make the difference.

» Okay, but you didn't limit your argument

By Mark Erickson | November 12, 2010 - 12:00pm GMT

Localization can be a difference maker in liberal small cities. Great. What about the other 95% of the population? (That's being generous)

Second, saving a local economy by keeping it local is nowhere near systemic change. My point is economic power is only relevant in situations like Bellingham and it is only able to be wielded in a narrow field of action. Only political power will change the system.

But to try to meet you half-way. I can fully endorse co-ops - not just for food - and municipally owned energy solutions. Why? Because they are organized, they have rules and obligations, and are accountable.

Publish Your Starve the Beast Book and I'll Buy It

By Terry Hulsey | November 12, 2010 - 11:55am GMT

Despite some qualms with your left-of-center proposals (e.g., I trust unions less than corporations), no one can underestimate the _practical_ nature of your 10 suggestions. There is no need to worry about a "critical mass" of involvement: Your own participation immediately rewards yourself and your family. There is just no need to think in political terms at all. Think: What _practical_ things can I do, now, and for myself and my family?
Forgive me for plugging myself, but I hope you incorporate another suggestion into your book:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/hulsey8.1.1.html

Terry answered Mark

By Sara Robinson | November 12, 2010 - 2:16pm GMT

The thing of this is: the frustration and rage are pure populism that cuts across left and right. And these solutions have strong appeal on both sides.

Mark, Terry sounds like he's coming from the right wing (recommending a Lew Rockwell source would indicate this) - and he totally gets why the suggestions are powerful. The fact that localization movements are springing up in Maine and Kentucky and Idaho every bit as much as in Vermont and Oregon and California should tell you something. This is a prescription that neither side owns.

In fact, one of the things that astonishes me about this is that at the local level, there are no sides. Bellingham was settled by deeply conservative Dutch Reform farmers, who still dominate the politics -- these days, through heavy affiliation with the Tea Party. The progressive end is held up by the people around the university. But when we're talking about local businesses, or the food we all eat and the water we all drink, there simply is no left and right. There's only the problem of how best to keep these commons healthy. The progressives in town are creating markets that enable the farmers to keep farming like their grandfathers did, which fosters plenty of trust to plan a shared future on.

National politics is polarized. Local politics is far, far less so. At that level, what you have are populists protecting the commons versus outsiders trying to suck money out of the local economy. That's a very different battle, and makes for strange bedfellows who often end up becoming trusted friends.

Right now, we've all been screwed by both the government and by the corporations. Conservatives are focused on the former, progressives on the latter -- but we're both right, because they are increasingly one and the same thing. To get our country back, we need to knock both of them off their high horses; and these two leverage points offer us lots of ways to work together to do this.

» Good points, but I think you're avoiding mine

By Mark Erickson | November 12, 2010 - 3:10pm GMT

I would love to see the far right and far left bend around and meet in a new middle. There are obviously some issues that lend themselves to this partnership. But in political alliances, which can accomplish more than local economic ones.

Small-town localism only does so much. For instance, the Federal Farm Bill is probably the biggest factor in food consumption patterns. How are localization movements going to change that? Is there an organized lobby for local food production? You might have thousands of levers, but you have no place to stand.

Finally, I'll grant you liberal and conservatives can get involved in protecting small town local economies. But we're still talking small towns. Let say 10% of the population. How does this movement scale up to even a plurality of voters?

Two things

By Sara Robinson | November 12, 2010 - 5:23pm GMT

1. It's not just local. There are similar big-city efforts aimed at long-term resilience. Sustainable Seattle is one of the leaders in this; but you can find others in Denver, Boston, and elsewhere.

At the state level, 12 states are now considering instituting state banks like North Dakota has, which are a huge step toward defunding the MOTUs. These banks are owned by the state's citizens. All state investment money is put through them (pension funds, bonds, etc.), and re-invested in in-state enterprises. The profits return to the taxpayers, for further re-investment in the state. Wall Street sees none of it. It's money of the people, by the people, and for the people, all the way down.

North Dakota has weathered the meltdown better than any other state in the union -- and their state bank is widely considered the main reason why. Folks in ND didn't have much exposure, since their mortgages and their money weren't in the bubble to begin with.

So this is happening at all sorts of levels right now.

2. Over time, the farm bill becomes irrelevant if you've built up a resilient local foodshed. The whole point of a locavore diet is to get yourself off a processed food diet (which is built on subsidized corn, wheat, and soybeans), and eating more stuff that's produced by non-subsidized, purely free-market farmers. And this is happening, fast, all over the country, to the point where Big Ag is already trying to fight back by passing laws that harass these small farmers by regulating them out of business. (One farmer wrote a book about this campaign: "Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal.)

Fortunately, this harassment only seems to be feeding the backlash against the farm bill and its related subsidies. Regardless of their politics, people have a strong emotional connection to their food -- even more so to local food -- and that comes out hard when they see corporations screwing with their market choices. Over time, this should undermine the market clout of corporate farmers (and thus their ability to fund lobbyists), and erode the political constituency that supports them.

Educate your children

By Sanford Silver | November 12, 2010 - 10:43pm GMT

Find out what they're being taught about how the economy and politics works. Counter it with the truth if it's needed. Extra curricular activities that expose them to those local choices you encourage. Reading history books beyond the school issued. Taking them to local focus groups or political meetings sponsored by transportation districts and local governments to talk about current issues.

Above all encourage them to talk about what they learn with other kids. Use the peer pressure that normally works against change to get to kids whose parents won't give them the chance to learn.

