Back to the Future with Debra Saunders

Debra Saunders would probably be happy living in the deep south.  Pre-Civil War.  She may picture herself as a Southern Belle in wide hoop skirts sipping mint juleps on the verandah while darkies peel her grapes.  At least that’s the impression this reader got after reading her Chronicle column this morning.  No, she is not spouting right wing rhetoric, nor pining for the good old days. She’s simply saying she wants the voters in each state to decide what marriage laws will apply. If State A says ok for same sex couples to marry, she’s all for it, but if State B says no way, she’s for that too. 

She prefaces this whole “let the voters decide” spiel with her avowed support for gay marriage.  She has lots of gay friends, she hastens to assure us and she would never be happy if California passed a law allowing them to marry. (So long as those who object don’t have to perform the ceremonies.)

That kind of reasoning would have kept slavery in half our country. It would have denied black people and women the right to vote.  It would have prevented interracial couples from marrying. And it would have allowed states to deny basic reproductive freedom to women.  Oh, yeah, she uses Roe v. Wade as an example, pointing out that the Supreme Court could go back on precedent in the choice cases and re-interpret the Constitution to take away a women’s right.

But so could the states’ voters make similar changes if it was left up to them. With voter suppression statutes being proposed in many states, and not just the Southern ones, it is only the courts that keep the legislatures and the voters in check. If a measure that is enacted through popular vote is unconstitutional, it cannot stand.

If we believe in basic equality, then all people should be free to marry whom they choose and where they choose, not be forced to move if their state denies a right that another state allows. This is a fundamental freedom. In this she parts company from even her conservative gay friends, who have filed a “Friend of the Court “ brief supporting gay marriage in the Proposition 8 case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Instead, she echoes another conservative, Bush Assistant US Attorney General known for his authorship of the “torture memo”, now a law professor, who states: “It would be a mistake for the Supreme Court to use this case to basically cut off the political process and impose its own view on a moral and political question that is very divisive.”

Wrong. It would be a mistake to leave such an issue, one of basic human rights, up to the whim of voters. That’s why we have a Constitution and a Supreme Court.  Do they always get it right? No, especially with the Bush era court we are now stuck with. But they will, eventually.  Just as the Court did away with the policy of separate but equal in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education; and a year later reversed its 1905 Decision in Lochner v. New York decision that allowed gouging of employees under a convoluted interpretation of contract law, stating in Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma “The day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought."

Put away the picture hat, Debra, and join us in the 21^st century, crossing our fingers that this Court does the right thing!

Save our Postal Service!

The question on everyone’s minds these days is how much the termination of Saturday mail delivery will affect campaigning.  In this time of increasing vote by mail ballots being sent in days before the election, it could be disastrous.  People who have relied on Saturday mail pick up at their mailboxes will no longer be able to do that. Most state require that vote by mail ballots be received by the end of the voting on Election Day.  Even now, mailing on Saturday doesn’t guarantee delivery. 

Mailing on the Monday before the election won’t get there at all in most instances.  People who vote by mail in those states where election day poll voting is still in effect should  be counseled to walk their ballot into the polls, rather than trusting it to the mails in those crucial last few days.

For us direct mail consultants who want their last minute messages, rebuttals to a late hit piece or a reminder to vote to hit their targets’ mail boxes on the Saturday before the election, that is no longer an option.  We must aim for the Friday, or even the Thursday before the election and hope the voters take the time from their busy after work schedules to glance at the mail.

Already slowdowns in delivery time have mailhouse managers advising their clients to mail early to avoid a catastrophic day-after-the-election delivery.  With more automation in bulk mail centers, lay-offs and general loss of morale among postal works, we have seen mail go missing in the last weeks of the election, prompting loading dock visits, frantic phone calls, and even pleas for help to Congressional aides.

The Post Office deserves our support. As a self funded, self supporting arm of the government, it is a roaring success story, or has been until recently.  The recent disarray stems from a 2006 edict that the Postal Service, alone among Federal agencies, pre-fund its retirement program for 75 years into the future.  What was a self-sustaining, even profitable arm of the government has become a financially and morally bankrupts poor relation. This affects more than political campaigns of course, as any rural dweller dependent on the mail for delivery of its mail, packages and even life-saving medicine, can attest to.

