Hi all...
Sadly, too many Dems representing us in Washington and Albany have capitulated to Wall Street...
[...making it too easy for GOP like Scott Brown to dupe folks into thinking they're the populist choice!...]
We must act, folks!...read these five re: Mass. special election debacle last week if you haven't yet:
"The Massachusetts Lesson: Go Populist Now" by Katrina vanden Heuvel
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/20
"Democrats Boosting Right-Wing Populism" by Norman Solomon
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/20-0
"They Still Don't Get It" by Bob Herbert [this past Saturday's NYTimes]
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/23-7
"After the Massachusetts Massacre" by Frank Rich [this past Sunday's NYTimes]
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/24-2
"Massachusetts and the Populist Imperative" by Robert Weissman
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/21-1
Hopefully I'm not the only Dem here in Dutchess wishing to bring party back to progressive FDR roots!...
Note-- re: this week's headlines-- check out these two new ones:
"Obama Wrong to Prioritize Deficit Reduction" by Matthew Rothschild
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/26-8
"Don't Be Stupid with the Economy" by Dean Baker
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/26-4
So-- tonight at 7 pm all registered Dems here in Dutchess are invited to a meeting of our county's Democratic Committee (at Villa Borgese at 70 Widmer Road in Wappingers Falls)...
And I'm cordially inviting you all (registered Democrats here in the county) to attend this mtg.-- and let me know if you'd like to start a new Progressive Democratic Caucus in Dutchess County!...
[for the sake of our county-- for the sake of our country-- and yes, for the sake of our party!]
Familiar with the Dutchess County Democratic Women's Caucus, new Democratic Diversity Caucus?...
[see: http://www.DDWC.org ; http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=254049256072&ref=mf ]
Both of these are great-- and now it's time for a Dutchess County Progressive Democratic Caucus!...
[I've been going to county Dem committee meetings here in Dutchess since 1996 (the first time of four times I ran unsuccessfully for state legislature; sigh; memories...but I digress)...it's time for this, folks.]
Why can't we progressive Dems here in Dutchess pull together to organize and press Obama, Schumer, Gillibrand, Murphy, Hall, and Hinchey-- and Paterson, Hall, Skartados, Ball, Miller, Molinaro-- to do the right thing on issues we care about?...
[see http://www.PDAmerica.org -- we could start local chapter of Progressive Democrats of America!]
For example-- as Jon Stewart has been eloquently hammering home on the Daily Show as of late...
Since when did 59 become less than 41?...(fact: last time GOP had 60 in Senate was back in 1923!)...
[we essentially have no hope of even HALFway progressive bills passing with Sen. filibuster in place!]
For much more on this check out these five:
"Mr. Smith Rewrites the Constitution" by Thomas Geoghegan [Jan. 11th NYTimes]
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11geoghegan.html
"The Case for Busting the Filibuster" by Thomas Geoghegan
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090831/geoghegan
"Filibuster Follies" [The Nation editorial]
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/500559/filibuster_follies
"How Filibusters Are Strangling the Senate" by Bob Fuss
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/23-6
"What Ails the Senate" by Christopher Hayes
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091123/hayes
....but have you heard anything from Schumer/Gillibrand re: sentiments re: ending Sen. filibusters?...
And-- even GOP like John McCain now working with Hinchey to bring back FDR's Glass-Steagall Act...
[......but again-- where are Schumer, Gillibrand, Murphy, Hall, et. al. on this?....here in FDR's Dutchess!...]
Recall my http://www.PetitionOnline.com/FDRagain (dozens signed on); also see these three on this:
"An Odd Post-Crash Couple: Spurning Obama, McCain and Cantwell Propose Resurrecting Glass-Steagall to Break Up Wall Street" [Newsweek 12/15/09]
http://www.newsweek.com/id/226938
Statement by Sen. John McCain on The Banking Integrity Act of 2009 [12/17/09]
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=9edb5b0f-d58c-6a14-815c-b60728ddd845
Hinchey Introduces Bill to Reinstate Glass-Steagall Act; Break Up MegaBanks that Caused Financial Crisis; Measure Would Separate Investment & Commercial Banking to Protect the Public [12/16/09]
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/121609glasssteagall.html
...and in contrast, check out this new must-read from Nomi Prins re: Obama's lip service on this issue:
"Obama's Half-Baked Bank Reform"-- at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-2 ...
Another example...
In the wake of last week's atrocious Supreme Court decision turning floodgates loose to corporate $...
Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. John Larson have introduced the Fair Elections Now Act-- endorsed by clean money clean elections advocates at http://www.PubliCampaign.org ; why not our locals too?...see:
http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261
And yes-- impact of state budget as proposed by Paterson will not only be atrocious on local schools, municipalities, hospitals, nursing homes, EPF, DEC-- but will also indubitably shortfund our county...
[...leading to even more insane budget/tax choices for county legislators like yours truly...]
It doesn't have to be like this-- a stock transfer tax on Wall Street has 3-to-1 support across New York!...
[see: http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/01/stock-transfer-tax-has-3-to-1-support.html ]
And let's not forget-- for well over a decade Maurice Hinchey has been a strong proponent of saving $400 billion a year merely by expanding Medicare to cover everyone with a single-payer program...
[hopefully a Dutchess County Progressive Democratic Caucus would push all; http://www.PNHP.org ]
Am I serious folks?...You bet I'm serious...(as serious as the heart attack that took my stepfather at age 59 when he had no health insurance, so wouldn't see anyone for his heart condition-- Bob Malstrom)...
Finally-- am I the only one here in Dutchess who remembers how just a few months ago the vast majority of American public wanted our troops OUT of Afghanistan and Iraq?...(change to believe in!)...
This is at the top of the front page of today's NYTimes Arts section (STRONG anti-war film, folks!):
"Cameron's 'Avatar' Tops His 'Titanic' As Top Grosser of All Time" by Michael Cieply
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/movies/awardsseason/27record.html
[what do you think might happen if all who saw "Avatar" called Congress for troops to come home?...
Cameron WANTS us to think/act-- http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/hmg-avatar-hidden-messages.html ]
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men and women do nothing, progressive Dems...
[Edmund Burke was right!]
Joel
242-3571/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
p.s. Join me in signing on to this petition to end the filibuster forever in the Senate!...at this link:
http://tomgeoghegan.com/2009/08/petition-to-cloture-the-filibuster-forever/?bb2d4fd0 ...
p.p.s. Can't make it to tomorrow night's county Dem committee meeting?...call me or email me otherwise-- and let's get the show on the road, folks!...(let's not mourn, but organize!)...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Still need convincing we progressive Dems here in Dutchess need to pull together for this new group?
Read these:
"Ten Ways to Stop Corporate Dominance of Politics" by Fran Korten
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/26-3
"Robbing Grandma to Reward Wall Street" by Martha Burk
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/25-11
"Record Bank Profits-- American Dream Foreclosed" by Mike Prokosch
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/23-2
"The Sorry State of the Union" by Robert Scheer
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/27-1
"Where's the Movement?" by George Lakoff
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/25-0
"Blocking Bernanke is Good Economics, Smart Politics for Dems" by John Nichols
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/26-6
"Unions Can't Compete with Corporate Campaign Cash" by John Nichols
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/521020/unions_can_t_compete_with_corporate_campaign_cash
"Corporations Ain't People: Top Ten Responses" by Katrina vanden Heuvel
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/521982/corporations_ain_t_people_top_10_responses
"Teddy Roosevelt Was Right: Ban ALL Corporate Contributions" by John Nichols
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/519991/teddy_roosevelt_was_right_ban_all_corporate_contributions
"Move Your Money" [The Nation editorial; see http://www.MoveYourMoney.info ]
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/editors
"Obama's Human Rights Policy a Disappointment" by Stephen Zunes
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/26-0
"Progressives-- Don't Mourn, Organize" by Michael Winship
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/23-3
"Open Letter to Obama: One Year Later, Progressive Losing Hope" by Medea Benjamin
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/20-6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9 more reasons here why we need new Progressive Democratic Caucus (to bring our troops home!):
"Afghanistan: This War Won't Work" by Phyllis Bennis (great piece; brand new!)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/25-7
Fact: Dutchess taxpayers alone have spent $1.2 billion on war in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001(!).
http://www.NationalPriorities.org
Rep. Eric Massa: "Christmas Eve Is the 3000th Day in Afghanistan and 30th Anniv. of Russian Invasion"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-eric-jj-massa/christmas-eve-is-the-3000_b_402074.html
Rep.'s Lee, McGovern, Jones and Colleagues Ask Speaker for Up-Or-Down Vote re: Afghanistan
http://lee.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=57§iontree=35,57&itemid=1839 [12/18 press release]
"How to Exit Afghanistan" by Selig Harrison
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100111/harrison
"Cause and Effect in the 'Terror War'" by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/29-1
"Are U.S. Wars Fueling Domestic Terror?" by Katrina vanden Heuvel
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/509506/are_us_wars_fueling_domestic_terrorist_threats_
"Obama and the Permanent War Budget" by William Hartung
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/23-13
"Afghanistan: $57,077.60-- Surging by the Minute" by Jo Comerford
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/17-5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/movies/awardsseason/27record.html ...
Published on Saturday, January 23, 2010 by the New York Times
They Still Don't Get It
by Bob Herbert
How loud do the alarms have to get? There is an economic emergency in the country with millions upon millions of Americans riddled with fear and anxiety as they struggle with long-term joblessness, home foreclosures, personal bankruptcies and dwindling opportunities for themselves and their children.
The door is being slammed on the American dream and the politicians, including the president and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill, seem not just helpless to deal with the crisis, but completely out of touch with the hardships that have fallen on so many.
While the nation was suffering through the worst economy since the Depression, the Democrats wasted a year squabbling like unruly toddlers over health insurance legislation. No one in his or her right mind could have believed that a workable, efficient, cost-effective system could come out of the monstrously ugly plan that finally emerged from the Senate after long months of shady alliances, disgraceful back-room deals, outlandish payoffs and abject capitulation to the insurance companies and giant pharmaceutical outfits.
The public interest? Forget about it.
With the power elite consumed with its incessant, discordant fiddling over health care, the economic plight of ordinary Americans, from the middle class to the very poor, got pathetically short shrift. And there is no evidence, even now, that leaders of either party fully grasp the depth of the crisis, which began long before the official start of the Great Recession in December 2007.
A new study from the Brookings Institution tells us that the largest and fastest-growing population of poor people in the U.S. is in the suburbs. You don't hear about this from the politicians who are always so anxious to tell you, in between fund-raisers and photo-ops, what a great job they're doing. From 2000 to 2008, the number of poor people in the U.S. grew by 5.2 million, reaching nearly 40 million. That represented an increase of 15.4 percent in the poor population, which was more than twice the increase in the population as a whole during that period.
The study does not include data from 2009, when so many millions of families were just hammered by the recession. So the reality is worse than the Brookings figures would indicate.
Job losses, stagnant or reduced wages over the past decade, and the loss of home equity when the housing bubble burst have combined to take a horrendous toll on families who thought they had done all the right things and were living the dream. A great deal of that bleeding is in the suburbs. The study, compiled by the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, said, "Suburbs gained more than 2.5 million poor individuals, accounting for almost half of the total increase in the nation's poor population since 2000."
Democrats in search of clues as to why voters are unhappy may want to take a look at the report. In 2008, a startling 91.6 million people - more than 30 percent of the entire U.S. population - fell below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, which is a meager $21,834 for a family of four.
The question for Democrats is whether there is anything that will wake them up to their obligation to extend a powerful hand to ordinary Americans and help them take the government, including the Supreme Court, back from the big banks, the giant corporations and the myriad other predatory interests that put the value of a dollar high above the value of human beings.
The Democrats still hold the presidency and large majorities in both houses of Congress. The idea that they are not spending every waking hour trying to fix the broken economic system and put suffering Americans back to work is beyond pathetic. Deficit reduction is now the mantra in Washington, which means that new large-scale investments in infrastructure and other measures to ease the employment crisis and jump-start the most promising industries of the 21st century are highly unlikely.
What we'll get instead is rhetoric. It's cheap, so we can expect a lot of it.
Those at the bottom of the economic heap seem all but doomed in this environment. The Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston put the matter in stark perspective after analyzing the employment challenges facing young people in Chicago: "Labor market conditions for 16-19 and 20-24-year-olds in the city of Chicago in 2009 are the equivalent of a Great Depression-era, especially for young black men."
The Republican Party has abandoned any serious approach to the nation's biggest problems, economic or otherwise. It may be resurgent, but it's not a serious party. That leaves only the Democrats, a party that once championed working people and the poor, but has long since lost its way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/26-3 ...
Published on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 by YES! Magazine
10 Ways to Stop Corporate Dominance of Politics
It's not too late to limit or reverse the impact of the Supreme Court's disastrous decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
by Fran Korten
The recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate spending in politics just may be the straw that breaks the plutocracy's back.
Pro-democracy groups, business leaders, and elected representatives are proposing mechanisms to prevent or counter the millions of dollars that corporations can now draw from their treasuries to push for government action favorable to their bottom line. The outrage ignited by the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission extends to President Obama, who has promised that repairing the damage will be a priority for his administration.
But what can be done to limit or reverse the effect of the Court's decision? Here are 10 ideas:
1. Amend the U.S. Constitution to declare that corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of human beings. Since the First Amendment case for corporate spending as a free speech right rests on corporations being considered "persons," the proposed amendment would strike at the core of the ruling's justification. The push for the 28th Amendment is coming from the grassroots, where a prairie fire is catching on from groups such as Public Citizen, Voter Action, and the Campaign to Legalize Democracy.
2. Require shareholders to approve political spending by their corporations. Public Citizen and the Brennan Center for Justice are among the groups advocating this measure, and some members of Congress appear interested. Britain has required such shareholder approval since 2000.
3. Pass the Fair Elections Now Act, which provides federal financing for Congressional elections. This measure has the backing of organizations representing millions of Americans, including Moveon.org, the NAACP, the Service Employees International Union, and the League of Young Voters. Interestingly, the heads of a number of major corporations have also signed on, including those of Ben & Jerry's, Hasbro, Crate & Barrel, and the former head of Delta Airlines.
4. Give qualified candidates equal amounts of free broadcast air time for political messages. This would limit the advantages of paid advertisements in reaching the public through television where most political spending goes.
5. Ban political advertising by corporations that receive government money, hire lobbyists, or collect most of their revenue abroad. A fear that many observers have noted is that the Court's ruling will allow foreign corporations to influence U.S. elections. According to The New York Times, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) are exploring this option.
6. Impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. Representative Alan Grayson (D-Florida) proposes this, calling it "The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act."
7. Prohibit companies from trading their stock on national exchanges if they make political contributions and expenditures. Another one from Grayson, which he calls "The Public Company Responsibility Act."
8. Require publicly traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than for promoting their products. Grayson calls this "The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act."
9. Require the corporate CEO to appear as sponsor of commercials that his or her company pays for, another possibility from the Schumer-Van Hollen team, according to The New York Times
10. Publicize the reform options, inform the public of who is making contributions to whom, and activate the citizenry. If we are to safeguard our democracy, media must inform and citizens must act.
The measures listed above-and others that seek to reverse the dominance of money in our political system-will not be easy. But grassroots anger at this latest win for corporate power is running high.
History shows that when the public is sufficiently aroused, actions that once seemed impossible can, in hindsight, seem inevitable.