And if at all possible give them travel. Experience other cultures and societies. See how what America does affects people from other parts of the world. Sponsor an exchange student of possible.

As you've said many times, Sara, and I've been saying for years, conservatism and the growing plutocracy it spawns can only exist in when the citizenry is ignorant of reality and especially ignorant of history.

Sanford Silver

Great suggestions

By Sara Robinson | November 13, 2010 - 8:46am GMT

Sanford, thanks for this.

I don't have an education section in my book outline -- but you've convinced me that there should be one.

education and consumption

By Mark Francis | November 13, 2010 - 10:53am GMT

How about educating kids as producers--of their own music, art, games, toys--rather than passive shoppers of gadgets and pop culture?
Changing that trend at its root would be good for both the local economy and the body politic.

One more big thing

By Kim Cooper | November 14, 2010 - 9:17pm GMT

The one you have left out is to take back ownership: We have to start working for companies that are worker-owned and democratically run, where those "big profits" go back to the workers who did the work -- and thus the money stays in the community and is spread around far more evenly. This gives everyone prosperity and no one untoward riches, allows people to assume more responsibility for their work lives, and thus more control over their own lives, and also gives everyone more money.
No, it's not Socialism: the company is still a competitive market company, it's the internal workings that are democratic and fair.
Sara -- we are still working on writing a book about this. If you'd like to see my notes thus far let me know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Popular This Week



Businesses Do Not Create Jobs

by Dave Johnson
November 11, 2010

The GOP's Pyrrhic Victory: Why It Won't Work, Pt. 4 of 4

by Terrance Heath
November 08, 2010

Also Worth Reading



The Budget 'Waste' Deficit Hawks Never Seem to See

by Sam Pizzigati | November 14, 2010

Bold JOBS Plan 1: Hire For Energy Retrofitting

by Dave Johnson | November 12, 2010

Deficit Commission's Extreme Proposals Spell Disaster

by Jeff Madrick | November 12, 2010

Where Was Our JOBS Commission

by Dave Johnson | November 12, 2010

Saturday, November 06, 2010

The Supreme Court Sold Out Our Democracy -- How to Fight the Corporate Takeover of Our Elections ANS

Here is an interview with Thom Hartmann about what he thinks we should do about "corporate personhood", this century's major threat to our democracy.  It has some interesting information, including what he thinks we ought to do to fix the situation.  But he doesn't say how we are going to do it in this era of right wing radical domination, fear-based authoritarianism, and corporate propaganda media.  Any ideas?
Find it here:  http://www.alternet.org/books/148608/the_supreme_court_sold_out_our_democracy_--_how_to_fight_the_corporate_takeover_of_our_elections/?page=entire  
--Kim


  BOOKS  
AlterNet / By Joshua Holland
comments_image   194 COMMENTS

The Supreme Court Sold Out Our Democracy -- How to Fight the Corporate Takeover of Our Elections

Historian Thom Hartmann discusses the history of corruption that led up to the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.
October 25, 2010  |  
 
[]  
Photo by bloomsberries, Flickr Creative Commons
Photo Credit: Flickr Creative Commons
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Books headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Election 2010 is being fought on a wave of campaign dollars unleashed on the American people by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United v. FEC decision. The court, led by a majority of staunch right-wingers, struck down limits on third-party "electioneering" ads based on a tortured interpretation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

Thomas Mann, a Brookings Institution scholar, wrote that the decision "will likely go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's most egregious exercises of judicial activism." Rep. Peter Fazio, D-Oregon, told the Huffington Post last week that "the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America… They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign." DeFazio said he is "investigating articles of impeachment" against Chief Justice John Roberts for committing perjury when he promised he wouldn't be a judicial activist during his Senate confirmation hearings.

The floodgates are open, and American democracy is at risk. But the decision didn't emerge out of thin air. Rather, it was the culmination of the development, over more than a century, of a bizarre theory of jurisprudence that holds that corporations enjoy the same Constitutional rights as human beings.

For years, it was believed the concept was enshrined in the law by the Supreme Court in 1886, but in his groundbreaking book, Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became People -- And How You Can Fight Back, historian and radio host Thom Hartmann revealed that the principle was in fact the result of what may be the greatest corporate fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

With the first post-Citizens United election looming -- and the release of Unequal Protection in paperback -- AlterNet caught up with Hartmann to discuss how corporations bought themselves a perverse regiment of civil rights.

Joshua Holland: I'd like to start with a very brief kind of bumper-sticker explanation of 'corporate personhood.'

Thom Hartmann: Sure. From the sixth-century English law until today there have been two types of persons under the eyes of the law. The first are natural persons, human beings, and the second are artificial persons -- corporations, churches, unions and governments. The reason why there has to be artificial persons is because you have to have some sort of status as a person to be able to own property, pay taxes, enter into contracts, and sue or be sued.

The concept goes back to the sixth century, but it's only in the last 100 years of the United States that anybody has had the weird idea that those artificial persons should be entitled to human rights under the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

JH: So BP and Goldman Sachs have the same constitutional rights that you and I enjoy?

TH: Somewhat. They have not yet claimed their Second Amendment rights.

JH: That's a good thing.

TH: But we're waiting. You got Blackwater, actually.

JH: Yes. I would think they'd be the first on that boat.

TH: The point is that through various claims and cases before the Supreme Court, corporations have explicitly claimed First Amendment free speech rights, Fourth Amendment rights of privacy, Fifth Amendment rights against taking and against self-incrimination, and 14th Amendment rights against discrimination.

