Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Will Occupy Spring Forward Or Meltdown? By Shamus Cooke

Will Occupy Spring Forward Or Meltdown? By Shamus Cooke:

Will Occupy Spring Forward Or Meltdown?
By Shamus Cooke
12 February, 2012
Countercurrents.org
A healthy debate has finally gripped the Occupy Movement: there is now a discussion over strategy. Most Occupiers have learned that raw enthusiasm alone cannot bring victory to a social movement; ideas matter too. Action divorced from strategy equals wasted energy, divisiveness, diversions and unnecessary mistakes. Not all tactics push the movement forward.
Why this debate now? Anyone paying attention can tell that the Occupy Movement has lost momentum; the winter months showcased increasing amount of actions combined with fewer and fewer people. After taking the lead in national Occupy enthusiasm, Occupy Oakland is doing some soul searching after an attempted building takeover resulted in massive police violence.
Some Occupiers claim that Occupy was simply in winter hibernation, waiting for its own Arab Spring. But the movement in Europe has grown during the same winter months. The movements in the Middle East, Russia, and elsewhere too have voted with their feet against hibernation.
A social movement, by definition, requires masses of participants, without which momentum grinds to a halt; the movement ceases to move.
Numbers matter, and Occupy has been shedding numbers for months. A major reason for this is because Occupiers have swerved drastically left, leaving the broader 99% ashore. If this trend isn't corrected soon, Occupy will resemble the pre-Occupy left: small isolated groups pursuing their own issues, disconnected from the very broader population that must be involved to actually win any significant demands.
This is the original sin of Occupy: Without first sinking its roots deep enough into the broader population, Occupy marched quickly to the left, unconcerned with who was following. Hopefully Occupy can correct this mistake in time, since not doing so would be fatal fast.
Hopefully, Occupiers have passed through the movement's immature adolescence. For example, Occupy must shed its focus on radical-themed direct actions that inevitably attract only a couple hundred Occupiers but no one else. Again, this was the strategy of pre-Occupy that has already proved its lack of worth. Mass direction action is truly effective, but that raises the critical question: how to bring the masses of working people to Occupy, and vice versa?
Europe has already answered this question, having passed through the adolescence if its own movement, and now focused on bringing down unpopular governments. Greece, for example, went through an immature stage of rioting that showcased much bravery but could provide no real answers. Now, however, a massive workers movement has emerged, the entire 99% is directly involved in producing gigantic demonstrations that soon evolved into one-day General Strikes, and then two-day General Strikes. A common demand in Greece is now for an "indefinite general strike" to bring down the government and stop austerity, i.e., the massive cuts to public programs — education, health care, social services — and jobs.
Demands matter. The entire Greek population would not be going on strike against capitalism — at this time — or against corporate greed, etc.

Typically, an effective general strike — one where the entire 99% participates — happens after a prolonged struggle over demands that affect all working people, where they are agitated enough to take action in the streets. A general strike is the culmination of this movement, itself the byproduct of reaching out to and connecting with broader and broader layers of working people.
Throughout Europe working people are inspired to fight against austerity. Workers in the United States would likely also be inspired to fight against austerity. Unfortunately, there is no venue to do this. The labor and Occupy Movements have failed to take on the key issues that actually have the potential to unite the U.S. population in a European style social movement.
Austerity is happening fast in the United States; on a state-by-state level massive cuts are being pushed through while taxes on the rich stay low. Health care, education, and social services are being killed on a city, state, and federal level. Public sector jobs are being slashed in an epoch of mass joblessness. Medicare and Medicaid are undergoing a very public attack and Social Security is on the chopping block.
Yes, Occupy is too "radical" to unite around these demands; while the labor movement has acted too timidly. Some Occupiers avoid these demands because they fear Democrat co-optation; labor avoids seriously pressing for these demands because they don't want to upset the Democrats. This is exactly the point: the Democrats — with the Republicans — are the ones pushing these cuts. Fighting austerity in the United States directly challenges the two-party system, while engaging the broader population into struggle.
Without struggle there is no movement. If working people do not identify with the issues that Occupy is fighting for, they will not join, and Occupy's issues will remain un-achievable.
Occupy Oakland has called for a general strike on May Day. Unless conditions change fast, it is unlikely to succeed, and more likely it will put further distance between Occupy and working people, since the 99% will not take Occupy seriously if it calls for actions it cannot organize. Occupy would do better to follow Europe's example: organize around demands that connect with working people, so that the real power of the majority of working people can be mobilized in the streets.
Shamus Cooke is a social worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org)

'via Blog this'