Fran Korten wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Fran is publisher of YES! Magazine.
Interested?
Democracy Unlimited :: In Humboldt County, California, non-local corporations are banned from politics.
Envision Spokane :: Communities around the country are using local law to promote the rights of citizens over those of corporations.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/521982/corporations_ain_t_people_top_10_responses ...
Corporations Ain't People: Top 10 Responses
posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL on 01/26/2010 @ 4:32pm
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, free to flood campaigns with cash contributions so that the voices of, well--real people--are drowned out, the stakes and emotions around this issue are high. Rightly so. Here are 10 creative replies to this monstrous decision (in no particular order). I welcome your own suggestions below.
1) "If corporations are 'people' then HEY it's time to re-institute the draft..." --ddeclue, Democratic Underground
2) "Corporations are legally people. And it makes sense, folks. They do everything people do except breath, die, and go to jail for dumping 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River." --Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report
3) "A corporation has no soul to be damned, no body to be kicked, and that is why corporations essentially get away with murder in matters like compensation." --Nell Minow, Editor and Founder, The Corporate Library
4) "Will SCOTUS give gay corporations the right to marry?" --@mattyglesias
5) "If corporations get the same privileges as people, then people should have the same privileges as corporations. BAIL US OUT!!" --munklanis, reddit.com
6) "Corporations are an oppressed minority forced to move headquarters from state to state in search of friendlier tax codes--sometimes being forced to live just off our shores in tiny mailboxes." --John Oliver, The Daily Show
7) "Restrict Personhood 2 those who bleed...Goldman doesn't bleed. Do Glenn Beck, Cheney, Blankfein?" --@hughsansom
8) "If corporations have the same rights as people, we need to shut down Wall St., as we shouldn't be buying & selling them." --@Geofutures
9) "So the next time you're walking down the street and you see ExxonMobile, or ChevronTexaco take them by the hand and say, 'Hello.' Take Diebold out for dinner but please don't let Diebold figure out the tip. Isn't Blackwater entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of billions in Iraq War contracts? You know what? Citigroup has two i's too." --A Message About Corporate Personhood from Nero Fiddled
10) "Corporations have free speech. But they can't speak like you and me. They don't have mouths or hands. (Just A Giant Middle Finger.) Instead, they must speak the only way they can--through billions and billions of dollars." --Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report
* IF YOU WANT TO TAKE ACTION:
"Now is the time for us to put in motion a great popular movement to amend the constitution to defend democracy against the champions of corporate plutocracy. Go to FreeSpeechForPeople.org." --Jamie Raskin, Maryland State Senator and Nation contributor
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-eric-jj-massa/christmas-eve-is-the-3000_b_402074.html ...
Rep. Eric J.J. Massa
U.S. Representative from New York
[again-- why aren't Hinchey, Hall, Murphy, Gillibrand, Schumer writing essays and letters like this?]
Posted: December 23, 2009 01:41 PM
Christmas Eve Is the 3,000th Day in Afghanistan and 30th Anniversary of the Russian Invasion
Christmas Eve is a time to gather with friends and family to reflect on the good things in life. It's a time to share our joys and our hopes for peace on earth and good will towards all.
This year Christmas Eve has a sad and ironic twist to it however.
As we begin our deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, this Christmas Eve will also mark the 3,000th day of the war in Afghanistan and the 30th anniversary of the initial Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Thus far, this war has already cost the American taxpayer a minimum of $300,000,000,000 according to the Congressional Research Service (and that's just the funding that's "on budget").
Sadly, the fact that we're spending about $101 million per day in this war is the good news. The financial cost of this war is nothing compared to the fact that 937 American troops have been killed, and 4,434 have been wounded (and that's not counting the thousands more that will carry the memories of this war for their entire lives).
Exactly 50 days ago from Christmas Eve, because of all of these reasons, I took to the floor of the House and formalized my call for an end to this war of occupation and attrition.
As a 24-year retired military officer and former special assistant to the then Supreme Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark, I am deeply troubled by the fact that we have yet to even define victory. Having recently witnessed an election where Hamid Karzai "won" despite having about 1/3 of his ballots thrown out for election fraud, I also know that we cannot continue engaging in nation building by partnering with one of the most corrupt narco-governments in the world.
Additionally, being on the House Armed Services Committee and having listened to the testimony of General Stanley McChrystal, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, there is nothing that convinces me that we can force Democracy on a tribal people through continued military occupation or escalation.
History has shown us what happens when military forces try to occupy Afghanistan, and we can learn a lot from the Russian invasion which began on December 24th, 1979.
Our friends at the Brave New Foundation have been working on an ongoing project called ReThink Afghanistan and today, they released a great piece on the lessons we can learn from the Russian invasion. I HIGHLY recommend watching this video and sharing it with your friends and family:
So what can we do?
Last week, I signed onto a letter with several members of Congress to demand a Congressional debate followed by an up or down vote in the House on the escalation. It has been eight years since Congress has had any sort of meaningful debate on this critical issue and the public deserves to know where their member of Congress stands.
This is where you can help
If you agree that the American people deserve an up or down vote on the escalation in Afghanistan, then I urge you to call your member of Congress and Senators to tell them to support an Up or Down vote on this issue.
Nothing gets the attention of a member of Congress quite like returning from the holidays to discover 500 voicemails demanding action.
You can find your Congressman or Congresswoman by visiting http://house.gov .
You can find your Senators by visiting http://senate.gov .
Let's declare that enough is enough on this 3,000th day of the war in Afghanistan. It's time to bring our troops home.
P.S. Don't forget to recommend this post and send an email to your friends and family to recruit their help.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
stop Central Hudson rate hike (fact: CH made $27 million in profits in 2008)...
Hi all...
In case you didn't see this in post I made last week-- come out and speak up today if you can!...
[...and-- see below-- email all 25 of us at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us to pass resolution on this]
From the Poughkeepsie Journal Jan. 13th...
"Hearings Proposed for Central Hudson Rate Hikes" by Craig Wolf
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100113/BUSINESS/1130318/Hearings-scheduled-for-proposed-Central-Hudson-rate-hikes
Consumers who want to sound off about rate increases proposed by Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. can do so Jan. 26.The state Public Service Commission, which is reviewing the proposals from Poughkeepsie-based Central Hudson, has set two public statement hearings for that day. The first is at 11 a.m. in the Common Council Chambers, third floor at city hall, 62 Civic Center Plaza, Poughkeepsie. The second is at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers on Broadway in Kingston. Central Hudson rates rose on July 1. A month later, a new proposal was made, which would go into effect this July if approved.
That proposal seeks permission to raise rates for electric and gas delivery service. It cites rising costs and uncollectible bills along with falling sales volume. The case has gone through testimony stages and brought objections from the trial staff of the state Department of Public Service and the Consumer Protection Board. Litigation in the case has been suspended because talks toward a negotiated settlement continue. The trial staff opposed Central Hudson's request to get $15.2 million more from electric customers and $4 million more from gas customer
Fact: Dutchess taxpayers as it is now already pay over $700,000 a year to Central Hudson through our county property taxes for electricity/power at county buildings all over Dutchess; I've gotten two resolutions passed in our County Legislature to stop inappropriate and unfair rate hikes like this (for many years now Central Hudson has been cranking in literally tens of millions in profits annually).
Join over 100 signed on to my http://www.PetitionOnline.com/FairRate -- stop C.H. rate hike now;
see: http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/08/help-stop-newly-proposed-central-hudson.html !
From http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091027/BIZ/910270314/-1/BIZ1301 ...
Profits rise for Central Hudson's parent
By Michael Levensohn
Times Herald-Record
Posted: October 27, 2009 - 2:00 AM
POUGHKEEPSIE — Higher delivery rates for gas and electricity helped CH Energy Group boost its third-quarter profit to $5.6 million, or 34 cents per share, up from $3.2 million, or 18 cents per share, a year ago. CH Energy Group is the parent company of Central Hudson Gas & Electric, a regulated utility that serves much of Dutchess, Orange and Ulster counties. Central Hudson is in the middle of a rate case before the state Public Service Commission that will set rates effective July 2010. If approved as requested, it would increase average residential bills by 3.7 percent for electric and 3.5 percent for natural gas.
Pass it on...
[...and-- no reason to not hold Paterson, state leg.'s accountable for this too-- call 'em at (877) 255-9417!...]
Joel
242-3571/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
p.s. A number of folks have indicated to me their disgruntlement over Rolison/GOP's newly revised effort to stop Dem memorializing resolutions from even being allowed on to agenda for Committee Day; see:
http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2010/January/20/DCL_mems-20Jan10.html (from last week)...
I'm not the only one who recalls all of the pontificating, polemicizing, and politicizing perpetrated by GOP county legislators for years during mtg.'s like Rolison-- through their memorializing resolutions in our County Legislature-- re: MTA payroll tax, cap on Medicaid, getting NYS to pay for state-ready inmates in our County Jail, natural gas drilling, etc....(let me know if you want even more details, folks)...
Fact: The vast majority of dozens of resolutions I've gotten passed have NOT been memorializations.
[see: http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/08/dutchess-progressive-help-make-it.html ]
However-- Rolison's already-announced drive (last week @ MidHudsonNews.com) towards eliminating debate/discussion on pressing issues from state budget, etc. that truly do affect us here in Dutchess (like CH rate hike) is troubling (this-- after I decided to do bipartisan thing and vote for him as Chair!)...
[again-- thx to Co. Leg.'s Doxsey, Kuffner for co-sponsoring my resolution to bring back stock transfer tax on Wall Street-- stop local tax hikes, state budget cuts email countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us!...
http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-turned-in-my-paperwork-thurs-to-stary.html ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[so-- again-- email 25 of us at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us to get this on Feb. agenda, passed!]
WHEREAS, Dutchess County taxpayers paid $741,655 to Central Hudson in 2008 for power as a part of the county budget alone; Central Hudson's newly proposed rate hike will further drive up county property taxes, school property taxes, town property taxes, village property taxes, city property taxes, fire property taxes, and library property taxes, and
WHEREAS, families, businesses and local governments in Dutchess County are still reeling from the effects of one of the worst financial crises in our nation's history; we've all had to make painful sacrifices, and we expect Central Hudson to do the same and forgo this proposed rate hike, and
WHEREAS, as it is now already, last July 1st Central Hudson raised electricity delivery rates by 8.5 percent and natural gas delivery rates by 23.5 percent; CH Energy Group, the parent of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. of Poughkeepsie, has asked for another rate hike to go into effect this June, complaining of “inadequate revenues”, even though CH Energy Group has made tens of millions of dollars annually in profits for many years, and
WHEREAS, the Times Herald-Record reported last October 27th that “CH Energy Group boosted its third-quarter profit to $5.6 million, or 34 cents per share, up from $3.2 million, or 18 cents a share, a year ago”; CH Energy Group made over $27 million in profits in 2008, and
WHEREAS, Central Hudson's newly proposed rate hike, if approved by our state's Public Service Commission, would generate an additional $15.2 million in revenues from the delivery of electricity and an additional $3.9 million in revenues from the delivery of natural gas by raising the average residential electric customer's bill by $3.46 a month and the average natural gas customer's bill by $3.97 a month, and
WHEREAS, the increases proposed by Central Hudson would affect nearly 300,000 customers of all classes, including about 252,000 residential electric accounts and about 62,600 residential gas services, and
WHEREAS, the Poughkeepsie Journal reported in January that Public Service Commission's own trial staff has opposed Central Hudson's request to get $15.2 million more from electric customers and $4 million more from gas customers, and
WHEREAS, the Dutchess County Legislature and Poughkeepsie Town Board also both passed resolutions last year in opposition to Central Hudson's last rate hike,
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature requests that the New York State Public Service Commission reject Central Hudson's newly proposed rate hike, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to Governor David Paterson, the New York State Public Service Commission, State Senators Vincent Leibell and Stephen Saland, and Assemblymembers Greg Ball, Kevin Cahill, Joel Miller, Marcus Molinaro, and Frank Skartados.
In case you didn't see this in post I made last week-- come out and speak up today if you can!...
[...and-- see below-- email all 25 of us at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us to pass resolution on this]
From the Poughkeepsie Journal Jan. 13th...
"Hearings Proposed for Central Hudson Rate Hikes" by Craig Wolf
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100113/BUSINESS/1130318/Hearings-scheduled-for-proposed-Central-Hudson-rate-hikes
Consumers who want to sound off about rate increases proposed by Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. can do so Jan. 26.The state Public Service Commission, which is reviewing the proposals from Poughkeepsie-based Central Hudson, has set two public statement hearings for that day. The first is at 11 a.m. in the Common Council Chambers, third floor at city hall, 62 Civic Center Plaza, Poughkeepsie. The second is at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers on Broadway in Kingston. Central Hudson rates rose on July 1. A month later, a new proposal was made, which would go into effect this July if approved.
That proposal seeks permission to raise rates for electric and gas delivery service. It cites rising costs and uncollectible bills along with falling sales volume. The case has gone through testimony stages and brought objections from the trial staff of the state Department of Public Service and the Consumer Protection Board. Litigation in the case has been suspended because talks toward a negotiated settlement continue. The trial staff opposed Central Hudson's request to get $15.2 million more from electric customers and $4 million more from gas customer
Fact: Dutchess taxpayers as it is now already pay over $700,000 a year to Central Hudson through our county property taxes for electricity/power at county buildings all over Dutchess; I've gotten two resolutions passed in our County Legislature to stop inappropriate and unfair rate hikes like this (for many years now Central Hudson has been cranking in literally tens of millions in profits annually).
Join over 100 signed on to my http://www.PetitionOnline.com/FairRate -- stop C.H. rate hike now;
see: http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/08/help-stop-newly-proposed-central-hudson.html !
From http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091027/BIZ/910270314/-1/BIZ1301 ...
Profits rise for Central Hudson's parent
By Michael Levensohn
Times Herald-Record
Posted: October 27, 2009 - 2:00 AM
POUGHKEEPSIE — Higher delivery rates for gas and electricity helped CH Energy Group boost its third-quarter profit to $5.6 million, or 34 cents per share, up from $3.2 million, or 18 cents per share, a year ago. CH Energy Group is the parent company of Central Hudson Gas & Electric, a regulated utility that serves much of Dutchess, Orange and Ulster counties. Central Hudson is in the middle of a rate case before the state Public Service Commission that will set rates effective July 2010. If approved as requested, it would increase average residential bills by 3.7 percent for electric and 3.5 percent for natural gas.
Pass it on...
[...and-- no reason to not hold Paterson, state leg.'s accountable for this too-- call 'em at (877) 255-9417!...]
Joel
242-3571/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
p.s. A number of folks have indicated to me their disgruntlement over Rolison/GOP's newly revised effort to stop Dem memorializing resolutions from even being allowed on to agenda for Committee Day; see:
http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2010/January/20/DCL_mems-20Jan10.html (from last week)...
I'm not the only one who recalls all of the pontificating, polemicizing, and politicizing perpetrated by GOP county legislators for years during mtg.'s like Rolison-- through their memorializing resolutions in our County Legislature-- re: MTA payroll tax, cap on Medicaid, getting NYS to pay for state-ready inmates in our County Jail, natural gas drilling, etc....(let me know if you want even more details, folks)...
Fact: The vast majority of dozens of resolutions I've gotten passed have NOT been memorializations.
