Money Talks: Must-Read Stories About Money and Politics | BillMoyers.com

Money Talks: Must-Read Stories About Money and Politics | BillMoyers.com





 

Welcome
to this week’s roundup (Jan. 20-27, 2015) of must-read stories in the
world of money and politics. Check back on Tuesday afternoons for more
on the increasing influence of the super-rich on American government. In
the comments section below, we’d love to hear your thoughts on these
stories and any we may have missed.

It’s
no wonder the candidates show up when the Koch brothers call. That’s
exponentially more money than any party organization will spend. In many
ways, they have superseded the party.”

— David Axelrod, former Obama senior adviser, to the New York Times. The Koch brothers plan to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign.

When
one family can raise as much as an entire party, the system is broken.
This is oligarchy, not democracy. We must overturn Citizens United.”

— Sen. Bernie Sanders’ reaction to the Koch’s campaign plan.

This
is the same kind of money that was at the heart of the Watergate
scandals. When you combine unlimited contributions with secrecy, you are
dealing with the most dangerous kind of corrupting money.”

— Fred Wertheimer, campaign finance reform activist, to the National Journal. The rise of candidate-specific nonprofits is expected to shroud political influence in more secrecy than ever in 2016.

It’s
very, very, very rare that either by letter or by personal call that I
ask a lawyer to do something, whether it’s serve on a committee, help
organize something, do whatever it is that I’m asking, that that lawyer
will say no. Isn’t it inherent in the lawyer­-judge context that people
are going to say yes?”

— Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on lawyers’ agreeing to requests from judges, in a Bloomberg article on the absurdity of publicly elected judges. SCOTUS justices appear divided in Williams-Yulee, the case deciding the legality of direct campaign solicitations from judges.

If
Rebekah had contacted her member of Congress asking for an increase
from $2.13 an hour, who do you think Congress listened to: a young
waitress who only made $2.13 an hour or a lobbyist from the National
Restaurant Association who just wrote a big campaign check?”

— Every Voice’s Francoise Stovall, breaking down the role money in politics would have played in the lives of the young, struggling couple President Obama highlighted in his State of the Union address.

All of the other 98 senators, from the rest of the country, should be looking to this person for thought leadership.”

— Former co-chair of Technology for Obama, Rusty Rueff, talking to POLITICO about the Silicon Valley rush to find and support a replacement for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) who will be an advocate for the tech industry.

For
many of the party’s biggest fundraisers, signing on with a contender is
a two-year commitment that usually includes asking friends, family and
colleagues for donations they can bundle into stacks of checks. It’s not
a decision taken lightly, especially with a field so large and in a
campaign where total spending is sure to be measured in the billions.”

— Jill Colvin and Philip Elliott of the Associated Press, on GOP donors’ apparent plans to take their time before committing to a candidate.

Katie Rose Quandt reports and produces for BillMoyers.com. She was previously a senior fellow at Mother Jones, and has written for America, In These Times, and Solitary Watch. You can follow Katie Rose on twitter @katierosequandt.

The Amazing Facts of Income Inequality

How Much More (Or Less) Would You Make If We Rolled Back Inequality? : Planet Money : NPR



The chart in this article, if anyone cares to see it, shows that for the bottom 50% of those earners in 1979 that, had equality remained flat, would be earning $7000 to $10,000 more per year.  But what is the really amazing revelation is the those in the 1% bracket in 1979 would be making, now get this, at least $1,000,000 less.  So, where did the money go?

Oh yes.  What happened in 1979?

Right to Work or Right to Poverty

One by one Kentucky's various counties are falling into a mindless void by declaring that they are now members of the spuriously named “right to work” club. I and many others have described those laws as being “right to work for as little as possible laws” but their advocates assure us that it is those efforts to secure a living wage that are making Kentucky a desert for attracting businesses to locate here.