For a short explanation of these budget busting shenanigans, see http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=9012963

 

And to see what you can do to protest and maybe even halt these measures, see http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2013/13-22-pspa-130301.htm

Easy to be a bigot, harder to be a racist? - Inside the mind of Jutice Antonin Scalia

So Justice Scalia thinks the Congress voted to re-authorize the Voting Rights Act without dissension, only because not a one of the Congress people were willing to be considered "racist" if they voted no.

But he explained, it's perfectly ok and socially acceptable for them to vote their consciences, that is to vote no, on women's rights, LGBT rights, poor people's rights - I mean entitlements.

But voting against black people, they only do that, because they fear ostracism. Not because voter suppression still exists, not because black people are still disenfranchised. No, every thing is peachy keen now. Jim Crow is dead and all people are equal. Amen.

Here is Justice Scalia's reasoning: In the beginning, only a few Republicans voted for the original act, then a few more voted for the first re-authorization, and a few more after that, until today when they all voted for it. Why? Because they feared the delicate sensibilities of - Who? fill in the blank - would be offended, and gentlemen that they are, they would not want to offend anyone.

No sir. Even though they have no problem denying women their reproductive rights or to be free from violence; it bothers them not one wit to find gay people getting married an abomination and as for poor people - Are there no prisons, no workhouses?

OK, we get it.  Republicans are scardy-cats, on certain issues.  It's hard to play Supreme Court Roulette, because you never know whose head the pistol is pointed at. Never mind where the bullet is.

And that reminds us, voting against gun safety laws is also just jim dandy. Not wanting to look like a sissy in front of their peers is all the excuse the pro-gun Congress dudes need.  

Prison-Industrial Complex Launches new Crime Initiative

Yes, that's right, a crime initiative.  The owners and operators of private prisons, having invested millions in their product, secure prisons and attendant paraphernalia - guards, weapons, greasy food, etc - are watching a downturn in their bottom line, as States are turning to alternatives to incarceration for lower level offenses.

"This is really messing with our service!" complained one prison CEO, Thad "Bad Dude" Higgenbothom of Selma Alabama. "We have prisons in thirty two states, and 12 of them so far are setting our prisoners free, or into half-way houses in local communities. If any more states adopt these policies of coddling criminals, we'll be up s*#t creek."

Higgenbothom outlined a two pronged approach the prison industry is putting into play to protect their assets.

"One, we ramp up our lobbying and PAC efforts. That's a no-brainer.  Rile up the populace and put pressure on the legislatures to resist soft on crime measures the liberals want; then we vote the molly-coddlers out of office. And two, we get pro-active. We send operatives out into the field, so to speak, and gin up the crime."

When pressed on exactly what he meant by that, an only slightly reluctant Higgenbothom explained that what he meant was his guys would go undercover and push drugs on low income communities, especially the "ones of color; they're suckers for the stuff," then they'd sit back and watch the crime rise.  

"After we get rid of the do-gooders and social workers, we make sure States put their money into our prisons not rehab and probation officers.  Things ought to turn around for us within a couple of years, once we get the program off the ground."

Answering questions coming fast and furious on the well-known cost savings of alternatives to incarceration compared with private prisons, Higgenbothom only said, "Balderdash!"

When one reporter followed Higgenbothom out to the parking lot and attempted to get a quote on recidivism, she was met with by security personnel in full body armor carrying AR 15s.

"They scared me," said the subdued woman into the channel 5 camera, as the Lincoln roared off in the background. "I'm giving up journalism and going to go into my father's grocery business. I hear he can get a good contract with the new prison being built on Highway 12."

Obamacare Good for the Economy - Scarcity of New Docs Means More Insured People Thrown off "Physical Cliff"

Since the bottom line is all that counts, let's look at Obamacare from that perspective.  Now that Obamcare mandates insurance, more than 30 million currently uninsured or underinsured patients will be demanding care.  However, the US is not graduating enough doctors to meet the demand. See today's Chronicle.

So more people will pay insurance premiums, a good thing, but alas, they won't be able to use them, bad for the patients, good for the economy.  Unless of course, we import docs from China and India, which is likely, or we can always export the patients.

Which would you prefer?

You say get more people into Med School? Let's see what the Republicans think about increased grants and loans, with reasonable fees, for students. Sorry, cheaper to do the import/export thing and then we create jobs for import/exporters. Kern County is doing it now. Cheaper than Med school by a long shot.

 

Diagnosing and prescribing by video: Cheaper yet!