[see: http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/08/dutchess-progressive-help-make-it.html ]
However-- Rolison's already-announced drive (last week @ MidHudsonNews.com) towards eliminating debate/discussion on pressing issues from state budget, etc. that truly do affect us here in Dutchess (like CH rate hike) is troubling (this-- after I decided to do bipartisan thing and vote for him as Chair!)...
[again-- thx to Co. Leg.'s Doxsey, Kuffner for co-sponsoring my resolution to bring back stock transfer tax on Wall Street-- stop local tax hikes, state budget cuts email countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us!...
http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-turned-in-my-paperwork-thurs-to-stary.html ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[so-- again-- email 25 of us at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us to get this on Feb. agenda, passed!]
WHEREAS, Dutchess County taxpayers paid $741,655 to Central Hudson in 2008 for power as a part of the county budget alone; Central Hudson's newly proposed rate hike will further drive up county property taxes, school property taxes, town property taxes, village property taxes, city property taxes, fire property taxes, and library property taxes, and
WHEREAS, families, businesses and local governments in Dutchess County are still reeling from the effects of one of the worst financial crises in our nation's history; we've all had to make painful sacrifices, and we expect Central Hudson to do the same and forgo this proposed rate hike, and
WHEREAS, as it is now already, last July 1st Central Hudson raised electricity delivery rates by 8.5 percent and natural gas delivery rates by 23.5 percent; CH Energy Group, the parent of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. of Poughkeepsie, has asked for another rate hike to go into effect this June, complaining of “inadequate revenues”, even though CH Energy Group has made tens of millions of dollars annually in profits for many years, and
WHEREAS, the Times Herald-Record reported last October 27th that “CH Energy Group boosted its third-quarter profit to $5.6 million, or 34 cents per share, up from $3.2 million, or 18 cents a share, a year ago”; CH Energy Group made over $27 million in profits in 2008, and
WHEREAS, Central Hudson's newly proposed rate hike, if approved by our state's Public Service Commission, would generate an additional $15.2 million in revenues from the delivery of electricity and an additional $3.9 million in revenues from the delivery of natural gas by raising the average residential electric customer's bill by $3.46 a month and the average natural gas customer's bill by $3.97 a month, and
WHEREAS, the increases proposed by Central Hudson would affect nearly 300,000 customers of all classes, including about 252,000 residential electric accounts and about 62,600 residential gas services, and
WHEREAS, the Poughkeepsie Journal reported in January that Public Service Commission's own trial staff has opposed Central Hudson's request to get $15.2 million more from electric customers and $4 million more from gas customers, and
WHEREAS, the Dutchess County Legislature and Poughkeepsie Town Board also both passed resolutions last year in opposition to Central Hudson's last rate hike,
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature requests that the New York State Public Service Commission reject Central Hudson's newly proposed rate hike, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to Governor David Paterson, the New York State Public Service Commission, State Senators Vincent Leibell and Stephen Saland, and Assemblymembers Greg Ball, Kevin Cahill, Joel Miller, Marcus Molinaro, and Frank Skartados.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
I turned in my paperwork Thurs. to stary paying for 15% of my health insurance...
Hi all...
Personally, I turned in my paperwork a few days ago (Thurs.) so I could be make sure I was doing my due diligence to make sure I'm doing the responsible thing and paying for 15% of my health insurance...
[recall my http://www.petitiononline.com/cutlgpay I started a year ago-- comments from 19 folks there; I made clear in '08 to GOP Co. Leg.'s John Forman and Bob Sears that I'd co-sponsor their resolution!]
However...that being said...again...fact is, frankly, that it really is illegal now according to county charter currently for the County Executive to set policy for our county government-- and, particularly, for the County Legislature...period.
[...and again-- more than a bit hypocritical for him and GOP to exempt Steinhaus, Kendall, Grady, Anderson from having to pay 15% of their health insurance-- while getting county legislators to do this]
Feel free to speak up on this at Mon.'s 7 pm full board mtg. of our Co. Leg.: 22 Market St. Pok., folks!...
[but yes-- I personally have already turned in my own filled-out form for this to Risk Managment Thurs.]
And-- as my colleague Alison MacAvery says-- "For years now the elected officials of Dutchess County have enjoyed the luxury of free health insurance while over 1400 county employees pay for theirs. They are the men and women who keep the county working around the clock 365 days a year. Though Dutchess County is facing fiscal challenges and having elected officials contribute to their health plans will assist in filling the budgetary gap the most fundamental reason for elected staff to pay their fair share is because it is fair! Today the elected officials have the opportunity as true Public Servants to stop the practice of accepting this special consideration - free health insurance..."
[recall-- "Free Health Premiums Are County Perk for 195" by Jenny Lee-Adrian last Feb. in PoJo:
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20090201&Kategori=NEWS0 1&Lopenr=902010342&Ref=AR ]
In fact, Alison, Sandy G. et. al. tried to amend resolution #210023 to read as below at Thursday's Government Services and Administration Committee; sadly, their pleas for common sense and fairness on this fell on deaf GOP ears; Dem amendments to effect below were rejected:
"WHEREAS approximately 1,400 Dutchess County employees are currently contributing to their health insurance benefits; and
WHEREAS approximately 190 Elected Officials and Management employees have been provided dispensation and privilege from said contributions for these many years; and
WHEREAS this special consideration and exemption from health insurance contributions has been over the course of time an ongoing financial burden for citizens as it makes up a significant portion of Dutchess County's total annual operating budget, and
WHEREAS, although the Dutchess County Legislature passed a local law in the fall of 2009 by a vote of 23 to 2, this said law was vetoed by County Executive and did not have enough votes to override and this said law attempted to establish a policy of all elected officials to contrubute 15% of the cost of their health insurance,and
WHEREAS, that pursuant to Section 2.02 of the Dutchess County Charter, the Legislature is authorizing body to determine policy; and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature hereby requests all County Elected Officials to voluntarily contribute 15% of the County provided health plan effective January 1, 2010, and be it further
RESOLVED, that all usual and customary forms and communications be provided to individuals affected by this policy revision as well as a Special Open Enrollment period commencing January 26, 2010 and concluding February 8, 2010 be available for the purpose of modifying, changing or withdrawing enrollment from current health plans and as well as the Flex 125 programs also know as The Health Care Flexible Spending Accounts"
What do YOU think?...(let us know Monday night!...and at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us, folks)...
Pass it on...
Joel
242-3571/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
p.s. Frustrated as I am re: local media ignoring crucial tax truths/context for much of above and below?...one more reason to help Creek Iversen, et. al. and myself start a new progressive newspaper!...(email your articles now-;we need 'em!...to creek.iversen@gmail.com!...call him: 902-8154; check out his http://DutchessWord.blogspot.com too-- and don't forget to join us for fab funraiser/fundraiser Feb. 5 6-9 pm at Amici's with his band Fleet Irresistiblé-- with bandmates Daniel "Zenote" Sompantle, Nora, and Dan-- and Pat Lamanna too!...(see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztDGBLHqxF8 ; http://www.PatLamanna.blogspot.com )...pass it on...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/Legislature/CLagenda.htm ...
210023 Volunteer contribution to Health Insurance by the Dutchess County Legislators
Declaration by County legislators that they will voluntarily pay 15% of their health insurance costs.
210012 Repealing an exemption from sales and compensating use taxes for receipts from retail sales of, and consideration given or contracted to be given for, certain clothing and footwear, pursuant to the authority of Article 29 of the Tax Law of the State of New York
Repeal of sales tax exemption on clothing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NO one wants sales tax on clothing/shoes under $110-- or mortgage tax-- but-- better than property tax!
First-- that removing the exemption was originally part of our budget package/proposal (to avoid property tax hikes, even bigger budget cuts-- scroll down just a bit for reminder re: county budget cuts)...
Second-- unfortunately the County Executive will feel even more empowered and emboldened to strip even more funding during the year from various nonprofits and county departments if we do not make sure that $5.3 million in revenue from sales tax is available for county this year (for instance, the County Executive already this year has threatened if not actually jeopardized and/or played games w/contracts/funding with nonprofits like Family Services-- sad but true)...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Six facts on taxes, wealth, & economic development crucial to understanding/solving county taxes:
[call Paterson/state leg.'s asap on these-- (877) 255-9417-- and Congress at (800) 828-0498 too!]
Fact #1: The richest 1% of American households now own more net worth than the other 95% of us.
http://hudson-valley.chronogram.com/issue/2009/11/News+&+Politics/Larry-Beinhart-s-Body-Politic
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moore/moore-says-top-1-percent-owns-more-financial-wealt/
Fact #2: Middle class New Yorkers now pay a much higher percentage of our income (over 11%) in state & local taxes than millionaires do (only 7%)-- when property and sales taxes are also considered.
[see: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/ny_whopays_factsheet.pdf ]
Fact #3: Millionaires now pay only a 35% federal income tax rate-- but they used to pay over a 90% rate back in the 50's under GOP President Eisenhower. [sign: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ILikeIke ]
Fact #4: Millionaires now pay a state income tax rate less than 9%-- but they used pay over a 15% state income tax rate under GOP Gov. Rockefeller. [see: http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/taxhistory2.htm ]
Fact #5: Almost 90% of all new jobs are from small business; property taxes, not income taxes kill them.
[see: http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf ]
Fact #6: 98% of small business owners across the U.S. make less than $250,000/year (not super-rich).
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/16/barack-obama/most-small-businesses-wont-be-subject-to-obamas-ta/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case you missed this one in today's Times-- it's a must-read from Bob Herbert...
[see http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/23-7 ]
They Still Don't Get It
by Bob Herbert
"The question for Democrats is whether there is anything that will wake them up to their obligation to extend a powerful hand to ordinary Americans and help them take the government, including the Supreme Court, back from the big banks, the giant corporations and the myriad other predatory interests that put the value of a dollar high above the value of human beings.
The Democrats still hold the presidency and large majorities in both houses of Congress. The idea that they are not spending every waking hour trying to fix the broken economic system and put suffering Americans back to work is beyond pathetic. Deficit reduction is now the mantra in Washington, which means that new large-scale investments in infrastructure and other measures to ease the employment crisis and jump-start the most promising industries of the 21st century are highly unlikely.
What we'll get instead is rhetoric. It's cheap, so we can expect a lot of it.
The Republican Party has abandoned any serious approach to the nation's biggest problems, economic or otherwise. It may be resurgent, but it's not a serious party. That leaves only the Democrats, a party that once championed working people and the poor, but has long since lost its way."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fact: In spite of our County Legislature successfully restoring 83% of the funding to many nonprofits and county departments cut/vetoed by the County Executive, unfortunately not enough county legislators supported my efforts in December to stop the following cuts to the 2010 county budget-- our county's long-term home care program for seniors eliminated, senior friendship centers now 4 days-- all this too:
[fact: there are now 35 less in county workforce than in '87 but Du. Co. population up 50,000 since then]
-- $26,000 cut to the Dutchess County Office of Veterans Affairs (part-time employee laid off)
-- $209,839 cut to Dutchess County Community Action Agency (meaning less services, layoffs)
-- $185,000 cut to Cornell Cooperative Extension (already local residents have been laid off)
-- $165,960 cut to the Astor Home for Children (meaning less services, layoffs)
-- $114,000 cut to Family Services (meaning less services for the most vulnerable in our county)
-- $106,987 cut to Hudson River Housing (in the midst of worst housing/foreclosure crisis in decades)
-- $56,553 cut to the Lexington Center for Recovery (shortfunding methadone clinic for heroin addicts)
--$55,000 cut to Dutchess County Arts Council (shortfunding valuable children's programs)
-- $41,000 cut to Mid-Hudson Library System (jeopardizing funding across the county for local libraries)
-- $28,111 cut to the Mediation Center of Dutchess County (shortfunding great cost-effective program)
-- $23,000 cut to Mental Health Association of Du. Co. (shortfunding valuable programs and services)
-- $23,000 cut to BOCES (shortfunding cost-effective and pro-active transition/re-entry programs)
-- $3000 to Literacy Connections (shortfunding crucial programs to get local folks actually reading)
It didn't have to be like this-- recall proven, common-sense revenue alternatives we could do here:
Municipal Electricity/Gas Alliance membership (as in 23 co.'s)...........$300,000 in new revenue
Canadian Rx option for county employees/retirees (as in 5 co.'s)......$1.5 million in new revenue
[budget cuts are NOT helpful in recession; recall CBPP/FPI: http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/10-30-01sfp.pdf ]
Recall alternative cost-savers I've proposed @ http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SaveDuCo ; 111 on board; see "view current signatures" to see comments < 101 from across county in support; join us, sign on; Canadian Rx option for county employees, bail loans, MEGA membership would save millions!...
http://www.MEGAEnergy.org http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SaveOnRx
Again-- one more reason our county's senior home care program shouldn't have been eliminated is that It's also been proven repeatedly that a robust system of community-based senior home care saves tons of money for families-- and tons of tax dollars compared to nursing home placements for those same seniors. As Robert Gumson, Unit Manager for VESID Independent Living Services, told all of us assembled at the Taconic Resources for Independence's 19th Annual Celebration of the Americans with Disabilities Act (at Wallace Center in Hyde Park this July), literally sixty to seventy percent of all senior citizens in nursing homes here in New York State don't need to be there-- and many tax dollars could be saved locally if Dutchess County followed the good examples of Warren and Washington counties and took advantage of Pataki-era Medicaid waiver program to expand home care for seniors...
[see: http://www.ADAPT.org ; http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/19/finally_long_term_home_health_care/ ; http://homecaremag.com/news/aarp-endorses-empowered-home-act-20090608/ ]
Fact: All this- at the same time county, school, and town property/sales taxes are still far too high (because less and less funding for crucial services comes to us from Albany)-and while our Governor has proposed the biggest cut in funding to schools in two decades and hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to hospitals, nursing homes, libraries, and everything else as well.
Fact: It doesn't have to be like this, folks-- there's a better way. We can find the funding to solve these problems-- with at least partial re-implementation of the stock transfer tax on Wall Street that discouraged excessive and destructive speculation from 1905 until it was discontinued in 1981 (when it was a nickel a share). We now rebate literally nine billion dollars a year still collected in a stock transfer tax back to Wall Street- billions that could and should be used to cut our county and school property taxes and fully fund county and state services.
Fact: Respected economists like Paul Krugman and Dean Baker support a stock transfer tax, and a 2003 poll commissioned by the AFL-CIO showed that by a 63% to 24% margin, New Yorkers favored re-instituting a stock transfer tax of at least one or two cents per share on stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
Note-- thanks much to Co. Leg.'s Jim Doxsey and Dan Kuffner for agreeing this week to co-sponsor my resolution for our County Legislature to press Albany for action this year for stock transfer tax to help us!
Email all 25 of us now at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us to make sure this on February agenda!...
...and call Gov. Paterson and state legislators now on this too at (877) 255-9417-- before it's too late...
Also-- on topic of making sure county services are fairly funded without driving property taxes sky-high...
NO one wants sales tax on clothing/shoes under $110-- or mortgage tax-- but-- better than property tax!
[reports today: http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2010/January/22/DCL_ST-22jan10.html ;
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/01/22/news/doc4b592a71e585e052290290.txt ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Again-- scroll down a bit for much more from Dutchess CSEA's Shaun Chesley on how re-implementing even a small portion of what stock transfer tax used to be could make our local mix of taxes much fairer-- could lower sales tax locally, slash county property taxes as well (and save county services)...