JH: Now, although it's been with us for a very long time, it wasn't until the 1980s that corporate starting breaking it out with increasing frequency. Can you give us just a couple of examples of where corporations asserted these constitutional rights?

TH: Sure. In short form, in 1874 I believe it was, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were passed to free the slaves. The 14th Amendment says that everybody has equal rights under the law.

I think it was clear to the authors, and pretty much to everybody, that they were talking about human beings -- natural persons. But in the 1880s, a decade later, the railroad corporations, which, as a result of the Civil War were the largest corporations in America, started bringing a series of cases before the Supreme Court ... they all started in the 9th Circuit Court in California under Judge Steven J. Field, asserting that because the word "natural" does not exist in the 14th Amendment, that corporations should be considered persons.

JH: Now let me just interrupt you here. If I were to go down to a law school and get out the kind of textbook that maybe a first-year law student would read, it would say that the courts had in fact decided that in the case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Is that right?

TH: When I first wrote Unequal Protection --the first edition came out I think in 2000 or thereabouts -- I was invited to the Vermont Law School to give a talk on it, and I spoke to about 300 law students, professors and history teachers. And I said raise your hand if you know that in 1886, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, corporations were given the rights of persons under the reconstruction-era amendments to the Constitution? And pretty much everybody in the room raised their hand and I think the few who didn't just hadn't gotten to that point in their studies. And then I proceeded over the course of the next hour to demolish it basically by reading from the case.

There was a case before the Supreme Court in the 1980s, called First National Bank of Boston v. Belotti, which was one of the first cases in the modern era that really gave corporations the right to participate in political elections. Massachusetts had this law that said corporations could only give money to ballot initiatives that affected their businesses. But the case involved a ballot initiative to regulate gay marriage, and the banks had no rights to spend money on that -- the stockholders' money. And the First National Bank of Boston had broken that law. The Attorney General sued them and won in Massachusetts, and it was taken to the Supreme Court. And in that case, Justice Rehnquist -- who, regardless of what you think of him, was one of the most brilliant jurists of our time -- wrote a dissent in Boston v. Belotti. And in that dissent -- what I'm giving you is my bad paraphrasing of it -- Renquist said, "Back in 1886, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, this Court, without the benefit of public debate or discourse, decided that corporations have equal rights under the 14th Amendment." Then he went on to say how he thought that it was a wrongly decided case.

Well, it turns out, it wasn't wrongly decided. And even Renquist didn't know it! Forget the law students in Vermont Law School!

JH: Now let's recap the story. You went down to a dusty Vermont courthouse -- I don't actually know if it was dusty, I'm just making that up ...

TH: The book was dusty! I don't think anybody had pulled it off the shelf in 100 years.

JH: And you found that what the real deal was. Tell me about that, and also tell me who JC Bancroft Davis is.

TH: Yes. Jack Chandler Bancroft Davis is his name. I started out writing a book about Thomas Jefferson's view of America and how we went off track. How we got off the rails. And I wanted to primary source everything in the book, like a good historian would do. And when I came to the 1800s -- when corporations became a major force in America, and led right to the massive accumulations of wealth that were marked the 'Robber Baron Era' -- there was a lot of material about how this case had been decided in 1886. And so I thought I ought to read the case so I could quote the exact language. Because nobody was quoting the exact language. Everybody was saying it was decided, but even Renquist in his Belotti dissent didn't quote the exact language. So I went into Montpelier, Vermont's, old law library and spoke to Paul Donovan, the librarian there. And I said I'm looking for that 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern District Railroad. And he said, 'Oh, the one where corporations became people?' And I said 'Yeah, that one.' And so he finds the book of Supreme Court proceedings from the term of 1886. He pulls it out, blows the dust off the top, and opens it on the table. This was before they started putting acid in paper in the 1930s, so the pages were still in pretty good shape. And he flipped through it, and he found the case, and he said, 'Here's the head note. You can ignore that-- that has no legal status.'

And so I sat down and I just read it, all the way through, looking for those magic words that I could put in my book. And they weren't there. In fact, what the case was about was Santa Clara County was charging property tax to the Southern Pacific Railroad. And the way that they calculated property taxes for right of way was by fence posts along the railway. So X number of dollars for every 100 fence posts. And because Santa Ana County was charging a lower rate than Santa Clara County, the railroad was screaming foul, and in fact refused to pay the tax. And this ended up before the Supreme Court. And the railroad made a whole bunch of different arguments. And one of those was that this was illegal discrimination under the 14th Amendment, that they weren't being treated equally under the law by two different counties in the same state.

But the argument that I just described to you was not even referenced in the decision. Because there was a clear and explicit part of California law that gave each county the right to determine their own property taxes. The California law and the California Constitution backed it up.

And at the very end of the case, it basically said that the Court did not feel the need to address those federal Constitutional claims because they were able to find remedies within the California law and in the state Constitution.

JH: So they didn't even consider those arguments, they didn't need to, because they were able to decide the case based on other issues.

TH: Right. One of the core concepts of jurisprudence is minimalism. You always try to-- it's called "judicial restraint" -- you always try to decide a case as narrowly as possible, and if within that narrow band, you can find the remedy, then you don't go beyond that.

And so I read that, and I went back to Paul, the librarian, and I said "I'm not finding in this case what I thought I'd find. I'm baffled." And he said, "Well, did you read the headnote? Maybe that will give you a clue where to find it." You know, as if I'd overlooked something. So I said, "What's a headnote?" And he said, "Well, a headnote is basically Cliff notes -- you know, cheat sheets for lawyers to understand what a case is about without having to read the whole case." They're written by the Clerk of the Court. And so we went back and he found the headnote in the book, and I read the headnote. And there, a couple of paragraphs into the headnote, was this language where the author of the headnote, the Clerk of the Court, said he was quoting the Chief Justice of the Court, saying that corporations are persons and entitled to rights under the 14th Amendment.