Steve Kelly, our new County Judge Executive cites statistics that he says seem to indicate that businesses are choosing to locate in areas where right to work laws are in existence and that may be true since corporations are all about maximizing profits and ensuring appreciating stock values for their stockholders. However, there is also substantial evidence that there are businesses for which having a well educated and competent work force is of more value. It seems that the businesses that we have attracted in recent memory have offered minimum or low wage jobs that do little to improve the overall economic health of the county. While desperation may be sometimes a factor in securing jobs it is not a plan for economic health for a progressive community. While there are quite a few well off people and businesses that maintain the way to a wealthy community is through profitable business there is also substantial evidence that supports the idea that placing a decent and justifiable wage in the hands of workers does far more to keep the economic engine humming. It is seldom the case that wages are the primary factor in causing a business to fail or leave an otherwise accommodating location.

Without going into the details of the dubious benefit of tax forgiveness or other incentives to businesses to locate here it is doubtful that any of these efforts that minimize advantages to workers are of any lasting benefit to a community. Depressing wages only leads to depressing standards of living that are more reliant on government benefits to just get by and, like it or not, that is a taxpayer supported subsidy to those businesses. Paying a living wage to workers not only makes good economic sense it is also good tax policy because those workers are not dependent on taxpayer subsidies.

But most businesses will not just pony up good wages without a little something to motivate them. There are some that will but they are few and far between and we don't have a Google here in Pulaski County. This is where unions come in. By organizing the labor force unions are a voice for the working man or woman whose power to influence his or her wages is determined by whether or not the door hits them in the butt on the way out. A single worker alone has no power but groups of workers do have the power to convince business that it is in its best interests to have a happy, content and productive labor force. Success breeds success. Business looking to locate here are reluctant when they see a depressed economy and encouraged when they see economic health and governments that are flourishing.

What is a “right to work” law anyway? Simply put the aim of “right to work” laws is to remove the threat of unions being able to negotiate contracts and to enforce them by way of work stoppage. It does this by prohibiting “security agreements” and by eliminating the requirement of non-union employees to pay union dues. However, these laws do not remove the requirement that the union represent those non-members in matters of contractual infringement. They DO NOT ensure that any one can get a job and they DO NOT prohibit unions. They only remove any advantage that belonging to a union would bring and thereby breaking the back of union preference.

We are not very familiar with unions here in Pulaski County but I believe it can be substantiated that the best jobs the county has had were union jobs. It may be a good idea to take into account the large number of retirees that have settled here after being employed in the auto business and many others in states to the north of us. For many years the best and brightest of Kentucky's youth have had to venture out of state to find good jobs that paid a living wage and enabled them to participate in the American Dream and those were union jobs. I have talked to quite a few who have expressed their reluctance to advertise their union sympathies because of the negativity surrounding the topic in this area.

It can't be refuted that in the past unions have been associated with some disreputable people but the same can certainly be said of big business. Unions these days are regulated and watched over much closer than in the 1950s and 1960s. Jimmy Hoffa is not going to rise or he would have done so by now.

The choice is yours. Don't make a judgement based on political sound bites and one sided assertions by the Chamber of Commerce. You may not want to join a union but that does not mean that efforts by workers to organize to receive better wages and benefits should be short-circuited in order to appease the bottom lines of businesses.

My Take is that you should educate yourself before accepting my word for this or any other person's word for this. I am including this link to an article in Forbes Magazine which is no slouch when it comes to business.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/11/right-to-work-laws-explained-debunked-demystified/2/

rmoore@somerset-kentucky.com

The Work of God

The news on Wednesday of the murders of the editorial staff and police during the attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo was traumatic and shaking to many. It was a direct attack on one of our most cherished freedoms, freedom of expression. The disguised attackers apparently knew their targets and knew where to find them which indicates a high degree of planning. Their ability to elude immediate apprehension hints at a wider organization from which support is obtained. It is reported that one of the attackers shouted that they were the action of Al Qaida in Yemen which has been under attack by the United States for quite some time but the facts are still to be determined.