If we here in grass roots don't make serious push on Albany for revenue alternatives like bringing back stock transfer tax, Paterson's proposed school budget cuts will drive school property taxes through the roof-- and next year's county budget here could well drive local taxes higher-- with bigger budget cuts:
"Taxing the Speculators" by Paul Krugman [NYTimes 11/27/09]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27krugman.html
"The Benefits of a Financial Transactions Tax" [Center for Economic Policy and Research]
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-benefits-of-a-financial-transactions-tax/
"Ferrer Proposes Return of Tax on Stock Trades to Aid Schools" [New York Times 4/19/05]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E0DA1F3EF93AA25757C0A9639C8B63 ...
"A Stock Transfer Tax: The Right Medicine for Wall Street" by Dean Baker [3/15/08]
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/15/a_stock_transfer_tax_the_right/
"Big Idea: Tax the Street" by J.W. Mason [City Limits Magazine 9-10/02]
http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=2806 ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recall-- "Marist College economic Professor Ann Davis said that it is possible that government spending may be a stabilizing factor in a down economy by maintaining jobs and services. 'You have to look at what would have been cut and who is being taxed,' she said. The tax rate and levy increases might not necessarily be bad for the economy, Davis said."
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091211/OPINION01/912110312/1004/opinion/Editorial--Legislature-s-2010-budget-must-not-stand
...and...both Goldberg and Cooper hit the nail on the head with their quotes in Dec. 11 paper too:
Recall-- "Majority Leader Sandra Goldberg, D-Wappinger, argued Steinhaus' proposals would shift costs onto municipalities, which would force them to increase local taxes. "If we push costs down to the towns, then we are no better than the state pushing costs down to the county," Goldberg said. To those who are angry about the tax increase, Minority Leader Gary Cooper, R-Pine Plains, said, "Do you believe that county government should provide public safety? I happen to believe that should be the core mission of county government.""
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091211/NEWS01/912110341/Dutchess-taxpayers-fume-over-proposed-tax-levy-increase
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[note re: below-- already unofficial "Tyner rule" was introduced back in Jan. '05-- mandating co-sponsor]
From: Shaun Chesley
To: Joel Tyner
Subject: FW: Memorializations
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:25:06 -0500
From: schesley@hotmail.com
To: roli213@aol.com
Subject: Memorializations
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:19:16 -0500
Dear Chairman Rolison,
A recent article in MidHusonNews.com mentions your concern to revamp the policy of considering non-local issues or memorializations, within your term as Chairman. I would tend to agree that maybe a vetting process of sorts could be agreed upon that would hopefully give all issues an opportunity to be considered in a timely fashion as well as the more pertinent issues to quickly make it through, for considerations. This process may need to be reviewed on a regular basis and changes made as better procedures or protocols arise. Respectfully may I submit some ideas that may help with this concern.
Some possible considerations may be to require a proposal to meet certain requirements or combinations of requirements such as:
possibly a co-sponsor
a minimum amount of public interest in the form of email or letter
research sharing (possibly on a private section of the County website just for Legislators to view, reasons and research already gathered or to add to)
cross endorsement or co-sponsorship
public comment period
maybe even a way to cut-down the actual readings of a consideration in it's entirety before a vote
Each requirement or combination of, could even have a numerical value assigned, and surely the requirements shouldn't be so demanding as to discourage new ideas or concerns from being developed or considered.
I mention this all to you, for the opportunity to again ask for a full Legislator consideration and approval of the proposal from Legislator Tyner asking the Governor and State Legislators to repeal the Stock Transfer Tax rebate and to use this revenue for relief of our State's Financial Crisis.
As you know, already this week, the Governor has proposed a $2.1 billion cut in our States schools and health care systems. The repeal of the stock Transfer Tax Rebate could offer immediate relief of billions of dollars without waiting for lengthy implementation and without further burdening the already highly taxed Working Class. Please reconsider this proposal for immediate consideration before the Dutchess County Legislature.
Thank you for your time and considerations.
Respectfully,
Shaun E. Chesley
email: schesley@hotmail.com
Poughkeepsie
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Six links found by Shaun C. in support of re-implementing stock transfer tax:
Mentions the AFL-CIO endorsement
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Trumka_will_fight_benefits_tax_wants_stock_transfer_tax_instead.html
Commentary for Bloomberg News
http://www.gothamcenter.org/newdeal/bloomberg_review.pdf
Good explanation but 2003
http://www.alexmarshall.org/index.php?pageId=165
New York Times not much to this one
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/magazine/14Ideas-section4-t-005.html
Good article
http://www.agonist.org/Learning-Center/invest/thenewyorkstocktransfertaxre-instateornot.html
Old Article with some very large figures to consider
http://www.rpa.org/2003/04/spotlight-vol-2-no-7-the-stock-transfer-tax-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-back.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And-- miss this from Wednesday's Times?...
"Taxing Wall Street Down to Size" by David Stockman [Reagan Dir. of Office of Management/Budget]
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/opinion/20stockman.html
We need to re-implement a stock transfer tax on Wall Street for extra state revenue (to stop local property tax hikes!)...
(afraid that if we don't lift our voices on this that next year's county budget will be atrocious)
[more and more folks across NYS are coming around to this idea-- not just to bring in extra needed revenue to avoid big state/county budget cuts and local property hikes-- but also to stop speculation!]
Fact: If more $ comes to Albany from this that our county property taxes could be CUT.
We have to wake Paterson/leg.'s up to alternatives to proposed property tax hikes, massive layoffs:
[shortfunding schools is recipe for local property tax hikes; shortfunding counties like us-- same thing]
"Paterson Proposes $2.1 Billion in Cuts to Schools, Health Care" by Joseph Spector (yesterday's paper)
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100120/NEWS/1200333/Paterson-proposes--2.1-billion-in-cuts-to-schools--health-care
"Gov. Paterson Warns That Layoffs Could Return If Tax Collections Take Another Drop" (12/19/09 Post)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/layoffs_are_in_play_gov_ewl2vwoafGc4jKqHm2DxUM ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[wording here below of resolution from yours truly that Co. Leg. Jim Doxsey has agreed to co-sponsor;
email all 25 of us now: countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us to make sure this gets on to Feb. agenda!]
WHEREAS, property taxes have increased too much in Dutchess County, unfairly punishing homeowners, businesses, and all of us, as less and less revenue for crucial county services and schools has come to Dutchess County from the state; New York continues even now to be in a serious fiscal crisis, and
WHEREAS, the State of New York instituted a very small tax on the transfer of stocks in 1905; New York phased out the tax in 1981, though it still collects it and then rebates it; an estimated $9 billion is collected annually from and rebated back to Wall Street speculators; when one buys clothes or fuel or furniture or books for your family, there's a hefty sales tax; yet when far more money is spent to buy stocks, no tax is collected, and
WHEREAS, a 2003 poll commissioned by the AFL-CIO showed that by 63% to 24%, New Yorkers favored re-instituting a stock transfer tax of one or two cents per share on stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and
WHEREAS, the greed of Wall Street speculators is behind the recent economic crisis, including the housing crisis and the massive decline in retirement funds, yet those who have caused the current economic crisis were the ones that benefited from the trillions in bailouts from Congress, and
WHEREAS, Governor Paterson and state legislators should not repeat this outrage; instead of cutting funding from revenue-sharing with counties like Dutchess, slashing support for schools (driving up property taxes), and decimating essential services, the Governor and state leaders need to hold Wall Street financiers accountable for the damage they have inflicted upon New York residents and the State Budget, and
WHEREAS, New York State presently collects a very small tax on each stock transfer; the tax is negligible for individuals who are making a long term investment in the stock market and the economy; it primarily impacts those who buy and sell stocks frequently, such as those who utilize computer trading programs that have greatly contributed to the increasingly common wild swings in stock market prices; however, New York rebates the tax to Wall Street traders after it is collected, and
WHEREAS, for several years now New York State has had the greatest gap in income not only between rich and poor New Yorkers but also between the rich and moderate income New Yorkers; the average income of the top fifth of New York families is 8.7 times greater than that of the bottom fifth, and the average income of the top five percent of New York families is 15.4 times greater than that of the bottom 20 percent; both are the biggest difference of all states, and
WHEREAS, the value of a stock transfer tax not only lies in its ability to raise needed revenues to resolve the state's budget deficit, it is also urgently needed as an anti-speculation measure; a number of other states (e.g., Texas, Florida) do have it; the tax is insignificant on any one transaction and thus places no burden on those who treat Wall Street as a place to invest in businesses and the economy, and
WHEREAS, what a stock transfer tax would affect are those traders who basically treat the stock market as a casino, gambling all day long on which way the market is going to head; speculators and the advent of computerized trading programs have played a major role in the wild ride of Wall Street in recent years, and strong public action is long overdue to discourage such behavior; a small stock transfer tax would be one such step, and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature strongly urges Governor Paterson and state legislators to re-institute a small stock transfer tax on Wall Street trading, to bring in more necessary revenue to New York State so that crucial services in counties like Dutchess and schools in our county are truly and fully funded by the state, thereby avoiding as much as possible any more property tax hikes, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to Governor David Paterson, State Senators Vincent Leibell and Stephen Saland, and Assemblymembers Greg Ball, Kevin Cahill, Joel Miller, Marcus Molinaro, and Frank Skartados.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/Legislature/CLagenda.htm (agenda today):
[to view the pdf document containing the full text of a resolution, click on the green link at url]
210013 Authorizing acceptance of funding under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act
Funding in the amount of $39,944.
210014 Authorizing grant agreement with the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services and amending the 2010 Adopted County Budget as it pertains to the Sheriff (A.3110.25)
State Grant in the amount of $12,000. to purchase an electronic message board equipped with radar.
210015 Authorizing payment of 2009 unencumbered vouchers from 2010 funds Unified Court (A.1162.04)
Payment of $191,000 for attorneys and assigned counsel from 2010 department budget.
210017 Approving proposed activities and funding for STOP-DWI Program for 2010
Annual plan certification by the legislature required for State funding.
210018 Setting a Public Hearing in Connection with the establishment of Part County Sewer District No. 6 located in the Village and Town of Red Hook
Public Hearing set for February 10th at 7pm.
210011 Home Rule Request - Resolution Urging New York State Legislature to approve Senate Bill S4040 and Assembly Bill A8780A entitled, "An Act To Amend Chapter 558 of the Laws of 2007 Amending the Tax Law Relating to the Mortgage Recording Tax Imposed in Dutchess County, in Relation to Extending the Effectiveness of Such Provisions"
Extending to November 30, 2011 the County mortgage recording tax which was imposed in 2007. (Revised 1-20-10)
210012 Repealing an exemption from sales and compensating use taxes for receipts from retail sales of, and consideration given or contracted to be given for, certain clothing and footwear, pursuant to the authority of Article 29 of the Tax Law of the State of New York
Repeal of sales tax exemption on clothing.
210020 Delegation of authority with respect to certain real property tax refunds
Establishing the amount of $2,500 as the maximum the Commissioner of Finance can refund real property taxes without legislative approval.
210021 Quitclaim Deed, property in the Town of Wappinger Village Wappingers Falls
Assessed under the name of Neighborhood Daycare Services Inc.
210022 Rejection of application for refund of Real Property Taxes
In the name of Neal and Karen Mancuso.
210016 Authorizing settlement from Liability & Casualty Reserve Fund
Release of funds in the case of Barrett against the County.
210019 Establishing dates of regular monthly meetings for 2010
Lists dates for Board Meetings for 2010.
Personally, I turned in my paperwork a few days ago (Thurs.) so I could be make sure I was doing my due diligence to make sure I'm doing the responsible thing and paying for 15% of my health insurance...
[recall my http://www.petitiononline.com/cutlgpay I started a year ago-- comments from 19 folks there; I made clear in '08 to GOP Co. Leg.'s John Forman and Bob Sears that I'd co-sponsor their resolution!]
However...that being said...again...fact is, frankly, that it really is illegal now according to county charter currently for the County Executive to set policy for our county government-- and, particularly, for the County Legislature...period.
[...and again-- more than a bit hypocritical for him and GOP to exempt Steinhaus, Kendall, Grady, Anderson from having to pay 15% of their health insurance-- while getting county legislators to do this]
Feel free to speak up on this at Mon.'s 7 pm full board mtg. of our Co. Leg.: 22 Market St. Pok., folks!...
[but yes-- I personally have already turned in my own filled-out form for this to Risk Managment Thurs.]
And-- as my colleague Alison MacAvery says-- "For years now the elected officials of Dutchess County have enjoyed the luxury of free health insurance while over 1400 county employees pay for theirs. They are the men and women who keep the county working around the clock 365 days a year. Though Dutchess County is facing fiscal challenges and having elected officials contribute to their health plans will assist in filling the budgetary gap the most fundamental reason for elected staff to pay their fair share is because it is fair! Today the elected officials have the opportunity as true Public Servants to stop the practice of accepting this special consideration - free health insurance..."
[recall-- "Free Health Premiums Are County Perk for 195" by Jenny Lee-Adrian last Feb. in PoJo:
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20090201&Kategori=NEWS0 1&Lopenr=902010342&Ref=AR ]
In fact, Alison, Sandy G. et. al. tried to amend resolution #210023 to read as below at Thursday's Government Services and Administration Committee; sadly, their pleas for common sense and fairness on this fell on deaf GOP ears; Dem amendments to effect below were rejected:
"WHEREAS approximately 1,400 Dutchess County employees are currently contributing to their health insurance benefits; and
WHEREAS approximately 190 Elected Officials and Management employees have been provided dispensation and privilege from said contributions for these many years; and
WHEREAS this special consideration and exemption from health insurance contributions has been over the course of time an ongoing financial burden for citizens as it makes up a significant portion of Dutchess County's total annual operating budget, and
WHEREAS, although the Dutchess County Legislature passed a local law in the fall of 2009 by a vote of 23 to 2, this said law was vetoed by County Executive and did not have enough votes to override and this said law attempted to establish a policy of all elected officials to contrubute 15% of the cost of their health insurance,and
WHEREAS, that pursuant to Section 2.02 of the Dutchess County Charter, the Legislature is authorizing body to determine policy; and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature hereby requests all County Elected Officials to voluntarily contribute 15% of the County provided health plan effective January 1, 2010, and be it further
RESOLVED, that all usual and customary forms and communications be provided to individuals affected by this policy revision as well as a Special Open Enrollment period commencing January 26, 2010 and concluding February 8, 2010 be available for the purpose of modifying, changing or withdrawing enrollment from current health plans and as well as the Flex 125 programs also know as The Health Care Flexible Spending Accounts"
What do YOU think?...(let us know Monday night!...and at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us, folks)...
Pass it on...
Joel
242-3571/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
p.s. Frustrated as I am re: local media ignoring crucial tax truths/context for much of above and below?...one more reason to help Creek Iversen, et. al. and myself start a new progressive newspaper!...(email your articles now-;we need 'em!...to creek.iversen@gmail.com!...call him: 902-8154; check out his http://DutchessWord.blogspot.com too-- and don't forget to join us for fab funraiser/fundraiser Feb. 5 6-9 pm at Amici's with his band Fleet Irresistiblé-- with bandmates Daniel "Zenote" Sompantle, Nora, and Dan-- and Pat Lamanna too!...(see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztDGBLHqxF8 ; http://www.PatLamanna.blogspot.com )...pass it on...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/Legislature/CLagenda.htm ...