Arm the Children Campaign

Wayne La Pierre, foiled in his attempt to arm the teachers in every school by the Teachers Union and other rational people, now has a new ploy, sure to reduce violence and restore calm to campuses everywhere: Arm the children.

Yes, Mom and Dad, what kid doesn't want his/her own bolt action, rat-a-tat, multi shot, submachine gun and/or hand gun to protect themselves in school and at the mall or movies against some gun toting maniac.

Because, let's face it, these killers are everywhere. Having armed guards at the school is not going to stop the carnage. Only armed children will be able to protect themselves by killing the killers.

Asked if he'd feel comfortable sending his own tykes out packing heat, the NRA president said, "Hell yeah, I would.  If we don't get guns into their hands when they're young, they might turn into liberal peaceniks or something.  What kinda country would that be to live in?"

This is a real baby with real guns. And here's the story:

Baby Issued Permit to Carry a Gun

ajzeller1979

By ajzeller1979

May 18, 2007 in World

Bubba Ludwig just made history and he can't even walk yet. Bubba, whose real name is Howard David Ludwig, is the first 10 month old to be issued a firearm owner's license.

Bubba can't walk yet, or talk or sign his own name, yet, by law, he can own a firearm. Bubba's father, Howard Ludwig, applied for the card for his son as a joke. He applied for the card, paid the fee, listed his sons height and weight thinking there would be no way that this would actually be approved. The whole thing started when the baby's grandfather purchased him a 12 guage Beretta shotgun as a gift. While most people give rattles, toys or even clothes, this seemed just more... appropriate. It takes a lot of thought to match the right firearm with the right infant. The family says that the shotgun is going to be held by Bubba's father until he is at least 14, truly an appropriate age for a child to be wielding a weapon that, when fired at in close proximity to, say a human leg, can literally blow the leg off the body. Way to think on your feet dad.

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/183641#ixzz2FpcUX1hM

Guns don't kill people - trigger fingers do

We've all heard that saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."  Well, yes, but what if there were not easy access to guns, of all sorts, not just assault weapons. (And really, can any gun not be considered an assault weapon?) 

Here's a simple way to stop the madness, short of banning (or making it really hard) individuals from owning guns.

Cut off the trigger fingers of all males at birth. That's right.  No trigger finger, no gun killing.  Simple?  Why only males you ask? Well, who commits most of the gun violence in this country?  Males.  Anger. Testosterone. Whatever, it's much more concentrated in the male of the species.  So we'll start there.

What about the need for soldiers?  What about police officers, and even hunters?  And of course, people being adaptable, wouldn't they just learn to use another finger, and haven't people been known to shoot with their toes? 

All right, you have a point. But how about this.  In the UK, where hand gun ownership was strictly regulated in the 90's, not a single mass killing of the type we saw this week at the school in Connecticut has happened. And Australia. They have similar laws with similar results.  There must be something to it.

So isn't it likely that there is some, call me irrational, correlation between the easy procurement of mass killing weapons and their use for mass killing?

And yes, I was disappointed that Obama did not utter those words, so loathed by the NRA, "Gun Control."

Oh I listen to the talk shows. I hear the people who call in saying the answer to gun violence is more guns. Why if those teachers had been armed, they could have taken care of the problem with  minimal death and carnage.

And of course I am familiar with the old saw "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."  Well, that just doesn't cut it anymore.  We outlaw drunk driving don't we?  We outlaw meth production.  Yes, those things still go on.  And prohibition is not the sole answer. Clearly, there are too many angry, disaffected people out there.  We do need more mental health options, better schools, jobs,  maybe even a national program for restorative justice, instead of our obsession with retribution and revenge. 

We live in a culture of hate and violence.  It's on our TV's, including the nightly news.  We spend more on wars than on growing a healthy society. We live in fear.  Radio personalities tell us to fear our government. Paranoia is a national pastime.  

We have congresspeople trembling before the alter of the National Rifle Association. 

As I watched one of my favorite all time classic feel good All American holiday movies, A Christmas Story, last night, I couldn't help but cringe that the plot of that whole show revolved around one little boy's desire for a bb gun. 

Non-Profits Join the "PAC"

News from the Bay Citizen on how non-profits are getting into the business of politics:

Nonprofits wade into political giving

Some groups turn to PACs as way to gain influence, protect charitable tax donation

By Amy Julia Harris on December 13, 2012 - 12:01 a.m. PST

 

 

As executive director of the Friends of the San Francisco Public Library, Scott Staub raises money to give to the city’s libraries. In his spare time, he raises money to give to politicians.
Staub heads a political action committee that is attempting to increase the political clout of the nonprofit sector in federal elections. Most of the committee’s members are affiliated with charitable organizations.