So I take my 75 cents, or whatever it was, and my copies of the book, and we very carefully copied it on the copy machine there and Paul put it back on the shelf. Then I went around the corner to an old friend who was a lawyer in Montpelier, Jim Deville, and I laid out my copies on his table. And I showed him the language toward the end of the decision. I said, "Okay, here's the argument, here's the argument, here's the argument, here's the language at the end of the decision." And he goes, "Wow! That's not what we learned in law school!"

And so I went back to the headnote, and I highlighted that sentence in the headnote, and I said, "Well, this is probably what you learned in law school, right?" And he goes, "Holy shit!" And I said, "What do you think?" And he said, "Well, this is why they tell you in law school: don't cut corners and just read the headnotes."

Because occasionally the headnotes are wrong! He said in this case, not only was the headnote wrong, it actually contradicted the decision! And I asked him whether it had any legal status. And he said, "No, there was a 1909 Supreme Court decision that explicitly ruled that headnotes have no legal status."

JH: Now the Clerk ... let's get back to the Clerk just briefly.

TH: Sure.

JH: So this is JC Bancroft Davis.

TH: That's correct.

JH: Tell me a little bit about what you found out about him when you dug into his story?

TH: Well, that was pretty hard to find. Because to the best of my knowledge nobody had ever done anything about him, or looked into him, other than Davis himself -- he had published a number of books. He was quite the dandy. And he was the son of a very wealthy family. His father was the governor of Massachusetts. He had been one of the original incorporators of the New York and Newburgh Railroad, and so he was a railroad guy.

JH: Okay, so basically we're seeing that a lot of what we have taken for granted as legal corporate power, is in a sense a result of what may be the greatest fraud in history.

TH: That's right. And so when I started digging into this, not only did I find out that Davis was questionable-- kind of a dicey character -- but that this was one of a series of cases, tax cases, that all originated in the 9th Circuit in California, with Steven J. Field, and got kicked up to the Supreme Court, in which every single one of them argued that the 14th Amendment gave corporations personhood.

And in the first few, the Court just rejected out of hand. And that was until 1886. And so we started digging into it, and wondered, who the hell was this Steven J. Field guy?'

Field had basically two allies on the Supreme Court, plus Davis, who had no vote. And so we started digging into the Steven J. Field collection at the National Archives, and we found correspondence between him and the railroads that I don't think anybody had looked at in 100 years, if ever. In some of them, the railroad barons were in some cases implicitly, and in one case rather explicitly saying that if he could get them this corporate personhood, they would sponsor him to run for President of the United States in the election of 1888, I think it was, or maybe 1892.

And he didn't actually succeed. In fact, Steven J. Field actually wrote a dissent in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, in which he loudly complained about the fact that they hadn't established corporate personhood. And you'd think somebody would read the damned thing!! You know?

JH: So we have this ...

TH: What you had was a corrupted Supreme Court, and it had been corrupted by these very, very wealthy and powerful guys who ran the railroads and who were the richest men in America. And you know, that led to what we have now, which is this kind of corporate aristocracy. And there's a direct line between the two.

JH: So let's bring it from the 19th century into the late 20th and 21st. I just want to kind of get a brief sense, if you can give me a couple of examples of how modern multinationals have used this principle in recent years to push back on regulation, etc.

TH: Sure. Nike argued that they had the right to lie in advertising, because they had a 1st Amendment right of speech. That was ultimately, I guess, arguably decided in Citizens United. There was a chemical company that argued that the EPA invaded their 4th Amendment right of privacy by photographing them -- from the air -- making illegal chemical discharges. There had been a number of cases where giant agricultural operations, toxic waste operations, and large chain stores have argued that keeping them out of a neighborhood or community is the same thing as telling a black person he can't sit at a lunch counter. In other words they claimed their 14th Amendment rights. There have been a number of cases over the years where corporations have claimed that they have the right against self-incrimination.

You know, the original corporate laws, when corporations were created in the early 19th century, their books had to be totally public for the mid part of the 19th century, they had to be totally available to the Secretary of State in each state in which they were incorporated. But since the early 20th century they have been able to claim 4th Amendment privacy rights.

JH: Now, a quick aside. Did you catch a story about the town of Monroe, Maine, rejecting corporate personhood? They passed a local ordinance?

TH: Yes. There have been over 100 communities in the United States that have done this. So yes, there have been a lot of communities that have done this. There has not been a case where a community has made this law and it has been challenged and it has been taken to the Supreme Court. What happens more often is that the communities pass the laws, the corporation comes in and says "Okay, we're going to fight you in court." The community looks at what the legal costs are going to be, and the community then repeals the law. And it's happened numerous times.

JH: Now in your book, you have a chapter on restoring government of, by and for the people. And I think you take a fairly optimistic tone.

TH: I do.

JH: Tell me, what is the basis for that optimism? What are you hoping to see happen? How might we restore government of, by and for natural people?

TH: Right. For natural persons. Well, we had a time in this country when African Americans were not fully people. In fact what's so ironic is that in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled the persons were property. And that was the mirror image of the 2010 Citizens United decision, which ruled that properties can be persons. But over time the idea that African Americans should not have full rights has become unthinkable.

In the early 20th century, if a woman's husband died, she could not dispose of his assets or her assets ... in fact she didn't even have the legal right in most states to decide what religion to raise her child in, or even necessarily to keep her child. A male executor had to be appointed who made all those decisions for her.