One of the repercussions that is feared is that this attack will strengthen the National Front political party in France which is vehemently opposed to immigration by Muslims. Of course, the hue and cry from those already of that mindset is that Muslims in general are the enemy and that we must take action to defeat them socially and militarily. Many Muslim organizations have voiced their condemnation of these fanatics but that is just not enough for most people. On this point those voices may have a point. While we shouldn't seek to ostracize or harm those who practice the Islamic faith just for their beliefs I think it is time that we should expect the general populace of the Islamic faith to stand up and loudly make their voices heard in their condemnation and ostracizing of those who practice a radical form of their faith. It has reached the point where it is not enough for only those more progressive leaders of Islam to denounce these barbaric acts. It is incumbent upon Muslims everywhere to repudiate the hatred and radicalism that those proponents of terrorism practice. While it is not universal, for the most part people in the United States will accept the practice of other faiths and religions but we expect those who are a part of our body to also respect our practice of our faiths and the tenets upon which the United States stands. It is only when those who practice a radical and murderous version of Islam are denied support and financing that they will diminish in power and attraction.

But, as with all things, there are two sides of that coin. Those who are angrily denouncing those practitioners of the dark arts must also reciprocate by showing acceptance and consideration to those of the Islamic faith. Many of those within not only the Christian community but also others accept the narrative that our battle against radical Islam is a battle against Satan himself. It is no surprise that those against whom we fight consider us in the same way. Must it be our goal to battle until one side or the other is vanquished in war and strife, weakened to the point that their voices can no longer be heard? The popular narrative is that we were attacked by Islam on 9/11 and that we are only defending ourselves against those who would deny us our freedom and God but our battle with that part of the world goes back much farther than that. One could argue that it goes back perhaps a thousand years to the crusades when Christians were attempting to take the Holy Land.

The truth is that people are not so much different everywhere you go. Most just want to live in peace, take care of their families and worship their god. It is when radicalism that will only accept one way rises that tensions overwhelm us. Now we are engaged in worldwide strife with an enemy that uses a radical form of its faith to justify the means to the ends that it seeks. We also go to war beseeching the blessings of God on our cause when it is doubtful that God can bless any kind of such destructive behavior.

In the past when forms of radicalism have threatened to subvert the national peace we, as a people, have stood up to reject that demonization of principle. Even during this battle with radical Islam our citizenry by and large has rejected the notion that we are at war with Islam itself. It is true that there are more than a few who do not feel this way and reject Islam itself as a violent religion bent on world domination by murder if necessary. Bill Maher, a well known liberal, is vocal about his perception of Islam as a violent and repressive religion. On the other hand, he feels similarly about Christianity. Yes, Islam has its scriptures that seem to advocate violent conversion of infidels but Christianity has also had its own dark past and largely moved past it. Islam needs to bring its faith into the modern world and universally reject violence as a form of evangelism and it needs to do so loudly by rejecting any support, financially or otherwise, for those who advocate radicalism of Islam. At the same time, we must acknowledge that there are some of us who would make the practice of our faith the foundation of our government's actions and reject those of differing beliefs. We must reject that also.

This will not, in and of itself, bring peace to that part of the world. Islam has been radicalized by those who claim the blessing of their god in the attempt to throw off the yoke of dictatorial regimes and monarchies. Rejecting the claims of holiness will reveal the true desire of the people and force change along those lines rather than the false claims of doing the work of god. Until that change is effected it will be very difficult to project power in that part of the world and the attempt to do so will result in radicalism of our own beliefs and the bankrupting of our treasury.

My Take is this. The rank and file who practice Islam need to be visible and vocal in their rejection of all that the radical form of their faith stands for. We should moderate our militancy and be willing to work and live in peace. It is not possible to defeat radical Islam militarily and, because we are the United States of America, we should seek ways to defuse the wars that are creating suffering for so many.