210023 Volunteer contribution to Health Insurance by the Dutchess County Legislators
Declaration by County legislators that they will voluntarily pay 15% of their health insurance costs.
210012 Repealing an exemption from sales and compensating use taxes for receipts from retail sales of, and consideration given or contracted to be given for, certain clothing and footwear, pursuant to the authority of Article 29 of the Tax Law of the State of New York
Repeal of sales tax exemption on clothing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NO one wants sales tax on clothing/shoes under $110-- or mortgage tax-- but-- better than property tax!
First-- that removing the exemption was originally part of our budget package/proposal (to avoid property tax hikes, even bigger budget cuts-- scroll down just a bit for reminder re: county budget cuts)...
Second-- unfortunately the County Executive will feel even more empowered and emboldened to strip even more funding during the year from various nonprofits and county departments if we do not make sure that $5.3 million in revenue from sales tax is available for county this year (for instance, the County Executive already this year has threatened if not actually jeopardized and/or played games w/contracts/funding with nonprofits like Family Services-- sad but true)...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Six facts on taxes, wealth, & economic development crucial to understanding/solving county taxes:
[call Paterson/state leg.'s asap on these-- (877) 255-9417-- and Congress at (800) 828-0498 too!]
Fact #1: The richest 1% of American households now own more net worth than the other 95% of us.
http://hudson-valley.chronogram.com/issue/2009/11/News+&+Politics/Larry-Beinhart-s-Body-Politic
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moore/moore-says-top-1-percent-owns-more-financial-wealt/
Fact #2: Middle class New Yorkers now pay a much higher percentage of our income (over 11%) in state & local taxes than millionaires do (only 7%)-- when property and sales taxes are also considered.
[see: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/ny_whopays_factsheet.pdf ]
Fact #3: Millionaires now pay only a 35% federal income tax rate-- but they used to pay over a 90% rate back in the 50's under GOP President Eisenhower. [sign: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ILikeIke ]
Fact #4: Millionaires now pay a state income tax rate less than 9%-- but they used pay over a 15% state income tax rate under GOP Gov. Rockefeller. [see: http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/taxhistory2.htm ]
Fact #5: Almost 90% of all new jobs are from small business; property taxes, not income taxes kill them.
[see: http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf ]
Fact #6: 98% of small business owners across the U.S. make less than $250,000/year (not super-rich).
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/16/barack-obama/most-small-businesses-wont-be-subject-to-obamas-ta/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case you missed this one in today's Times-- it's a must-read from Bob Herbert...
[see http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/23-7 ]
They Still Don't Get It
by Bob Herbert
"The question for Democrats is whether there is anything that will wake them up to their obligation to extend a powerful hand to ordinary Americans and help them take the government, including the Supreme Court, back from the big banks, the giant corporations and the myriad other predatory interests that put the value of a dollar high above the value of human beings.
The Democrats still hold the presidency and large majorities in both houses of Congress. The idea that they are not spending every waking hour trying to fix the broken economic system and put suffering Americans back to work is beyond pathetic. Deficit reduction is now the mantra in Washington, which means that new large-scale investments in infrastructure and other measures to ease the employment crisis and jump-start the most promising industries of the 21st century are highly unlikely.
What we'll get instead is rhetoric. It's cheap, so we can expect a lot of it.
The Republican Party has abandoned any serious approach to the nation's biggest problems, economic or otherwise. It may be resurgent, but it's not a serious party. That leaves only the Democrats, a party that once championed working people and the poor, but has long since lost its way."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fact: In spite of our County Legislature successfully restoring 83% of the funding to many nonprofits and county departments cut/vetoed by the County Executive, unfortunately not enough county legislators supported my efforts in December to stop the following cuts to the 2010 county budget-- our county's long-term home care program for seniors eliminated, senior friendship centers now 4 days-- all this too:
[fact: there are now 35 less in county workforce than in '87 but Du. Co. population up 50,000 since then]
-- $26,000 cut to the Dutchess County Office of Veterans Affairs (part-time employee laid off)
-- $209,839 cut to Dutchess County Community Action Agency (meaning less services, layoffs)
-- $185,000 cut to Cornell Cooperative Extension (already local residents have been laid off)
-- $165,960 cut to the Astor Home for Children (meaning less services, layoffs)
-- $114,000 cut to Family Services (meaning less services for the most vulnerable in our county)
-- $106,987 cut to Hudson River Housing (in the midst of worst housing/foreclosure crisis in decades)
-- $56,553 cut to the Lexington Center for Recovery (shortfunding methadone clinic for heroin addicts)
--$55,000 cut to Dutchess County Arts Council (shortfunding valuable children's programs)
-- $41,000 cut to Mid-Hudson Library System (jeopardizing funding across the county for local libraries)
-- $28,111 cut to the Mediation Center of Dutchess County (shortfunding great cost-effective program)
-- $23,000 cut to Mental Health Association of Du. Co. (shortfunding valuable programs and services)
-- $23,000 cut to BOCES (shortfunding cost-effective and pro-active transition/re-entry programs)
-- $3000 to Literacy Connections (shortfunding crucial programs to get local folks actually reading)
It didn't have to be like this-- recall proven, common-sense revenue alternatives we could do here:
Municipal Electricity/Gas Alliance membership (as in 23 co.'s)...........$300,000 in new revenue
Canadian Rx option for county employees/retirees (as in 5 co.'s)......$1.5 million in new revenue
[budget cuts are NOT helpful in recession; recall CBPP/FPI: http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/10-30-01sfp.pdf ]
Recall alternative cost-savers I've proposed @ http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SaveDuCo ; 111 on board; see "view current signatures" to see comments < 101 from across county in support; join us, sign on; Canadian Rx option for county employees, bail loans, MEGA membership would save millions!...
http://www.MEGAEnergy.org http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SaveOnRx
Again-- one more reason our county's senior home care program shouldn't have been eliminated is that It's also been proven repeatedly that a robust system of community-based senior home care saves tons of money for families-- and tons of tax dollars compared to nursing home placements for those same seniors. As Robert Gumson, Unit Manager for VESID Independent Living Services, told all of us assembled at the Taconic Resources for Independence's 19th Annual Celebration of the Americans with Disabilities Act (at Wallace Center in Hyde Park this July), literally sixty to seventy percent of all senior citizens in nursing homes here in New York State don't need to be there-- and many tax dollars could be saved locally if Dutchess County followed the good examples of Warren and Washington counties and took advantage of Pataki-era Medicaid waiver program to expand home care for seniors...
[see: http://www.ADAPT.org ; http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/19/finally_long_term_home_health_care/ ; http://homecaremag.com/news/aarp-endorses-empowered-home-act-20090608/ ]
Fact: All this- at the same time county, school, and town property/sales taxes are still far too high (because less and less funding for crucial services comes to us from Albany)-and while our Governor has proposed the biggest cut in funding to schools in two decades and hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to hospitals, nursing homes, libraries, and everything else as well.
Fact: It doesn't have to be like this, folks-- there's a better way. We can find the funding to solve these problems-- with at least partial re-implementation of the stock transfer tax on Wall Street that discouraged excessive and destructive speculation from 1905 until it was discontinued in 1981 (when it was a nickel a share). We now rebate literally nine billion dollars a year still collected in a stock transfer tax back to Wall Street- billions that could and should be used to cut our county and school property taxes and fully fund county and state services.
Fact: Respected economists like Paul Krugman and Dean Baker support a stock transfer tax, and a 2003 poll commissioned by the AFL-CIO showed that by a 63% to 24% margin, New Yorkers favored re-instituting a stock transfer tax of at least one or two cents per share on stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
Note-- thanks much to Co. Leg.'s Jim Doxsey and Dan Kuffner for agreeing this week to co-sponsor my resolution for our County Legislature to press Albany for action this year for stock transfer tax to help us!
Email all 25 of us now at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us to make sure this on February agenda!...
...and call Gov. Paterson and state legislators now on this too at (877) 255-9417-- before it's too late...
Also-- on topic of making sure county services are fairly funded without driving property taxes sky-high...
NO one wants sales tax on clothing/shoes under $110-- or mortgage tax-- but-- better than property tax!
[reports today: http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2010/January/22/DCL_ST-22jan10.html ;
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/01/22/news/doc4b592a71e585e052290290.txt ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Again-- scroll down a bit for much more from Dutchess CSEA's Shaun Chesley on how re-implementing even a small portion of what stock transfer tax used to be could make our local mix of taxes much fairer-- could lower sales tax locally, slash county property taxes as well (and save county services)...
If we here in grass roots don't make serious push on Albany for revenue alternatives like bringing back stock transfer tax, Paterson's proposed school budget cuts will drive school property taxes through the roof-- and next year's county budget here could well drive local taxes higher-- with bigger budget cuts:
"Taxing the Speculators" by Paul Krugman [NYTimes 11/27/09]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27krugman.html
"The Benefits of a Financial Transactions Tax" [Center for Economic Policy and Research]
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-benefits-of-a-financial-transactions-tax/
"Ferrer Proposes Return of Tax on Stock Trades to Aid Schools" [New York Times 4/19/05]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E0DA1F3EF93AA25757C0A9639C8B63 ...
"A Stock Transfer Tax: The Right Medicine for Wall Street" by Dean Baker [3/15/08]
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/15/a_stock_transfer_tax_the_right/
"Big Idea: Tax the Street" by J.W. Mason [City Limits Magazine 9-10/02]
http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=2806 ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recall-- "Marist College economic Professor Ann Davis said that it is possible that government spending may be a stabilizing factor in a down economy by maintaining jobs and services. 'You have to look at what would have been cut and who is being taxed,' she said. The tax rate and levy increases might not necessarily be bad for the economy, Davis said."
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091211/OPINION01/912110312/1004/opinion/Editorial--Legislature-s-2010-budget-must-not-stand
...and...both Goldberg and Cooper hit the nail on the head with their quotes in Dec. 11 paper too:
Recall-- "Majority Leader Sandra Goldberg, D-Wappinger, argued Steinhaus' proposals would shift costs onto municipalities, which would force them to increase local taxes. "If we push costs down to the towns, then we are no better than the state pushing costs down to the county," Goldberg said. To those who are angry about the tax increase, Minority Leader Gary Cooper, R-Pine Plains, said, "Do you believe that county government should provide public safety? I happen to believe that should be the core mission of county government.""
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20091211/NEWS01/912110341/Dutchess-taxpayers-fume-over-proposed-tax-levy-increase
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[note re: below-- already unofficial "Tyner rule" was introduced back in Jan. '05-- mandating co-sponsor]
From: Shaun Chesley
To: Joel Tyner
Subject: FW: Memorializations
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:25:06 -0500
From: schesley@hotmail.com
To: roli213@aol.com
Subject: Memorializations
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:19:16 -0500
Dear Chairman Rolison,
A recent article in MidHusonNews.com mentions your concern to revamp the policy of considering non-local issues or memorializations, within your term as Chairman. I would tend to agree that maybe a vetting process of sorts could be agreed upon that would hopefully give all issues an opportunity to be considered in a timely fashion as well as the more pertinent issues to quickly make it through, for considerations. This process may need to be reviewed on a regular basis and changes made as better procedures or protocols arise. Respectfully may I submit some ideas that may help with this concern.
Some possible considerations may be to require a proposal to meet certain requirements or combinations of requirements such as:
possibly a co-sponsor
a minimum amount of public interest in the form of email or letter
research sharing (possibly on a private section of the County website just for Legislators to view, reasons and research already gathered or to add to)
cross endorsement or co-sponsorship
public comment period
maybe even a way to cut-down the actual readings of a consideration in it's entirety before a vote
Each requirement or combination of, could even have a numerical value assigned, and surely the requirements shouldn't be so demanding as to discourage new ideas or concerns from being developed or considered.
I mention this all to you, for the opportunity to again ask for a full Legislator consideration and approval of the proposal from Legislator Tyner asking the Governor and State Legislators to repeal the Stock Transfer Tax rebate and to use this revenue for relief of our State's Financial Crisis.
As you know, already this week, the Governor has proposed a $2.1 billion cut in our States schools and health care systems. The repeal of the stock Transfer Tax Rebate could offer immediate relief of billions of dollars without waiting for lengthy implementation and without further burdening the already highly taxed Working Class. Please reconsider this proposal for immediate consideration before the Dutchess County Legislature.
Thank you for your time and considerations.
Respectfully,
Shaun E. Chesley
email: schesley@hotmail.com
Poughkeepsie
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Six links found by Shaun C. in support of re-implementing stock transfer tax:
Mentions the AFL-CIO endorsement
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Trumka_will_fight_benefits_tax_wants_stock_transfer_tax_instead.html
Commentary for Bloomberg News
http://www.gothamcenter.org/newdeal/bloomberg_review.pdf
Good explanation but 2003
http://www.alexmarshall.org/index.php?pageId=165
New York Times not much to this one
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/magazine/14Ideas-section4-t-005.html
Good article
http://www.agonist.org/Learning-Center/invest/thenewyorkstocktransfertaxre-instateornot.html
Old Article with some very large figures to consider
http://www.rpa.org/2003/04/spotlight-vol-2-no-7-the-stock-transfer-tax-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-back.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And-- miss this from Wednesday's Times?...
"Taxing Wall Street Down to Size" by David Stockman [Reagan Dir. of Office of Management/Budget]
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/opinion/20stockman.html
We need to re-implement a stock transfer tax on Wall Street for extra state revenue (to stop local property tax hikes!)...
(afraid that if we don't lift our voices on this that next year's county budget will be atrocious)
[more and more folks across NYS are coming around to this idea-- not just to bring in extra needed revenue to avoid big state/county budget cuts and local property hikes-- but also to stop speculation!]
Fact: If more $ comes to Albany from this that our county property taxes could be CUT.
We have to wake Paterson/leg.'s up to alternatives to proposed property tax hikes, massive layoffs:
[shortfunding schools is recipe for local property tax hikes; shortfunding counties like us-- same thing]
"Paterson Proposes $2.1 Billion in Cuts to Schools, Health Care" by Joseph Spector (yesterday's paper)
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100120/NEWS/1200333/Paterson-proposes--2.1-billion-in-cuts-to-schools--health-care
"Gov. Paterson Warns That Layoffs Could Return If Tax Collections Take Another Drop" (12/19/09 Post)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/layoffs_are_in_play_gov_ewl2vwoafGc4jKqHm2DxUM ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[wording here below of resolution from yours truly that Co. Leg. Jim Doxsey has agreed to co-sponsor;
email all 25 of us now: countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us to make sure this gets on to Feb. agenda!]