And then on top of that there have been times like the late 19th century when the vast mass of working people in the United States have been victims of oppression -- we had kind of descended into a Victorian era kind of serfdom, and the response to that was the rise of the Progressive Movement in the 1880s and 1890s. And the labor movements, and the Wobblies, and all this stuff. Which led to the Progressive Era of Teddy Roosevelt, and then to, again, after the Crash in 1929, the Progressive Era of Franklin Roosevelt.

So what I see when I look at the arc of history in the United States is that we're continuously moving upward towards a more egalitarian, healthier, more (small d) democratic republic. And also that there have been a lot of hiccups along the way -- lot of setbacks. For example, early in the 20th century, there were a number of cases where the Supreme Court actually struck down minimum wage laws, child labor laws, maximum hour laws -- struck all that stuff down, and said that it was a violation of the Commerce Clause.

And I think it was in '36 or '37, when finally enough people on the Supreme Court changed, and Roosevelt was able to start getting into law the things that the Supreme Court, just a generation earlier, had declared unconstitutional. So we've had some major setbacks as a result of the Supreme Court, and as a result of just general public sentiments.

But I think that (small d) democracy ... freedom ... these words are in our DNA as Americans. They're just burnt in there. They're not going to go away. And this oppression of working people by trans-national monopolies--I'm not even going to use the word "corporation" -- is I don't believe something that will stand. I think eventually the pain is going to get so bad that the average American is going to say "Now I understand!" We have a long history in this country of people figuring out that something's wrong, and then figuring out how to fix it. So I'm very optimistic actually.

There are a lot of people who are trying to solve this problem today. And one of the solutions has been legislative, for example trying to just deal with the First Amendment right of free speech stuff, that was addressed in Citizens United. But I think that that's very dangerous, because it doesn't address the real issue of corporate power. It doesn't address the corporations using the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the 14th Amendment. Similarly, there's a movement by some very well intentioned progressives to amend the Constitution, to specifically say corporations don't have First Amendment free speech rights. And I think that that's dangerous also. Because it not only leaves intact the Fourth, Fifth and 14 Amendment rights that corporations are claiming ... and arguably Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendment rights ... but it implicitly recognizes them.

And so I believe that the only way to address this is to amend the Constitution clearly and explicitly to say that the 14th Amendment was intended to free slaves who are natural persons ... and that only natural persons, human beings, have rights under the Bill of Rights, and that corporations are merely the creation of governments. Because they are. They are legal fictions, and they have only those rights and privileges that the individual states decide to give them.

I think if we don't do the whole thing, if we only do it part way, we might end up, at least over a short period of time, worse off than we were, even though we'll think that we had a victory.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America). Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.

Friday, November 05, 2010

How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms ANS

Here's a short article about how Obama saved capitikusm and got no credit for it. 
Find it here:  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/how-obama-saved-capitalism-and-lost-the-midterms/
--Kim


Opinionator - A Gathering of Opinion From Around the Web

November 2, 2010, 11:59 pm

How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms

By TIMOTHY EGAN

Timothy Egan Timothy Egan on American politics and life, as seen from the West.

Tags:

capitalism, midterm elections, president obama, the economy

If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought.

For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.

Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here's why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.

As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.

But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running ­ banks and auto companies?

The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged.

Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

"An apology is due Barack Obama," wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal ­ one of Obama's signature economic successes.

Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

"We have done things that people don't even know about," Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years ­ a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package ­ have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.

But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut ­ even if 90 percent of Americans don't know that, either.

Of course, nobody gets credit for preventing a plane crash. "It could have been much worse!" is not a rallying cry. And, more telling, despite a meager uptick in job growth this year, the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 percent in the month Obama took office to 9.6 today.

Billions of profits, windfalls in the stock market, a stable banking system ­ but no jobs.

Of course, the big money interests who benefited from Obama's initiatives have shown no appreciation. Obama, as a senator, voted against the initial bailout of AIG, the reckless insurance giant. As president, he extended them treasury loans at a time when economists said he must ­ or risk further meltdown. Their response was to give themselves $165 million in executive bonuses, and funnel money to Republicans this year.

Money flows one way, to power, now held by the party that promises tax cuts and deregulation ­ which should please big business even more.

President Franklin Roosevelt also saved capitalism, in part by a bank "holiday" in 1933, at a time when the free enterprise system had failed. Unlike Obama, he was rewarded with midterm gains for his own party because a majority liked where he was taking the country. The bank holiday was incidental to a larger public works campaign.

Obama can recast himself as the consumer's best friend, and welcome the animus of Wall Street. He should hector the companies sitting on piles of cash but not hiring new workers. For those who do hire, and create new jobs, he can offer tax incentives. He should finger the financial giants for refusing to clean up their own mess in the foreclosure crisis. He should point to the long overdue protections for credit card holders that came with reform.

And he should veto, veto, veto any bill that attempts to roll back some of the basic protections for people against the institutions that have so much control over their lives – insurance companies, Wall Street and big oil.

They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him.

Missing: A Vision of Economic Possibility ANS

Here is an interesting article about the possibilities of changing the economic outlook for the future by changing economics.  It is something we have been suggesting for some time.  It has lots of links to groups working on this. 
Everyone in America needs to learn more about economics.
Find it here:  http://www.truth-out.org/missing-a-vision-economic-possibility64817  
--Kim



Missing: A Vision of Economic Possibility

Wednesday 03 November 2010

by: David Korten  |  YES! Magazine | Op-Ed

photo
(Photo: Homayon Zeary / Flickr)

It is now the morning after. Republicans, as expected, are celebrating a sweeping victory. Democrats are licking their wounds. Meanwhile, record numbers of people are still contending with the hardships of unemployment and foreclosure with no relief in sight. And the nation braces for deepening political gridlock.