The Vision

News the other day was that the City of Somerset had established a downtown WiFi hotspot for internet users. The news of that cheered me because I felt it had been a need for quite some time. Now users can connect to the internet without burning data on their LTE connection and costing them money. This is just another way that the city has acted on behalf of citizens to create a better life and community in which to live. Somerset is rapidly gaining a reputation as being one of the most progressive cities in the nation and that recognition is not lost on businesses who are looking at this area for expansion. The new City Government and energy structure will be another beacon for expansion minded businesses. Not only is Somerset well positioned to supply energy needs with its ownership of the municipally owned natural gas system but advances into high speed internet connectivity will also be alluring. One of the things I would really like to see is the creation of a very high speed fiber optic internet system that would make the current speeds seem like dial-up. The technology is present, only the will and money are lacking but the city has shown a willingness to invest in the future of its citizens so I predict that won't be too far down the line.

One of the obstacles to such endeavors by the City is the current hubbub that Senator Girdler has led alleging the improper entrance of city government into the realm of private enterprise. His is an ideological and specious argument since the city is already engaged in several enterprises that private enterprise is also engaged in. Would the Senator suggest that the City step aside if Columbia Gas wanted to enter the local market?

All of the hue and cry about socialism and repression of private enterprise is either an attempt to stir up passions or just plain ignorance of the many ways that governments offer services that are unaffordable by other means. With the operation of the natural gas system Somerset is able to fund services that would otherwise have to be paid for out of taxes. Should Somerset then either raise taxes or discontinue services? Of course the city could just allow private enterprise to offer the services which then would be subject to whatever prices those entities would choose to set. We saw how that worked with the gasoline prices but the city stepped in and provided a competitive market which had not existed before. Prior to that the gasoline distributors operated in a captive market in which free enterprise did not operate in response to citizen demand. Instead it commanded top price and if one did not like it, well, he or she could just drive to London or Corbin to buy gasoline. That is not a free market.

By the same token the establishment of a high speed internet connection that would serve all of Somerset and potentially a wider market would break the hold that just a few providers now enjoy. At the present the local providers offer what is considered to be a slow and erratic connection at a price that is exorbitant for the kind of widespread use that a progressive community demands. With the advent of streaming video services and video chats the demand for connection speed is skyrocketing. With this kind of thing you can either get on the bus or go home. Fortunately Somerset is setting a standard of sitting on the front seat of the bus.

With the city's presentation of availability and progressiveness there is a tipping point. It may sometimes seem that the investments are not bringing a benefit equal to the cost but once that tipping point is reached then opportunity comes in a cascade. In the past few years we have seen the reluctance of our area spurn the chance for opportunities that could have been the game changers for prosperity. Fear broke the back of the BioLab venture and not even a willing and powerful Congressman could overcome that. That one project would have drawn a highly educated work force and would have resulted in the lifting of all boats for the county. Somerset seems ready to grasp those opportunities and I am hopeful that the new county administration will be willing to enter partnerships with the city to bring prosperity to the entire county. There is much to be done.

I have used this example before but Lexington in the early 1960s was a sleepy little college town. Many of you remember that town but then IBM located in Lexington and that was their tipping point. Other businesses followed the example and visionary leaders went all out to keep Lexington ahead of the boom and it was hard. I was employed with General Telephone at that time and I know how hard keeping up with demand was. Now Lexington is one of the bright spots in our state. I will tell you this. The only thing that Lexington had that we don't was an interstate highway but we are not too far off on the transportation end. And we are ahead of Lexington's posture at that time with energy and communication. Somerset-Pulaski County has a lot to offer if we seek private enterprise/governmental partnerships and engage with vision.

We mustn't fall prey to the ideological protests of socialism and the claims that government is inept at everything it does. That is a self-serving canard for which there is no support. Some things government does very well and better than private enterprise. Who does private enterprise come to when they want something? You guessed it. Governments that have the resources and support of the people. Without the welfare of the people there is none of it worth it.

rmoore@somerset-kentucky.net