Monday, April 2, 2012


Is your member of Congress serving you, or serving himself? Many lawmakers, when they approach retirement, begin negotiating with lobbying firms to receive multimillion dollar salaries after they leave office. In some cases, a Senator or Representative will slip language into a bill or write an earmark that benefits a special interest, and when they leave Congress, a big paycheck is waiting for them from the very same company.
While the process of public officials going to work for lobbying firms is often called the “revolving door,” we think this issue deserves more emphasis and urgency. With members of Congress secretly manipulating the laws we must all live under, and then receiving lavish rewards, so they can live lavish lifestyles, we call that Backdoor Bribery.
Yesterday, we published a report detailing the problem, and revealed that the lawmakers-turned-lobbyists we profiled received up to a 1,452 percent raise on average. Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-LA), for instance, made $158,100 as a lawmaker his last year in office. He went on to make nearly $20 million the next few years as a drug company lobbyist — after he wrote the law in Congress that prevents Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices for seniors (a rule that costs taxpayers billions). And Backdoor Bribery occurs on both sides of the aisle. It was reported earlier this year that Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA) earmarked hundreds of thousands of dollars in special projects before retiring, then began a lobbying job that counts his earmark recipients as clients.
Members of Congress owe their loyalty to the people they represent, not to big companies offering them future riches. We need to stand up against this abuse of our democracy.
Today, the editors of Republic Report are sending a letter to the 36 members of Congress who have already announced they are retiring this year, asking them to at a minimum disclose to the public if they are currently negotiating with a private interest for a future job. They should make such discussions available on their congressional website, if they are still writing the laws we live under. Take a look at a sample copy of our letter:
Are current members of Congress already engaging in Backdoor Bribery? If you have a tip, let us know at tips@unitedrepublic.org
Update: Republic Report’s David Halperin explains the existing ethics rules and why were are asking for better disclosure here.
Update 2: Congressman Dale Kildee (D-MI) responded to our campaign; Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-OH) refused to address the issue, won’t comment on if she is negotiating to become a lobbyist. Watch the video here; Congressman Brad Miller (D-NC) endorsed our idea — see the video here.
Click more to for a list of the retiring lawmakers and their response to our letter:
    SENATE:
Joe Lieberman (I)
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041
STATUS: Lieberman’s office has rejected our request. His spokesperson told us: “In response to the request of publishing the Senator’s future plan on our website; we have no plans to do so at the moment, as the Senator is not yet in negotiations for his next career move. He has however, stated publicly on numerous occasions that he will not enter into the lobbying industry.” Notably, Lieberman was honored recently by “hundreds” of corporate lobbyists, and hinted that he admired their profession.
Ben Nelson (D)
720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551
STATUS: Senator Nelson formally declined to sign our letter.
Daniel Akaka (D)
141 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6361
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Jeff Bingaman (D)
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5521
STATUS: Letter sent. Senator Bingaman’s office told Republic Report that they will get back to us soon.
Kent Conrad (D)
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
STATUS: Letter sent. Senator Conrad’s press secretary says the office will get back with Republic Report soon.
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)
284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5922
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Herb Kohl (D)
330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5653
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Jon Kyl (R)
730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4521
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Olympia Snowe (R)
154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Jim Webb (D)
248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
HOUSE:
Dale Kildee (D)
2107 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-3611
STATUS: Kildee’s staff received the letter and discussed it with the chief of staff. The congressman later told Republic Report that our request for transparent job negotiations should be the law, and that he would disclose his plans with anyone who asks. See the video here.
Jean Schmidt (R)
2464 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-3164
STATUS: Letter sent, no response. Republic Report caught up with Congresswoman Schmidt on Capitol Hill. The congresswoman refused to say if she will become a lobbyist, and had no comment on posting information about her future job negotiations. Watch the video here.
Brad Miller (D)
1127 Longworth House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-3032
STATUS: Letter sent. Republic Report spoke with Congressman Miller about the campaign, and he quickly endorsed the idea, telling us that although he does not plan to become a lobbyist, he will disclose any negotiations with lobbying firms on his website if he changes his mind. Miller explained that he requires his staff to disclose such negotiations to him privately, so he should be held to the same standard. Watch our interview here.
Jerry Lewis (R)
2112 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-5861
STATUS: Lewis’ office rejected our request. His spokesperson responded with a defiant tone: “At this point he’s really not discussing that…. He is not publicly discussing that.” Notably, Lewis’s aides have publicly advertised that their boss is seeking a job on K Street. Lewis remains a powerful player on the House Appropriations Committee, a seat that gives him wide leverage to distribute pork to special interests.
Heath Shuler (D)
229 Cannon House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-6401
STATUS: Letter sent, no response. As we’ve reported, Shuler is already negotiating to become a lobbyist, even as he positions himself to set major tax policy this year.
Barney Frank (D)
2252 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-5931
STATUS: Frank has refused our request. Speaking to Republic Report’s Zaid Jilani, Frank compared our request for simple disclosure to Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge. Although Frank says he has no plans to become an influence peddler, DC publications are buzzing that Wall Street lobbying groups are heavily recruiting the Massachusetts lawmaker to become a lobbyist next year.
Steve Austria (R)
439 Cannon House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-4324
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Dan Boren (D)
2447 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-2701
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Dan Burton (R)
2308 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-2276
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Dennis Cardoza (D)
2437 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-6131
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Jerry Costello (D)
2408 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-5661
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Geoff Davis (R)
1119 Longworth House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-3465
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Norm Dicks (D)
2467 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-5916
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
David Dreier (R)
233 Cannon House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-2305
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Elton Gallegly (R)
2309 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-5811
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Charlie Gonzalez (D)
1436 Longworth House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-3236
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Wally Herger (R)
242 Cannon House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-3076
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Maurice Hinchey (D)
2431 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-6335
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Sue Myrick (R)
230 Cannon House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-1976
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
John Olver (D)
1111 Longworth House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-5335
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Todd Platts (R)
2455 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-5836
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Mike Ross (D)
2436 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-3772
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Lynn Woolsey (D)
2263 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-5161
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Dennis Kucinich (D)
2445 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-5871
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Gary Ackerman (D)
2211 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-2601
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.
Don Manzullo (R)
2228 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 225-5676
STATUS: Letter sent, no response.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Friday, March 30, 2012