It is a moment of opportunity for America to set a new course and for a young President Barack Obama to establish his place in history as a path-breaking leader.

So how does electoral failure and political gridlock create a moment of opportunity?

We are a nation consumed by short-term thinking and fragmented political contests centered on narrowly defined issues. Neither of our two major parties has a credible vision for the economic future of our nation.

The Republicans offer only their standard prescription of tax cuts for the rich, a rollback of regulations on predatory corporations, and elimination of the social safety net­a proven prescription for further job loss and devastation of the middle class.

The Democrats have no identifiable program for economic recovery, let alone for adapting our economy to the dramatic demographic, environmental, economic, and political changes that rule out any chance of a return to pre-2008 business as usual.

In an insightful interview, Populist historian Lawrence Goodwyn suggests that this creates a historic opportunity. He observes that bankers have been a dominant ruling power throughout much of our national history and a barrier to realizing the democratic ideal on which our nation was founded. It has not been within the power of any American president to break their hold due to lack of an adequate public understanding of the nature of the problem.

We now have 15 million unemployed people who feel deeply betrayed and upwards of two million homeowners whose homes have been foreclosed­all as a direct consequence of the actions of Wall Street bankers. These same interests used conceptual deception backed by massive political spending to swing the election in favor of right wing extremists devoted to policies that will further decimate the middle class without resolving the pain of the unemployed and the foreclosed.

The deception, which can be maintained only so long, sows the seeds of its own self-destruction. In taking control of the House and leaving the Democrats with only a slim majority in the Senate, Republicans now share responsibility for what is certain to be continued economic failure.

The administration, however, remains in the hands of a now seasoned Democratic president who Goodwyn believes has the potential to rise to the occasion, lead his party to a second term victory, break the power of Wall Street, and actualize the democratic ideal that has for so long eluded us.

It requires, however, a vision of a New Economy that is truly democratic, based on sound market principles, rooted in community values, and accountable to community interests. Economists steeped in the economic models that got us into this mess are not going to provide President Obama with such a vision. He will need to look to the people who are working from the bottom up outside the halls of established power to frame and implement a new economic vision aligned with the values of caring and sharing at the core of authentic spiritual teaching and for which scientists tell us our brains are wired.

This vision is being articulated and popularized by alliances such as the New Economy Working Group and the New Economy Network and implemented by groups such as the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, the American Independent Business Alliance, Transition Towns, local food movements, and many others. The vision is grounded not in some utopian ideology or theory, but rather on the work and experience of millions of people are already engaged in living the New Economy into being through grassroots actions that flow from their deepest values and aspirations.

The emerging vision calls for a fundamental economic restructuring to put life values ahead of financial values, give the creation of sustainable livelihoods for working people priority over bonuses for Wall Street traders, and root the power to create and allocate money in people and community rather than in Wall Street financial institutions. David Brancaccio has documented impressive examples in a PBS television special titled "Fixing the Future" scheduled to be aired on November 18, 2010.

As awareness grows that no adjustments at the margin of the existing Wall Street-dominated economy will resolve the plights of joblessness and the homelessness, so too does potential political support for fundamental economic restructuring in support of the emerging vision. The political party that responds to this rapidly growing economic and political force will gain a decided advantage in 2012 and beyond.

It is President Obama's opportunity to win a second term and establish his place in history not only as the first African-American president, but as well the president who liberated the nation, our democracy, and the market from the grip of Wall Street. I have drafted a framing presidential economic address ready for delivery by the future president who dares to take on the challenge. Imagine a president delivering this speech. Let us make it happen.

David Korten is co-founder and board chair of YES! Magazine, co-chair of the New Economy Working Group, president of the People-Centered Development Forum, and a founding board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE). His books include Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, and the international best seller When Corporations Rule the World

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Coloradoans Call for Dignity, Not Detention ANS

Here's a short article on immigration.  Please read at least the first paragraph. 
Find it here:  http://afsc.org/story/coloradoans-call-dignity-not-detention
--Kim


Coloradoans Call for Dignity, Not Detention

Colorado immigrant worker November 2010  

Mario, an immigrant worker in Colorado, speaks about the discrimination he faces in the workplace.
Photo: Jennifer Piper

Close to a Hundred Community members turn out in support of People not Profits, Dignity not Detention

By Jennifer Piper, AFSC Colorado Interfaith Organizing Director for Immigrant Rights

Aurora, Colorado, November 1, 2010 - People of faith and immigrant rights activists gathered at the GEO detention facility to demand an end to private prisons and detention after NPR reported the story of how the private prison industry lobbies for state level policies that ensure more incarceration of citizens and immigrants and greater profits for the industry.

Jennifer Piper of AFSC welcomed the crowd saying "In Colorado, we have our own SB1070-like policies. In 2006, the Colorado legislature passed the toughest anti-immigrant legislation in the country, forcing our sheriffs and state patrol to act as immigration agents. The for-profit corporation in front of us grosses more than $14 million a year from this center alone, $14 million dollars of your tax money. GEO is the only entity in our community that benefits from these laws and our broken immigration system. We are here today to say we will not forget and we will close this center."