“We want to be a political player in a positive way,” said Staub, chairman of the Association of Fundraising Professionals PAC, an umbrella organization for charitable fundraisers. “There are lots of interest groups, and we decided we needed to have a greater voice for philanthropy.”

The PAC was formed about a decade ago and since then has contributed $68,000 to politicians who support pro-charity causes, especially maintaining the charitable tax deduction.

Charities are prohibited from donating to political campaigns as a condition of their tax-exempt status. But their politically free cousins, PACs, do not face the same restrictions.

The idea of donating money to candidates has been slow to catch on among nonprofit leaders, who typically eschew partisan political activity.

But that’s starting to change.

Robert Egger, a longtime nonprofit advocate, started a second PAC, CForward, in January. Like the fundraisers’ PAC, CForward only supports candidates who back the nonprofits’ agenda.

“Nonprofits represent the biggest unsolicited special interest group in America,” said Egger, who also runs a nonprofit community kitchen in Washington, D.C. “Most candidates are burdened by the idea that dot-com drives the economy while dot-org does good deeds.”

Just look at politics in the San Francisco area, home to one of the largest nonprofit economies in the nation, Egger said. In 2012, there were more than 41,000 registered nonprofits in the Bay Area, according to the Urban Institute. There are 1.63 million tax-exempt organizations in the U.S.
“Candidates can tell you how many manufacturing jobs are in their area,” Egger said. “But can they tell you how many nonprofits there are in their district? No way. I found that astounding. But that’s the status quo of politics.”

According to a survey of 1,500 nonprofit leaders this month [PDF] by Johns Hopkins University, “nonprofit organizations are under assault today as perhaps never before.” More than half the groups surveyed said government officials did not appreciate how the nonprofit sector works and are proposing policies that hurt charities.

“The usual pattern in the U.S. is for groups to start lobbying when they feel that they are under attack,” said Bruce E. Cain, professor of political science at Stanford University. “The current climate is very volatile for nonprofits. They were hit hard by the stock market problems in 2008, and now the threat of charitable deduction limits has to be freaking them out.”
It is.

Both Republicans and Democrats have proposed plans to increase revenue by limiting tax deductions that make it easier for the wealthiest Americans to donate to charity. The White House has proposed limiting charitable deductions to 28 percent for families that earn more than $250,000 a year. Last week, House Speaker John Boehner said he would be willing to limit itemized deductions, which could include charitable donations.

 

“When the (the government) looks to make cuts and get new sources of revenue, charities, because of their tax-exempt status, always become an easy target,” Staub said.

This year, the fundraisers’ PAC supported candidates who oppose any cap on charitable deductions. In 2012, the PAC contributed $23,500 to six members of the House and four members of the Senate who sat on key committees.

CForward has not yet donated to candidates but endorsed eight politicians for city, state and federal seats across the country, including Sean Sullivan, a Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for Oakland City Council and advocated greater involvement by nonprofit groups in the city.

Not everyone in the nonprofit world likes the idea of mixing politics and philanthropy. Most advocates want to focus on their specific missions, such as eliminating poverty or feeding the hungry, not on campaign politics.

“Most people in the sector are scared to death of politics,” Egger said. “They don’t want to offend their donors or are afraid of losing their tax-exempt status. But this is a legal, viable way to get our cause out politically.”

Staub says that while his PAC’s contributions are nothing compared to super PACs that pour millions into elections, having money in the game gets politicians’ attention.

“It’s not pay-for-play,” Staub said. “But when you’re a financial supporter, it does seem to be an easier opportunity to have meetings with lawmakers to present our perspective on charitable legislation.”

Amy Julia Harris covers nonprofits for the Bay Citizen and California Watch. Amy is a recent Stanford graduate and has written for The Seattle Times. She most recently spent a year in West Virginia covering ... View Profile

1%ers Secede from the Union; form own Nation/State

With the wealth of funds, and investments growing daily, despite gloom and doom predictions to the contrary, America's top earners, or self-described "Job Creators," have announced that they will secede from the Union in order to form their own Nation/State, ruled by whoever has the most money at any given time.  Fierce competition is underway for the title of Richest person and Supreme Leader, as corporations and individuals vie for the top post.