Wisconsin Preps for Heated Recall Election of Gov. Scott Walker - Yahoo! News

Wisconsin Preps for Heated Recall Election of Gov. Scott Walker - Yahoo! News:

While the national media attention has been focused on the upcoming GOP primary in Wisconsin, there's another political battle gearing up in the Badger State, and it involves bothDemocrats and Republicans.
On Friday, the Government Accountability Board of Wisconsin is expected to certify the 1 million petitions turned in in January to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker. With a special gubernatorial election pending, Democrats and Republicans in the state are bracing for a tight race ahead.
A special election is tentatively scheduled for June 5, with a Democratic primary to take place four weeks earlier, on May 8. (Those dates will be made official after the recall is certified.)  Three Democrats have declared their candidacies - former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk,Wisconsin secretary of state Doug LaFollette and state senator Kathleen Vinehout.
Tom Barrett, the Democratic mayor of Milwaukee who ran against Walker for governor in 2010 and lost, is reportedly considering another run, but he has not declared his candidacy yet. He is expected to make a decision by the beginning of next week.
Democrats in the state are flying high ahead of the official start of what will be a relatively short election season.
"We're feeling great," Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Mike Tate told ABC News. "I think the people of Wisconsin are ready to fire Scott Walker and hire a new governor."
The overwhelming success of the efforts by United Wisconsin to collect the signatures necessary to bring about a recall election might be interpreted as a sign that Walker is going to face a seriously uphill battle in this special election. However, recent polling shows that is not the case.
Marquette Law School poll out earlier in the week shows Walker with a narrow lead over Barrett and Falk. When matched against Barrett, Walker had a two-point lead, 47 to 45 percent. Against Falk, Walker's lead widened a little to four points- 49 percent to Falk's 45 percent.
Although these numbers demonstrate a decrease in support for Walker since the previous Marquette Law School poll in January, which showed Walker with 6- and 7-point leads against Barrett and Falk respectively, Wisconsin Republicans are still very confident about the state of the race.
"We at the Republican Party of Wisconsin, we feel extremely confident that Governor Walker will win this recall fight," spokesman Ben Sparks told ABC News. "It comes down to the fact that voters went to the polls in 2010 because they wanted to turn our state around. "
Walker has several advantages over his Democratic opponents. Because of a quirk in Wisconsin state law, Walker was able to take in unlimited amounts of money while petitions were being gathered to recall him. During this time his campaign reported raising $4.5 million in just five weeks.
Walker has also had the advantage of time. During the period when signatures were being gathered, Walker was on the airwaves running a series of positive advertisements. Wisconsin Democrats discouraged potential candidates from campaigning during this time, focusing instead on the immediate task at hand. This meant that Walker, who already enjoyed more name recognition than his potential challengers, had roughly two months of unopposed advertising time.
Democrats have one priceless commodity, however: momentum. Their ability to turn out so many signatures in the fall and winter months of Wisconsin suggests a high degree of enthusiasm.
Officials from both the Republican and Democratic parties tell ABC News they are gearing up for the election. Though the two parties are at odds over most things, there's one thing they do agree on: Turnout will be very high.


'via Blog this'

IBNLive : Sagarika Ghose's Blog : The Amol Palekars of Indian Politics

IBNLive : Sagarika Ghose's Blog : The Amol Palekars of Indian Politics:

'via Blog this'

Rachel Maddow: Running for office in a system controlled by the super-rich

Rachel Maddow: Running for office in a system controlled by the super-rich:
How to counter oligarch's money in election.
'via Blog this'