WHEREAS, property taxes have increased too much in Dutchess County, unfairly punishing homeowners, businesses, and all of us, as less and less revenue for crucial county services and schools has come to Dutchess County from the state; New York continues even now to be in a serious fiscal crisis, and
WHEREAS, the State of New York instituted a very small tax on the transfer of stocks in 1905; New York phased out the tax in 1981, though it still collects it and then rebates it; an estimated $9 billion is collected annually from and rebated back to Wall Street speculators; when one buys clothes or fuel or furniture or books for your family, there's a hefty sales tax; yet when far more money is spent to buy stocks, no tax is collected, and
WHEREAS, a 2003 poll commissioned by the AFL-CIO showed that by 63% to 24%, New Yorkers favored re-instituting a stock transfer tax of one or two cents per share on stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and
WHEREAS, the greed of Wall Street speculators is behind the recent economic crisis, including the housing crisis and the massive decline in retirement funds, yet those who have caused the current economic crisis were the ones that benefited from the trillions in bailouts from Congress, and
WHEREAS, Governor Paterson and state legislators should not repeat this outrage; instead of cutting funding from revenue-sharing with counties like Dutchess, slashing support for schools (driving up property taxes), and decimating essential services, the Governor and state leaders need to hold Wall Street financiers accountable for the damage they have inflicted upon New York residents and the State Budget, and
WHEREAS, New York State presently collects a very small tax on each stock transfer; the tax is negligible for individuals who are making a long term investment in the stock market and the economy; it primarily impacts those who buy and sell stocks frequently, such as those who utilize computer trading programs that have greatly contributed to the increasingly common wild swings in stock market prices; however, New York rebates the tax to Wall Street traders after it is collected, and
WHEREAS, for several years now New York State has had the greatest gap in income not only between rich and poor New Yorkers but also between the rich and moderate income New Yorkers; the average income of the top fifth of New York families is 8.7 times greater than that of the bottom fifth, and the average income of the top five percent of New York families is 15.4 times greater than that of the bottom 20 percent; both are the biggest difference of all states, and
WHEREAS, the value of a stock transfer tax not only lies in its ability to raise needed revenues to resolve the state's budget deficit, it is also urgently needed as an anti-speculation measure; a number of other states (e.g., Texas, Florida) do have it; the tax is insignificant on any one transaction and thus places no burden on those who treat Wall Street as a place to invest in businesses and the economy, and
WHEREAS, what a stock transfer tax would affect are those traders who basically treat the stock market as a casino, gambling all day long on which way the market is going to head; speculators and the advent of computerized trading programs have played a major role in the wild ride of Wall Street in recent years, and strong public action is long overdue to discourage such behavior; a small stock transfer tax would be one such step, and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature strongly urges Governor Paterson and state legislators to re-institute a small stock transfer tax on Wall Street trading, to bring in more necessary revenue to New York State so that crucial services in counties like Dutchess and schools in our county are truly and fully funded by the state, thereby avoiding as much as possible any more property tax hikes, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to Governor David Paterson, State Senators Vincent Leibell and Stephen Saland, and Assemblymembers Greg Ball, Kevin Cahill, Joel Miller, Marcus Molinaro, and Frank Skartados.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/Legislature/CLagenda.htm (agenda today):
[to view the pdf document containing the full text of a resolution, click on the green link at url]
210013 Authorizing acceptance of funding under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act
Funding in the amount of $39,944.
210014 Authorizing grant agreement with the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services and amending the 2010 Adopted County Budget as it pertains to the Sheriff (A.3110.25)
State Grant in the amount of $12,000. to purchase an electronic message board equipped with radar.
210015 Authorizing payment of 2009 unencumbered vouchers from 2010 funds Unified Court (A.1162.04)
Payment of $191,000 for attorneys and assigned counsel from 2010 department budget.
210017 Approving proposed activities and funding for STOP-DWI Program for 2010
Annual plan certification by the legislature required for State funding.
210018 Setting a Public Hearing in Connection with the establishment of Part County Sewer District No. 6 located in the Village and Town of Red Hook
Public Hearing set for February 10th at 7pm.
210011 Home Rule Request - Resolution Urging New York State Legislature to approve Senate Bill S4040 and Assembly Bill A8780A entitled, "An Act To Amend Chapter 558 of the Laws of 2007 Amending the Tax Law Relating to the Mortgage Recording Tax Imposed in Dutchess County, in Relation to Extending the Effectiveness of Such Provisions"
Extending to November 30, 2011 the County mortgage recording tax which was imposed in 2007. (Revised 1-20-10)
210012 Repealing an exemption from sales and compensating use taxes for receipts from retail sales of, and consideration given or contracted to be given for, certain clothing and footwear, pursuant to the authority of Article 29 of the Tax Law of the State of New York
Repeal of sales tax exemption on clothing.
210020 Delegation of authority with respect to certain real property tax refunds
Establishing the amount of $2,500 as the maximum the Commissioner of Finance can refund real property taxes without legislative approval.
210021 Quitclaim Deed, property in the Town of Wappinger Village Wappingers Falls
Assessed under the name of Neighborhood Daycare Services Inc.
210022 Rejection of application for refund of Real Property Taxes
In the name of Neal and Karen Mancuso.
210016 Authorizing settlement from Liability & Casualty Reserve Fund
Release of funds in the case of Barrett against the County.
210019 Establishing dates of regular monthly meetings for 2010
Lists dates for Board Meetings for 2010.
Teddy Roosevelt was right-- join MovetoAmend.org!...
"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law."
-- Teddy Roosevelt
"I hope we shall...crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816
"The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November's elections. It won't be Republicans. It won't be Democrats. It will be corporate America."
-- Chuck Schumer [yesterday in rare populist moment]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi all...
What do all of the following noted progressive folks have in common?...
[note-- thx much to Rhinebeck's David Gideon for cluing me into this nascent movement!]
They've all signed on to start (along with 24,000 others in first 2 days) MovetoAmend.org !...
[sign on today!...you'll be glad you did...and let EVERYone else you know on your list you did too]
Bill McKibben, founder, 350.org
David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World
David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org
Howard Zinn, historian
Jeff Cohen, founder, FAIR
Jim Hightower, author, columnist, and radio commentator
Mark Crispin Miller, author, Fooled Again
Matt Rothschild, Editor, The Progressive
Medea Benjamin, co-founder, Code Pink
Michael Albert, Z Communications
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun Community
Rep. Michael Fisher, House of Representatives, Vermont
Robert McChesney, professor, co-author, The Death & Life of American Journalism
Thom Hartmann, nation's #1 nationally syndicated progressive talk show host
Tiffiniy Cheng, Executive Director, A New Way Forward
Tim Carpenter, Executive Director, Progressive Democrats of America
Tom Hayden, activist
Ward Morehouse, chair, National Lawyers Guild's Committee on Corporations
From http://www.MovetoAmend.org ...
"We the corporations"
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
See these six for much more on this...(like Rich C. said earlier today on WVKR, steps towards fascism):
"Teddy Roosevelt Was Right: Ban ALL Corporate Contributions" by John Nichols
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/519991/teddy_roosevelt_was_right_ban_all_corporate_contributions
"Shed a Tear for Our Democracy" by Robert Weissman
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-14
"Whose Rights'?" by Thomas Linzey and Mari Margil
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-9
"At Last! SCOTUS Finally Allows Corporations to Influence US Politics" by Juell Stewart
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-8
Democracy Now: "In Campaign Finance Ruling, Limits Removed on Corporate Campaign Spending"
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/22/in_landmark_campaign_finance_ruling_supreme
"Corporate Personhood Should Be Banned, Once and For all" by Ralph Nader
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/21-10
...and if you haven't seen these two yet, they're must-read's as well!...
"Obama's Half-Baked Bank Reform; For Real Reform, Bring Back Glass-Steagall" by Nomi Prins
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-2
"Casting Doubt on US Claims of Suicide, Attorney Scott Horton Reveals 3 Gitmo Prisoners Died After Torture at Secret Site"
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/20/casting_doubt_on_us_claims_of
Don't forget to let your fingers do the walking Monday a.m.-- call Congress: (800) 828-0498!...
[pass it on]
Joel
242-3571/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
[anyone else out there interested in helping me to get my colleagues in our County Legislature (at least Dem ones) signed on to letter to Congress on this?...and/or getting our county Dem committee to pass similar resolution?...let me know, folks!...(and email us all-- at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us!)]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Teddy Roosevelt Was Right: Ban ALL Corporate Contributions
posted by JOHN NICHOLS on 01/22/2010 @ 01:23am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/519991/teddy_roosevelt_was_right_ban_all_corporate_contributions
What to do about the decision by U.S. Supreme Court to -- in the words of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold -- "(ignore) important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent" in order to make corporations the dominant players in American politics?
Of course, there will be legislative scrambling at the local, state and federal levels. The decision by Chief Justice John Roberts and four other justices to reject history and precedent in order to put a radical pro-corporate spin on the First Amendment throws into question rules designed to regulate even the worst campaign abuses by business interests.
Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who leant his name to the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, will be working overtime to defend not just the progress he has made as a reformer but a century of clean-government legislation.
"It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold's soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process. But this decision was a terrible mistake," says the Wisconsin senator. "Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was 'firmly embedded in our law.' Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible."
When all is said and done, however, that may not be enough.
It may be that the United States Constitution will need to be amended in order to restore to the Teddy Roosevelt principle:
"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law," said Roosevelt in the first years of the 20th century, when he was also proposing public financing of federal election.
The court's ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC is a game-changer that, in the words of Feingold says corporations "can just open their treasuries (and) completely buy up all the television time, and drown out everyone else's voices."
There's a small measure of nuance in the ruling.
In their 5-4 decision, the majority maintained restrictions on direct donations by corporations to candidates and political parties.
But corporations - with their immense resources and their immense desire to influence the political and governing processes - will be able to spend as freely as their like (on television commercials and other forms of communication) to secure the election results they seek.
It's a recipe for democratic disaster, as wealth and power will define the debate that sets the parameters of our politics.
Says Senator Charles Schumer, D-New York: "The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November's elections. It won't be Republicans. It won't be Democrats. It will be corporate America."
To paraphrase a particular television network, there will be no fairness and no balance.
That threat demands a response sufficient to the challenge it poses to electoral democracy. As Lisa Graves, the executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, says: "We cannot just wring our hands, in my view, and let this stand. There is a great deal of work to be done."
Graves, a lawyer with long experience in both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, offers a savvy analysis of the motivations behind the court's ruling.
"When I worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewing President George W. Bush's judicial nominees and their agendas, I feared this day would come. That's why I tried to help keep John Roberts off the appellate court, and then was so saddened the day he was appointed and when I saw President Bush promote him to become Chief Justice after I had left the government," she says. "In reading the biographies, writings, and speeches of right-wing nominees, it became clear to me that a revolution in the law was being fomented to undermine the power of ordinary people to regulate corporations in their communities.
Today's decision is a huge gift to corporations from a Supreme Court that has been radicalized by right-wing ideology, whose political agenda was made obvious in the Bush v. Gore case and whose very political decision today only makes things worse. I think we have to rebuke the Court's arrogant decision and make sure the law puts Americans before corporations."
There will be talk of legislative interventions, the best of which is almost certainly rapid passage of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would set up a system of public financing of elections.
"This would establish citizen-funded elections," says Harvard Law School professor Larry Lessig.
But there are a number of reformers who fear that any legislative initiative will be made difficult by the high court's misinterpretation of the first amendment to read: whoever has the most money gets the most free speech.
That stranglehold on real democracy may, in the view of these activists, only be broken by a constitutional amendment, and democracy and clean government campaigners are proposing just that - with some suggesting the traditional route of having Congress propose an amendment, while others imagine asking legislatures across the country to call a constitutional convention to develop an amendment.
Graves and others are backing a Move to Amend campaign, which debuted a website for activists moments after the court ruling came down.
The Move to Amend coalition declares:
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
1. Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
2. Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
3. Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Within hours of the decision, more than 3,500 Americans had signed on as backers of this particular initiative.
Whatever the specific route, and whatever the specific language (Graves suggests: "No corporation shall be considered to be a person who is permitted to raise or spend money on federal, state, or local elections of any kind"), the goal of any amendment strategy should be to enshrine in the Constitution of this land the fundamental democratic principle proposed more than a century ago by a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt: "All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/21-10 ...
Published on Thursday, January 21, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Corporate Personhood Should Be Banned, Once and For All
Outrageous SCOTUS Decision Should Reignite Most Necessary of Debates
by Ralph Nader
Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.
This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is indeed time for a Constitutional amendment to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the civic and political voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow "King Corporation" and restore the sovereignty of "We the People"!
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-14 ...
Published on Friday, January 22, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Shed a Tear for Our Democracy
by Robert Weissman
Yesterday, in the case Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence election outcomes.
Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls. Now, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.
In eviscerating longstanding rules prohibiting corporations from using their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant corporations to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes. Corporations are sure to accept the invitation.
The predictable result will be corporate money flooding the election process; huge targeted campaigns by corporations and their front groups attacking principled candidates who challenge parochial corporate interests; and a chilling effect on candidates and election officials, who will be deterred from advocating and implementing policies that advance the public interest but injure deep-pocket corporations.
Because the decision is made on First Amendment constitutional grounds, the impact will be felt not only at the federal level, but in the states and localities, including in state judicial elections.
In one sense, the decision was a long time in coming. Over the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has created and steadily expanded the First Amendment protections that it has afforded for-profit corporations.
But in another sense, the decision is a startling break from Supreme Court tradition. Even as it has mistakenly equated money with speech in the political context, the court has long upheld regulations on corporate spending in the electoral context. The Citizens United decision is also an astonishing overreach by the court. No one thought the issue of corporations' purported right to spend money to influence election outcomes was at stake in this case until the Supreme Court so decreed. The case had been argued in lower courts, and was originally argued before the Supreme Court, on narrow grounds related to application of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The court has invented the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth. There is surely no originalist interpretation to support this outcome, since the court created the rights only in recent decades. Nor can the outcome be justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of the First Amendment. Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line. Corporate spending on elections defeats rather than advances the democratic thrust of the First Amendment.
We, the People cannot allow this decision to go unchallenged. We, the People cannot allow corporations to take control of our democracy.
There are some things that can be done to mitigate the damage from today's decision.
First, we must have public financing of elections. Public financing will give independent candidates a base from which they may be able to compete against candidates benefiting from corporate expenditures. We will intensify our efforts to win rapid passage of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide congressional candidates with an alternative to corporate-funded campaigns before fundraising for the 2010 election is in full swing. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, and Rep. John Larson, D-Connecticut, the bill would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals and provide candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate contributions or private contributions in amounts of more than $100. The proposal has broad support, including more than 126 co-sponsors in the House.
In the wake of the court's decision, it is also essential that the presidential public financing system be made viable again. Cities and states will also need to enact public financing of elections.
Congress must ensure that corporate CEOs do not use corporate funds for political purposes, against the wishes of shareholders, with legislation requiring an absolute majority of shares to be voted in favor, before any corporate political expenditure is permitted. There are other legislative approaches to limit today's damage, including a range of measures proposed by Representative Alan Grayson, D-Florida.
These mitigating measures will not be enough to offset today's decision, however. The decision itself must be overturned.
We need a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. A constitutional amendment is not a thing to throw around lightly. But today's decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.
Winning a constitutional amendment will be a long-term effort. The starting point is for the people to petition their government to demand action. Public Citizen with allies has launched such a petition effort. Got to www.dontgetrolled.org to sign the petition.
The Supreme Court has lost its way. Democracy is rule of the people -- real, live humans, not artificial entity corporations. Now it's time for the people to reassert their rights.
Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-9 ...
Published on Friday, January 22, 2010 by YES! Magazine
Whose Rights?
A new Supreme Court decision promotes corporate rights at the expense of the rights of citizens. What happens when the legal structure itself stands in the way of democracy?
by Thomas Linzey and Mari Margil
Yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission-giving corporations the ability to spend money directly to influence federal elections under the Constitution's First Amendment-was inevitable. It represents a logical expansion of corporate constitutional "rights"-which include the rights of persons which have been judicially conferred upon corporations. "Personhood" rights mean that corporations possess First Amendment rights to free speech, along with a litany of other rights that are secured to persons under the federal Bill of Rights.