Ever since the Supreme Court declared that corporations had the same rights as human people, (reinforced recently by the pronouncement by former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney that "Corporations are people my friend"), the scramble to collect and itemize capital worth has begun.

Some of the 1%ers have even been heard to grumble that it's time to stop this corporate personhood stuff, at least for the time being, so as to even out the playing field, and let all rich peole compete fairly.

Other just shrug and say, "tough luck; if you haven't established a multinational corporation all your own, it's your own damn fault."

The battle of the fat cats and the corporate entities is on.  Some predict a two-state solution. Corporations over here, and individuals over here.

"The problem is," confided one wealthy magnate, who prefers to remain anonymous,"is that the Cayman Islands just isn't big enough to divide up that way."  He predicted a blood bath or at least a money fight, and suggested some of those claiming deep wealth may be out in the cold once the corporate assets are toted up.  "The corporations will win this, and the people will lose.  If you haven't got a cushy CEO job yet, you may be out of luck and back in the work force on the mainland," he opined grimly.

As for creating jobs, openings are now being advertised for security guards and top flight CPAs.

"Of course there will be need for the usual service personnel, maids, personal chefs, chauffeurs and the like, " he continued. "We will be creating hundreds of positions once the matter of statehood is sorted out."

Dems Working to Fix California, not Ruin it

In response to an oped by a local Tea Party Maven, I wrote the following.  Here I leave out proper names, as unnecessary to the story. I got a lot of nasty responses, as well as great support, and one truly threatening phone call, saved and passed on to the local authorities.

Democrats are trying to fix California, not ruin it Guest op-ed column Posted:   11/17/2012 05:00:00 AM PST POOR TEA PARTIERS. The party is over. The tea is cold and the dregs are bitter. Or are they? Maybe the tea has hallucinogenic properties, the effects of which have not yet worn off. At least that's the impression left by one Tea Party Maven (TPM) in an oped of Nov. 14. No sooner had Jerry Brown's Proposition 30 passed, ensuring the state would not fall off its own fiscal cliff, and funding for education and other services would continue, than  this person is accusing the Democrats of "trying to ruin California." The people of the state just voted for a major fix to the budget problem, proposed by Democrats, and that is the party attempting to bring the state to its knees? Yes, says TPM, because taxes are going up, businesses will leave in droves and the poor huddled middle classes will starve in the streets. It's not just the fact that Proposition 30 passed; it's that the Democrats have a 2/3 majority which may enable them to (gasp) levy even more taxes on the beleaguered masses. Look, no one wants to pay higher taxes, and sales taxes are regressive, but part of Proposition 30 was a progressive tax on the highest income earners. Middle class families will not see their income taxes. Small businesses, however, in the mind of TPM, will be forced to leave the state, not only because of the tax increases, but because of the onerous environmental and other regulations Democrats are notorious for— hence the accusation of wanting to ruin California. It all sounds very nice and like a plea for fairness, until you examine the facts. California is a fertile place for small businesses to thrive. Just visit the governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (http://business.ca.gov/Home.aspx.) High tech and clean energy jobs are booming. If anyone is being driven out of business, it's mom and pop retailers, forced to close their doors by the likes of corporate big box retail, who move into an area, offer cheap foreign made products and low wage jobs. These small businesses don't leave the state. They just leave, period. And I don't hear TPM complaining about that. Why? Could it be because corporate entities donate largely to Republican campaign coffers? Nor does TPM tackle a major culprit in the loss of revenue for schools and services over the past 40 years — Proposition 13, a Republican-backed measure that insured gutting of our schools by severely limiting the amount of revenue taken in through property taxes. Instead, she blames Democrats because they have held both houses of the Legislature for most of those same years. However, she neglects to mention that this is the first time the Democrats held a "supermajority" since 1933. A 2/3 vote is necessary to pass any tax increase and until recently was needed to pass a budget at all. No, TPM, Democrats do not want to ruin California. They want to save it, and according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, that's just what they'll do, turning a $1.9 billion deficit into a projected $9 billion surplus by fiscal year 2017-2018. As stated on their website: "Our projections show that there could be an over $1 billion operating surplus in 2014—15, growing thereafter to an over $9 billion surplus in 2017—18." http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/bud/fiscal-outlook/fiscal-outlook-2012.aspx All is not gloom and doom for the Golden State after all. And if we tackle the inequities in Proposition 13, especially the ones favoring the largest corporate abusers, the outlook could become all the more rosy.