Mario, a laborer and an immigrant, spoke to the community about the discrimination he has faced at work. "I am not alone in facing wage theft and unsafe conditions at work, in feeling dehumanized, targeted and frustrated. My faith helps me maintain my dignity and the belief that we'll achieve justice together"

Comunidad Liberación planned the vigil, with the support of AFSC, and UCC Pastor Anne Dunlap led the activities, "We invite the community to join us in laying a flower representing the dead on our altar. Not nameless or faceless to us, they are our neighbors, friends, family members and co-workers. We will remember the detained, the missing, the deported, and the dead." She also invited the group to celebrate All Saints Day by laying a second flower on the altar and saying aloud the name of a "saint"; someone in their life that have given them strength.

Hundreds of traditional yellow and gold marigolds, used to celebrate and honor the dead, covered the altar as participants spoke the name of someone they know who has suffered under the current system and called upon someone who had supported them as a saint. One participant, Norma, became very emotional, wiping away tears as she recounted the story of her son who was recently picked up by ICE despite his pending visa application. Another woman from Colorado Springs stepped forward to remember her friend who is currently in detention.

Women4women-knitting4peace distributed Peace Shawls to everyone as symbols of hope, healing, and solidarity. Susan, a knitter with the group, invited people to "please keep the shawls and wear them whenever they pray for justice and peace." Children attending the vigil were offered a Peace Pal (knit doll) as a reminder of their contribution to justice in our community.

Chanting, drumming, and raising their flowers the group of one hundred walked to the front of the center and left their flowers on the bridge entrance as a visible sign of their prayers and energy.

Canada Reports Huge Jump in Immigration ANS

This is just humor, but I couldn't resist....
Find it here:  http://www.borowitzreport.com/ 
--Kim


Canada Reports Huge Jump in Immigration


Over 55,000,000 Requests for Citizenship Since Tuesday Night

[]  

OTTAWA (The Borowitz Report) – Canadian immigration officials have reported a huge increase in the number of requests for Canadian citizenship in the past twenty-four hours, with over fifty-five million such inquiries pouring in since late Tuesday night.

Of those fifty-five million requests, well over 99.99% of them came from U.S. citizens, with a particularly large number coming from residents of Florida and Kentucky.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said that he was "flabbergasted" by the fifty-five-million-plus requests for Canadian citizenship, adding that it was difficult to pinpoint the precise reasons for the staggering increase.

"My only theory is that after the 2010 winter Olympics, the sport of curling is finally starting to catch on," he said.

He cautioned, however, that it is impossible to know exactly what is sparking the sudden interest in America's frozen neighbor to the north: "People answering our immigration hotline say that it is hard to understand many of the American callers because they are sobbing uncontrollably."

In other news, responding to last night's election returns, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters, "I'm so stoked I just turned the tanning bed up to eleven."

But former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin struck a more somber note, saying that despite several key victories, "it was a tough night for Tea Party voters because it involved so much math."

Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox for free by clicking here.

The Los Angeles Times says Andy Borowitz has "one of the funniest Twitter feeds around."  Follow Andy on Twitter here.

Fwd: Bill Moyers: "Welcome to the Plutocracy!"

Hi everyone -- This is where I get some of my stories.  They asked me to pass on the newsletter to you, so here it is.  I donate money to them too, because they are so good.  Have a look at the collection of articles below and see what you think.  Click the link to read the rest of the story.
--Kim

What did yesterday's elections demonstrate? While the pundits and prognosticators will give you different opinions, one thing is very clear: It's time for progressives to get to work.

The right wing runs a "ministry of truth" on television and radio, which spends 24 hours a day whipping up anger and pushing a plutocratic agenda.

We need to continue to build a trustworthy and powerful hub for expressing a true progressive morality. We need to engage more people who are ready to hear the truth - and ready to fight for economic fairness, peace and the cultivation of real democracy.

Please take five minutes to forward this Truthout newsletter to ten friends. Write a short note at the top and ask them to click the BIG RED BUTTON BELOW to sign up for our newsletter.


With your help, we can turn the tide in the battle of ideas. This is about constructive, fact-based discussion. We need your help to engage more people and bring them into this growing media movement.

In Solidarity,
The Truthout Team

Wednesday 03 November 2010
Bill Moyers: "Welcome to the Plutocracy!"
Bill Moyers, Truthout: "Howard [Zinn] championed grassroots social change and famously chronicled its story as played out over the course of our nation's history. More, those stirring sagas have inspired and continue to inspire countless people to go out and make a difference. The last time we met, I told him that the stories in A People's History of the United States remind me of the fellow who turned the corner just as a big fight broke out down the block. Rushing up to an onlooker he shouted, 'Is this a private fight, or can anyone get in it?' For Howard, democracy was one big public fight and everyone should plunge into it. That's the only way, he said, for everyday folks to get justice - by fighting for it."
Read the Article

Nevada Senate Race: Harry Reid Wins in Election Night's Biggest Houdini Act
Brad Knickerbocker, The Christian Science Monitor: "In one of the toughest, most closely-watched, and perhaps weirdest US Senate races, majority leader Harry Reid has defeated GOP challenger and tea party favorite Sharron Angle."
Read the Article

Norman Solomon | After the Election Disaster: Back to Basics
Norman Solomon, Truthout: "Now what? We need to build a grassroots progressive movement - wide, deep and strong enough to fight the right and challenge the corporate center of the Democratic Party. The stakes are too high and crises too extreme to accept 'moderate' accommodation to unending war, regressive taxation, massive unemployment, routine foreclosures and environmental destruction."
Read the Article