The expansion of corporate rights and privileges under the law has been deliberate, beginning nearly two hundred years ago with the Dartmouth decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that private corporations had rights that municipal corporations-governments composed of "we the people"-did not.
For the past two centuries, new court decisions have only expanded corporate rights and privileges. For those who think that the way to stem this tide is to find the perfect lawsuit, stop looking. It doesn't exist, for there is no magic bullet.
Rather, in order to reverse decisions like Citizens United, the whole concept of corporate "rights"-and the way they interfere with the exercise of rights by people, communities, and nature-must be examined. And, it's not simply that corporations have "personhood" rights. It goes well beyond that.
Today's structure of law gives corporations a spectrum of legal and constitutional rights which they routinely wield against people, communities, and nature. Corporations have more rights, for example, than the communities in which they seek to do business. They can and do use those rights to lobby Congress, impact elections, and to decide for us what we eat, whether mountaintops are blown off or not, whether there are fish in the oceans, and on and on. Their constitutional and other legal rights, together with their wealth, guarantee that they can define the debates that lead to the adoption of new laws-and often write the laws themselves.
Thus the context for understanding the Citizens United decision is that we have a minority set of corporate interests, empowered by government to wield their rights against a majority. It is the history of this nation. The abolitionists, the suffragists, and the civil rights movement all built movements of people in order to drive rights (for slaves, for women, for African Americans) into law-which necessarily meant eliminating rights for a minority, such as the slaveholder. In the end, it is our constitutional structure of law that purposefully places the rights of property and commerce over the rights of people, communities, and nature. History shows that strong peoples' movements can make change by changing the legal structure itself.
In some ways, the Citizens United ruling is merely part of a predetermined destiny set by a 1700s constitutional structure that placed greater priority on the rights of property and commerce than on the rights of people and nature. Reversing Citizens United means reversing that constitutional legacy.
Today, to those who recognize that we do not have democracy when corporations located thousands of miles away are making decisions about our communities instead of us, who recognize that we cannot have sustainability so long as corporations are able to decide how clean our air and water can be, who recognize that we'll never have true health care reform so long as corporations have greater access to our elected representatives than the people who voted for them-to those people, yesterday's decision should be understood as just another brick in the wall, another step down a path that will only continue unless and until a real movement for the rights of people, communities, and nature is built. That is the work we are doing. We hope you will join us.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Thomas Linzey and Mari Margil wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Thomas is executive director, cofounder, and chief legal counsel and Mari is associate director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), a public interest law firm that has worked with municipalities to question whether corporate "rights" can coexist with the democratic rights of communities to local self-government. Through the adoption of local, binding laws, these communities are pioneering a new structure of law which does not recognize the rights and privileges of corporations. Interested?
Spokane Considers Community Bill of Rights :: Thousands of people voted to protect nine basic rights, ranging from the right of the environment to exist and flourish to the rights of residents to have a locally based economy and to determine the future of their neighborhoods.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-8 ...
Published on Friday, January 22, 2010 by RaceWire.org
At Last! SCOTUS Finally Allows Corporations to Influence US Politics
by Juell Stewart
In a move that's sure to create such political offices as "Georgia's Junior Senator, brought to you by Coca-Cola," the New York Times reports that the Supreme Court has run roughshod over decades of federal campaign finance measures and has thrown out a rule that once prohibited corporations and unions from using their considerable coffers to back specific candidates.
With mid-term elections on the horizon, today's decision is sure to start a domino effect of increasingly corporatized candidates in a political landscape that is already hostile to smaller, grassroots campaigns. I, for one, am wary of what's around the corner in electoral politics.
While it's been clear that lobbyists and Fortune 500 companies have been paying their way onto Capitol Hill for quite some time, at least lately there's been some semblance of separation between corporate interests and political interests-if nothing else, at least we could rest easy knowing that corporations couldn't legally directly campaign for a candidate, even if they contributed millions of dollars in donations and gifts behind the scenes.
But with today's decision, those barriers are destroyed entirely. There's nothing keeping the companies with the deepest pockets from purchasing prime ad time for the candidate of their choice and effectively owning them to act in their interests for the duration of their time in office.
It seems like we're moving backwards, or at least swimming in a big ol' pool of contradictions: on one hand, the government is seeking to place blame on the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase for orchestrating the current worldwide financial gaffe, but on the other, the Supreme Court is giving companies of their ilk unprecedented political potential. If there's a silver lining to this cloud, I can't see it through the storm that's heading our way.
© 2010 ColorLines Magazine - The Applied Research Center
Juell Stewart is a research fellow with the Applied Research Center.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/22/in_landmark_campaign_finance_ruling_supreme ...
In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court rules corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates. One lawmaker describes it as the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case justifying slavery. We speak with constitutional law professor, Jamin Raskin.
Jamin Raskin, Professor of Constitutional Law at American University and a Maryland State Senator. He is the author of several books, including Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. The American People.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin our show today looking at yesterday's landmark Supreme Court ruling that will allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates.
In a five-to-four decision, the Court overturned century-old restrictions on corporations, unions and other interest groups from using their vast treasuries to advocate for a specific candidate. The conservative members of the Court ruled corporations have First Amendment rights and that the government cannot impose restrictions on their political speech.
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy described existing campaign finance laws as a form of censorship that have had a, quote, "substantial, nationwide chilling effect" on political speech.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens described the decision as a radical departure in the law. Stevens wrote, quote, "The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." Stevens went on to write, quote, "It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process."
To talk more about this ruling, we're joined by Jamin Raskin. He's a professor of constitutional law at American University and a Maryland state senator. He is the author of several books, including Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. The American People.
Professor Raskin, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling.
JAMIN RASKIN: Good morning, Amy.
Well, we've had some terrible Supreme Court interventions against political democracy: Shaw v. Reno, striking down majority African American and Hispanic congressional districts; Bush v. Gore, intervening to stop the counting of ballots in Florida. But I would have to say that all of them pale compared to what we just saw yesterday, where the Supreme Court has overturned decades of Supreme Court precedent to declare that private, for-profit corporations have First Amendment rights of political expression, meaning that they can spend up to the heavens in order to have their way in politics. And this will open floodgates of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in federal, state and local elections, as Halliburton and Enron and Blackwater and Bank of America and Goldman Sachs can take money directly out of corporate treasuries and put them into our politics.
And I looked at just one corporation, Exxon Mobil, which is the biggest corporation in America. In 2008, they posted profits of $85 billion. And so, if they decided to spend, say, a modest ten percent of their profits in one year, $8.5 billion, that would be three times more than the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign and every candidate for House and Senate in the country spent in 2008. That's one corporation. So think about the Fortune 500.
They're threatening a fundamental change in the character of American political democracy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about President Obama's response? He was extremely critical, to say the least. He said, "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politicsŠa major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." Yet a number of especially conservatives are pointing out that there was-that President Obama spent more money for his presidential election than anyone in US history.
JAMIN RASKIN: OK, well, that's a red herring in this discussion. The question here is the corporation, OK? And there's an unbroken line of precedent, beginning with Chief Justice Marshall in the Dartmouth College case in the 1800s, all the way through Justice Rehnquist, even, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, saying that a corporation is an artificial creation of the state. It's an instrumentality that the state legislatures charter in order to achieve economic purposes. And as Justice White put it, the state does not have to permit its own creature to consume it, to devour it.
And that's precisely what the Supreme Court has done, suddenly declaring that a corporation is essentially a citizen, armed with all the political rights that we have, at the same time that the corporation has all kinds of economic perks and privileges like limited liability and perpetual life and bankruptcy protection and so on, that mean that we're basically subsidizing these entities, and sometimes directly, as we saw with the Wall Street bailout, but then they're allowed to turn around and spend money to determine our political future, our political destiny. So it's a very dangerous moment for American political democracy.
And in other times, citizens have gotten together to challenge corporate power. The passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 is a good example, where corporations were basically buying senators, going into state legislatures and paying off senator-paying off legislators to buy US senators, and the populist movement said we need direct popular election of senators. And that's how we got it, basically, in a movement against corporate power.
Well, we need a movement for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not persons entitled to the rights of political expression. And that's what the President should be calling for at this point, because no legislation is really going to do the trick.
Now, one thing Congress can do is to say, if you do business with the federal government, you are not permitted to spend any money in federal election contests. That's something that Congress should work on and get out next week. I mean, that seems very clear. No pay to play, in terms of US Congress.
And I think that citizens, consumers, shareholders across the country, should start a mass movement to demand that corporations commit not to get involved in politics and not to spend their money in that way, but should be involved in the economy and, you know, economic production and livelihood, rather than trying to determine what happens in our elections.
AMY GOODMAN: This is considered a conservative court, Jamin Raskin, but isn't this a very activist stance of the Supreme Court justices?
JAMIN RASKIN: Indeed. The Supreme Court has reached out to strike down a law that has been on the books for several decades. And moreover, it reached out when the parties to the case didn't even ask them to decide it. The Citizens United group, the anti-Hillary Clinton group, did not even ask them to wipe out decades of Supreme Court case law on the rights of corporations in the First Amendment. The Court, in fact, raised the question, made the parties go back and brief this case, and then came up with the answer to the question that the Court itself, or the five right-wing justices themselves, posed here.
There would have been lots of other ways for those conservative justices to find that Citizens United's anti-Hillary Clinton movie was protected speech, the simplest being saying, "Look, this was pay-per-view; it wasn't a TV commercial. So it's not covered by McCain-Feingold." But the Court, or the five justices on the Court, were hell-bent on overthrowing McCain-Feingold and the electioneering communication rules and reversing decades of precedent.
And so, now the people are confronted with a very serious question: Will we have the political power and vision to mobilize, to demand a constitutional amendment to say that it is "we, the people," not "we, the corporations"?
AMY GOODMAN: Jamin Raskin, we want to thank you very much for being with us, professor of constitutional law at American University's School of Law and a Maryland state senator.
-- Teddy Roosevelt
"I hope we shall...crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816
"The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November's elections. It won't be Republicans. It won't be Democrats. It will be corporate America."
-- Chuck Schumer [yesterday in rare populist moment]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi all...
What do all of the following noted progressive folks have in common?...
[note-- thx much to Rhinebeck's David Gideon for cluing me into this nascent movement!]
They've all signed on to start (along with 24,000 others in first 2 days) MovetoAmend.org !...
[sign on today!...you'll be glad you did...and let EVERYone else you know on your list you did too]
Bill McKibben, founder, 350.org
David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World
David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org
Howard Zinn, historian
Jeff Cohen, founder, FAIR
Jim Hightower, author, columnist, and radio commentator
Mark Crispin Miller, author, Fooled Again
Matt Rothschild, Editor, The Progressive
Medea Benjamin, co-founder, Code Pink
Michael Albert, Z Communications
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun Community
Rep. Michael Fisher, House of Representatives, Vermont
Robert McChesney, professor, co-author, The Death & Life of American Journalism
Thom Hartmann, nation's #1 nationally syndicated progressive talk show host
Tiffiniy Cheng, Executive Director, A New Way Forward
Tim Carpenter, Executive Director, Progressive Democrats of America
Tom Hayden, activist
Ward Morehouse, chair, National Lawyers Guild's Committee on Corporations
From http://www.MovetoAmend.org ...
"We the corporations"
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
See these six for much more on this...(like Rich C. said earlier today on WVKR, steps towards fascism):
"Teddy Roosevelt Was Right: Ban ALL Corporate Contributions" by John Nichols
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/519991/teddy_roosevelt_was_right_ban_all_corporate_contributions
"Shed a Tear for Our Democracy" by Robert Weissman
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-14
"Whose Rights'?" by Thomas Linzey and Mari Margil
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-9
"At Last! SCOTUS Finally Allows Corporations to Influence US Politics" by Juell Stewart
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-8
Democracy Now: "In Campaign Finance Ruling, Limits Removed on Corporate Campaign Spending"
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/22/in_landmark_campaign_finance_ruling_supreme
"Corporate Personhood Should Be Banned, Once and For all" by Ralph Nader
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/21-10
...and if you haven't seen these two yet, they're must-read's as well!...
"Obama's Half-Baked Bank Reform; For Real Reform, Bring Back Glass-Steagall" by Nomi Prins
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-2
"Casting Doubt on US Claims of Suicide, Attorney Scott Horton Reveals 3 Gitmo Prisoners Died After Torture at Secret Site"
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/20/casting_doubt_on_us_claims_of
Don't forget to let your fingers do the walking Monday a.m.-- call Congress: (800) 828-0498!...
[pass it on]
Joel
242-3571/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
[anyone else out there interested in helping me to get my colleagues in our County Legislature (at least Dem ones) signed on to letter to Congress on this?...and/or getting our county Dem committee to pass similar resolution?...let me know, folks!...(and email us all-- at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us!)]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Teddy Roosevelt Was Right: Ban ALL Corporate Contributions
posted by JOHN NICHOLS on 01/22/2010 @ 01:23am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/519991/teddy_roosevelt_was_right_ban_all_corporate_contributions
What to do about the decision by U.S. Supreme Court to -- in the words of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold -- "(ignore) important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent" in order to make corporations the dominant players in American politics?
Of course, there will be legislative scrambling at the local, state and federal levels. The decision by Chief Justice John Roberts and four other justices to reject history and precedent in order to put a radical pro-corporate spin on the First Amendment throws into question rules designed to regulate even the worst campaign abuses by business interests.
Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who leant his name to the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, will be working overtime to defend not just the progress he has made as a reformer but a century of clean-government legislation.
"It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold's soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process. But this decision was a terrible mistake," says the Wisconsin senator. "Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was 'firmly embedded in our law.' Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible."
When all is said and done, however, that may not be enough.
It may be that the United States Constitution will need to be amended in order to restore to the Teddy Roosevelt principle:
"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law," said Roosevelt in the first years of the 20th century, when he was also proposing public financing of federal election.
The court's ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC is a game-changer that, in the words of Feingold says corporations "can just open their treasuries (and) completely buy up all the television time, and drown out everyone else's voices."
There's a small measure of nuance in the ruling.
In their 5-4 decision, the majority maintained restrictions on direct donations by corporations to candidates and political parties.
But corporations - with their immense resources and their immense desire to influence the political and governing processes - will be able to spend as freely as their like (on television commercials and other forms of communication) to secure the election results they seek.
It's a recipe for democratic disaster, as wealth and power will define the debate that sets the parameters of our politics.
Says Senator Charles Schumer, D-New York: "The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November's elections. It won't be Republicans. It won't be Democrats. It will be corporate America."
To paraphrase a particular television network, there will be no fairness and no balance.
That threat demands a response sufficient to the challenge it poses to electoral democracy. As Lisa Graves, the executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, says: "We cannot just wring our hands, in my view, and let this stand. There is a great deal of work to be done."
Graves, a lawyer with long experience in both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, offers a savvy analysis of the motivations behind the court's ruling.
"When I worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewing President George W. Bush's judicial nominees and their agendas, I feared this day would come. That's why I tried to help keep John Roberts off the appellate court, and then was so saddened the day he was appointed and when I saw President Bush promote him to become Chief Justice after I had left the government," she says. "In reading the biographies, writings, and speeches of right-wing nominees, it became clear to me that a revolution in the law was being fomented to undermine the power of ordinary people to regulate corporations in their communities.
Today's decision is a huge gift to corporations from a Supreme Court that has been radicalized by right-wing ideology, whose political agenda was made obvious in the Bush v. Gore case and whose very political decision today only makes things worse. I think we have to rebuke the Court's arrogant decision and make sure the law puts Americans before corporations."
There will be talk of legislative interventions, the best of which is almost certainly rapid passage of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would set up a system of public financing of elections.
"This would establish citizen-funded elections," says Harvard Law School professor Larry Lessig.
But there are a number of reformers who fear that any legislative initiative will be made difficult by the high court's misinterpretation of the first amendment to read: whoever has the most money gets the most free speech.
That stranglehold on real democracy may, in the view of these activists, only be broken by a constitutional amendment, and democracy and clean government campaigners are proposing just that - with some suggesting the traditional route of having Congress propose an amendment, while others imagine asking legislatures across the country to call a constitutional convention to develop an amendment.
Graves and others are backing a Move to Amend campaign, which debuted a website for activists moments after the court ruling came down.
The Move to Amend coalition declares:
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
1. Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
2. Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
3. Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Within hours of the decision, more than 3,500 Americans had signed on as backers of this particular initiative.
Whatever the specific route, and whatever the specific language (Graves suggests: "No corporation shall be considered to be a person who is permitted to raise or spend money on federal, state, or local elections of any kind"), the goal of any amendment strategy should be to enshrine in the Constitution of this land the fundamental democratic principle proposed more than a century ago by a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt: "All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/21-10 ...
Published on Thursday, January 21, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Corporate Personhood Should Be Banned, Once and For All
Outrageous SCOTUS Decision Should Reignite Most Necessary of Debates
by Ralph Nader
Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.
This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is indeed time for a Constitutional amendment to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the civic and political voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow "King Corporation" and restore the sovereignty of "We the People"!
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-14 ...
Published on Friday, January 22, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Shed a Tear for Our Democracy
by Robert Weissman
Yesterday, in the case Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence election outcomes.
Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls. Now, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.
In eviscerating longstanding rules prohibiting corporations from using their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant corporations to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes. Corporations are sure to accept the invitation.
The predictable result will be corporate money flooding the election process; huge targeted campaigns by corporations and their front groups attacking principled candidates who challenge parochial corporate interests; and a chilling effect on candidates and election officials, who will be deterred from advocating and implementing policies that advance the public interest but injure deep-pocket corporations.
Because the decision is made on First Amendment constitutional grounds, the impact will be felt not only at the federal level, but in the states and localities, including in state judicial elections.
In one sense, the decision was a long time in coming. Over the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has created and steadily expanded the First Amendment protections that it has afforded for-profit corporations.
But in another sense, the decision is a startling break from Supreme Court tradition. Even as it has mistakenly equated money with speech in the political context, the court has long upheld regulations on corporate spending in the electoral context. The Citizens United decision is also an astonishing overreach by the court. No one thought the issue of corporations' purported right to spend money to influence election outcomes was at stake in this case until the Supreme Court so decreed. The case had been argued in lower courts, and was originally argued before the Supreme Court, on narrow grounds related to application of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The court has invented the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth. There is surely no originalist interpretation to support this outcome, since the court created the rights only in recent decades. Nor can the outcome be justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of the First Amendment. Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line. Corporate spending on elections defeats rather than advances the democratic thrust of the First Amendment.
We, the People cannot allow this decision to go unchallenged. We, the People cannot allow corporations to take control of our democracy.
There are some things that can be done to mitigate the damage from today's decision.
First, we must have public financing of elections. Public financing will give independent candidates a base from which they may be able to compete against candidates benefiting from corporate expenditures. We will intensify our efforts to win rapid passage of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide congressional candidates with an alternative to corporate-funded campaigns before fundraising for the 2010 election is in full swing. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, and Rep. John Larson, D-Connecticut, the bill would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals and provide candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate contributions or private contributions in amounts of more than $100. The proposal has broad support, including more than 126 co-sponsors in the House.
In the wake of the court's decision, it is also essential that the presidential public financing system be made viable again. Cities and states will also need to enact public financing of elections.
Congress must ensure that corporate CEOs do not use corporate funds for political purposes, against the wishes of shareholders, with legislation requiring an absolute majority of shares to be voted in favor, before any corporate political expenditure is permitted. There are other legislative approaches to limit today's damage, including a range of measures proposed by Representative Alan Grayson, D-Florida.
These mitigating measures will not be enough to offset today's decision, however. The decision itself must be overturned.
We need a constitutional amendment specifying that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections, except for freedom of the press. A constitutional amendment is not a thing to throw around lightly. But today's decision so imperils our democratic well-being, and so severely distorts the rightful purpose of the First Amendment, that a constitutional corrective is demanded.
Winning a constitutional amendment will be a long-term effort. The starting point is for the people to petition their government to demand action. Public Citizen with allies has launched such a petition effort. Got to www.dontgetrolled.org to sign the petition.
The Supreme Court has lost its way. Democracy is rule of the people -- real, live humans, not artificial entity corporations. Now it's time for the people to reassert their rights.
Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-9 ...
Published on Friday, January 22, 2010 by YES! Magazine
Whose Rights?
A new Supreme Court decision promotes corporate rights at the expense of the rights of citizens. What happens when the legal structure itself stands in the way of democracy?
by Thomas Linzey and Mari Margil
Yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission-giving corporations the ability to spend money directly to influence federal elections under the Constitution's First Amendment-was inevitable. It represents a logical expansion of corporate constitutional "rights"-which include the rights of persons which have been judicially conferred upon corporations. "Personhood" rights mean that corporations possess First Amendment rights to free speech, along with a litany of other rights that are secured to persons under the federal Bill of Rights.
The expansion of corporate rights and privileges under the law has been deliberate, beginning nearly two hundred years ago with the Dartmouth decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that private corporations had rights that municipal corporations-governments composed of "we the people"-did not.
For the past two centuries, new court decisions have only expanded corporate rights and privileges. For those who think that the way to stem this tide is to find the perfect lawsuit, stop looking. It doesn't exist, for there is no magic bullet.
Rather, in order to reverse decisions like Citizens United, the whole concept of corporate "rights"-and the way they interfere with the exercise of rights by people, communities, and nature-must be examined. And, it's not simply that corporations have "personhood" rights. It goes well beyond that.
Today's structure of law gives corporations a spectrum of legal and constitutional rights which they routinely wield against people, communities, and nature. Corporations have more rights, for example, than the communities in which they seek to do business. They can and do use those rights to lobby Congress, impact elections, and to decide for us what we eat, whether mountaintops are blown off or not, whether there are fish in the oceans, and on and on. Their constitutional and other legal rights, together with their wealth, guarantee that they can define the debates that lead to the adoption of new laws-and often write the laws themselves.
Thus the context for understanding the Citizens United decision is that we have a minority set of corporate interests, empowered by government to wield their rights against a majority. It is the history of this nation. The abolitionists, the suffragists, and the civil rights movement all built movements of people in order to drive rights (for slaves, for women, for African Americans) into law-which necessarily meant eliminating rights for a minority, such as the slaveholder. In the end, it is our constitutional structure of law that purposefully places the rights of property and commerce over the rights of people, communities, and nature. History shows that strong peoples' movements can make change by changing the legal structure itself.
In some ways, the Citizens United ruling is merely part of a predetermined destiny set by a 1700s constitutional structure that placed greater priority on the rights of property and commerce than on the rights of people and nature. Reversing Citizens United means reversing that constitutional legacy.
Today, to those who recognize that we do not have democracy when corporations located thousands of miles away are making decisions about our communities instead of us, who recognize that we cannot have sustainability so long as corporations are able to decide how clean our air and water can be, who recognize that we'll never have true health care reform so long as corporations have greater access to our elected representatives than the people who voted for them-to those people, yesterday's decision should be understood as just another brick in the wall, another step down a path that will only continue unless and until a real movement for the rights of people, communities, and nature is built. That is the work we are doing. We hope you will join us.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Thomas Linzey and Mari Margil wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Thomas is executive director, cofounder, and chief legal counsel and Mari is associate director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), a public interest law firm that has worked with municipalities to question whether corporate "rights" can coexist with the democratic rights of communities to local self-government. Through the adoption of local, binding laws, these communities are pioneering a new structure of law which does not recognize the rights and privileges of corporations. Interested?
Spokane Considers Community Bill of Rights :: Thousands of people voted to protect nine basic rights, ranging from the right of the environment to exist and flourish to the rights of residents to have a locally based economy and to determine the future of their neighborhoods.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-8 ...
Published on Friday, January 22, 2010 by RaceWire.org
At Last! SCOTUS Finally Allows Corporations to Influence US Politics
by Juell Stewart
In a move that's sure to create such political offices as "Georgia's Junior Senator, brought to you by Coca-Cola," the New York Times reports that the Supreme Court has run roughshod over decades of federal campaign finance measures and has thrown out a rule that once prohibited corporations and unions from using their considerable coffers to back specific candidates.
With mid-term elections on the horizon, today's decision is sure to start a domino effect of increasingly corporatized candidates in a political landscape that is already hostile to smaller, grassroots campaigns. I, for one, am wary of what's around the corner in electoral politics.
While it's been clear that lobbyists and Fortune 500 companies have been paying their way onto Capitol Hill for quite some time, at least lately there's been some semblance of separation between corporate interests and political interests-if nothing else, at least we could rest easy knowing that corporations couldn't legally directly campaign for a candidate, even if they contributed millions of dollars in donations and gifts behind the scenes.
But with today's decision, those barriers are destroyed entirely. There's nothing keeping the companies with the deepest pockets from purchasing prime ad time for the candidate of their choice and effectively owning them to act in their interests for the duration of their time in office.
It seems like we're moving backwards, or at least swimming in a big ol' pool of contradictions: on one hand, the government is seeking to place blame on the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase for orchestrating the current worldwide financial gaffe, but on the other, the Supreme Court is giving companies of their ilk unprecedented political potential. If there's a silver lining to this cloud, I can't see it through the storm that's heading our way.
© 2010 ColorLines Magazine - The Applied Research Center
Juell Stewart is a research fellow with the Applied Research Center.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/22/in_landmark_campaign_finance_ruling_supreme ...
In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court rules corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates. One lawmaker describes it as the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case justifying slavery. We speak with constitutional law professor, Jamin Raskin.
Jamin Raskin, Professor of Constitutional Law at American University and a Maryland State Senator. He is the author of several books, including Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. The American People.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin our show today looking at yesterday's landmark Supreme Court ruling that will allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates.
In a five-to-four decision, the Court overturned century-old restrictions on corporations, unions and other interest groups from using their vast treasuries to advocate for a specific candidate. The conservative members of the Court ruled corporations have First Amendment rights and that the government cannot impose restrictions on their political speech.
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy described existing campaign finance laws as a form of censorship that have had a, quote, "substantial, nationwide chilling effect" on political speech.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens described the decision as a radical departure in the law. Stevens wrote, quote, "The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." Stevens went on to write, quote, "It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process."
To talk more about this ruling, we're joined by Jamin Raskin. He's a professor of constitutional law at American University and a Maryland state senator. He is the author of several books, including Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. The American People.
Professor Raskin, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling.
JAMIN RASKIN: Good morning, Amy.
Well, we've had some terrible Supreme Court interventions against political democracy: Shaw v. Reno, striking down majority African American and Hispanic congressional districts; Bush v. Gore, intervening to stop the counting of ballots in Florida. But I would have to say that all of them pale compared to what we just saw yesterday, where the Supreme Court has overturned decades of Supreme Court precedent to declare that private, for-profit corporations have First Amendment rights of political expression, meaning that they can spend up to the heavens in order to have their way in politics. And this will open floodgates of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in federal, state and local elections, as Halliburton and Enron and Blackwater and Bank of America and Goldman Sachs can take money directly out of corporate treasuries and put them into our politics.
And I looked at just one corporation, Exxon Mobil, which is the biggest corporation in America. In 2008, they posted profits of $85 billion. And so, if they decided to spend, say, a modest ten percent of their profits in one year, $8.5 billion, that would be three times more than the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign and every candidate for House and Senate in the country spent in 2008. That's one corporation. So think about the Fortune 500.
They're threatening a fundamental change in the character of American political democracy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about President Obama's response? He was extremely critical, to say the least. He said, "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politicsŠa major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." Yet a number of especially conservatives are pointing out that there was-that President Obama spent more money for his presidential election than anyone in US history.
JAMIN RASKIN: OK, well, that's a red herring in this discussion. The question here is the corporation, OK? And there's an unbroken line of precedent, beginning with Chief Justice Marshall in the Dartmouth College case in the 1800s, all the way through Justice Rehnquist, even, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, saying that a corporation is an artificial creation of the state. It's an instrumentality that the state legislatures charter in order to achieve economic purposes. And as Justice White put it, the state does not have to permit its own creature to consume it, to devour it.
And that's precisely what the Supreme Court has done, suddenly declaring that a corporation is essentially a citizen, armed with all the political rights that we have, at the same time that the corporation has all kinds of economic perks and privileges like limited liability and perpetual life and bankruptcy protection and so on, that mean that we're basically subsidizing these entities, and sometimes directly, as we saw with the Wall Street bailout, but then they're allowed to turn around and spend money to determine our political future, our political destiny. So it's a very dangerous moment for American political democracy.
And in other times, citizens have gotten together to challenge corporate power. The passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 is a good example, where corporations were basically buying senators, going into state legislatures and paying off senator-paying off legislators to buy US senators, and the populist movement said we need direct popular election of senators. And that's how we got it, basically, in a movement against corporate power.
Well, we need a movement for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not persons entitled to the rights of political expression. And that's what the President should be calling for at this point, because no legislation is really going to do the trick.
Now, one thing Congress can do is to say, if you do business with the federal government, you are not permitted to spend any money in federal election contests. That's something that Congress should work on and get out next week. I mean, that seems very clear. No pay to play, in terms of US Congress.
And I think that citizens, consumers, shareholders across the country, should start a mass movement to demand that corporations commit not to get involved in politics and not to spend their money in that way, but should be involved in the economy and, you know, economic production and livelihood, rather than trying to determine what happens in our elections.
AMY GOODMAN: This is considered a conservative court, Jamin Raskin, but isn't this a very activist stance of the Supreme Court justices?
JAMIN RASKIN: Indeed. The Supreme Court has reached out to strike down a law that has been on the books for several decades. And moreover, it reached out when the parties to the case didn't even ask them to decide it. The Citizens United group, the anti-Hillary Clinton group, did not even ask them to wipe out decades of Supreme Court case law on the rights of corporations in the First Amendment. The Court, in fact, raised the question, made the parties go back and brief this case, and then came up with the answer to the question that the Court itself, or the five right-wing justices themselves, posed here.
There would have been lots of other ways for those conservative justices to find that Citizens United's anti-Hillary Clinton movie was protected speech, the simplest being saying, "Look, this was pay-per-view; it wasn't a TV commercial. So it's not covered by McCain-Feingold." But the Court, or the five justices on the Court, were hell-bent on overthrowing McCain-Feingold and the electioneering communication rules and reversing decades of precedent.
And so, now the people are confronted with a very serious question: Will we have the political power and vision to mobilize, to demand a constitutional amendment to say that it is "we, the people," not "we, the corporations"?
AMY GOODMAN: Jamin Raskin, we want to thank you very much for being with us, professor of constitutional law at American University's School of Law and a Maryland state senator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