Republican Takes Obama Senate Seat; Democrat Bennet Wins in Colorado
Nadia Prupis, Truthout: "The end of a draining election night brought two more surprising developments, as Republican Mark Kirk was elected to President Obama's former Senate seat in Illinois and Democrat Michael Bennet won the seat in Colorado. Kirk won in a narrow 48-46 vote, in a state that typically votes Democratic, defeating opponent and Illinois treasurer Alexi Giannoulias."
Read the Article

More Than 30 Killed in New Baghdad Bomb Attacks
Jane Arraf, The Christian Science Monitor: "More than a dozen bombs struck Baghdad on Tuesday evening, killing almost 40 people and wounding 70 others in coordinated blasts two days after Al Qaeda-linked gunmen stormed a church in one of the deadliest attacks in a year."
Read the Article

Campaign Cash: Citizens United Becomes Get Out-of-Jail-Free Card for Corporate Criminals
Zach Carter, The Media Consortium: "The votes are in, and while some close races are still being tallied, there is a clear winner from the 2010 elections: Secret corporate cash. Such unaccounted for political donations may end up allowing those accused of wrongdoing to go free. As Joshua Holland details for AlterNet, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission may have provided a lifetime supply of get-out-of-jail-free cards to corporate criminals."
Read the Article

Cluster Munitions Treaty Leaves US Behind
Marwaan Macan-Markar, Inter Press Service: "A campaign to rid the world of cluster munitions has still to rope in the US government, a major producer and stockpiler of the deadly payload, on the eve of a key global conference in Laos to ban its production and use. The mixed messages that Washington has been sending are expected to hover over the historic cluster munitions conference to be held Nov. 9-12 in Laos, a poverty-stricken South-east Asian country still grappling with the legacy of the bombs dropped by U.S. warplanes four decades ago."
Read the Article

Microlending in a War Zone: Bamiyan Diaries - Day Five
David Smith-Ferri, Truthout: "In a small storage shed at the edge of town, we watched as 14-year-old Sayed Qarim signed a simple contract agreeing to borrow and repay a no-interest, 25,000 afghani loan (roughly $555). Daniel from the Zenda Company, the loan originator, counted out the crisp bills and handed them to Qarim, who smiled broadly and shook hands. Qarim, whose family farms potatoes and wheat, plans to use the funds to purchase a cow and her calf. 'There are great benefits of owning a cow,' Qarim explains. 'Our family gets to use the milk and we can sell the calf for a good profit.'"
Read the Article

Death and Profits: The Public Utility Racket
Michael Parenti, Truthout: "Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is a multibillion dollar, privately owned, publicly regulated utility whose main function is to make enormous profits for its shareholders at great cost to ratepayers. I know this to be true; I'm one of the ratepayers."
Read the Article

This Modern World: Mortgaging Our Kids' Future - Literally
Award-winning political cartoonist Tom Tomorrow brings us a look at our banking industry's clever new mortgage idea.
Read the Comic

E.J. Dionne, Jr. | And Now for the Next Battle
E.J. Dionne Jr.: "Democrats would be foolish to turn on themselves in fruitless bickering over whether their troubles owe to a failure to mobilize and excite their base or to win support from the political center. In fact, Democrats held moderate voters while losing independents. What hurt them most was this brute fact: Voters younger than 30 made up nearly a fifth of the electorate in 2008 but only about a tenth on Tuesday, according to network exit polls. This week's verdict was rendered by a much older and more conservative electorate. Yes, there was an enthusiasm gap."
Read the Article

Click here for more Truthout articles

BUZZFLASH DAILY HEADLINES

In a surge year for Republicans, California, as Joan Walsh of Salon points out, was the "thick blue line for the Democrats."

Indeed, Jerry Brown emerged triumphant in his bid to reclaim the governorship for the Democrats, while Barbara Boxer was re-elected to the senate. And the Democrats held strong against well-financed Republican campaigns for other key state offices.

California is a diverse state that now has a nonwhite majority in terms of its population. In a year of coded racial and "immigration" politics, this - no doubt - was an important factor in the outcome.

In a year of big money politics, Joan Walsh notes Californians also said "no" to the tens of millions of dollars in self-financing by Meg Whitman (former e-Bay CEO, running against Jerry Brown) and Carly Fiorina (former Hewlett-Packard CEO, running against Boxer): "Fiorina and Whitman defeated themselves; they were two wealthy ex-CEOs who thought they could buy their way into office, and who overlooked state voters' hunger for a government they can trust."

That's a refreshing bit of news from the Golden State.

Mark Karlin
Editor, BuzzFlash at Truthout

End of a Progressive Champion in the Senate: Russ Feingold Loses to Ron Johnson
Read the Article at TPM

Obama Makes Concession Calls
Read the Article at The Wall Street Journal

California Voters Defeat Marijuana Legalization Proposition
Read the Article at The Washington Post

Sums Up the 2010 Election? "Business Looks to Republicans to Block Rules, Taxes"
Read the Article at Bloomberg Businessweek

Now He Tells Us! Bush Considered Dropping Cheney From 2004 Ticket
Read the Article at The New York Times

November 2: The Death Knell of Corporate Liberalism?
Read the Article at The Progressive

As Democrats Lose House, Nancy Pelosi's Historic Reign as Speaker Will End
Read the Article at The Washington Post

Click here for more BuzzFlash headlines

 

----------
Support Truthout with a tax-deductible donation by clicking here.


To ensure you receive our messages please add the following address to your email address book: messenger@truthout.org

If you need help figuring out how to do this click here to read our guide.




Click here to
Subscribe

Our
Privacy Policy
Click here to
Unsubscribe