Why Elizabeth Warren should not replace Scalia


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

warren_again_630When Elizabeth Warren took Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Senate, America got an old fashioned New Deal/Great Society liberal in one of the major seats of power. She has been a thorn in the side of her neoliberal colleagues for years and needs to stay there.

Yet Sen. Alan Grayson, for reasons that should be held up to skepticism, has begun to circulate a petition asking “The President should appoint Warren right now, before the end of this week. That would make it a “recess appointment,” and Justice Warren could take office immediately. The obstructionists in the GOP couldn’t do anything about it.”

Whatever the motivation of Grayson, I think this is a terrible idea. Why?

In the first place, it would potentially limit whatever actions Warren might be taking to reign in the financial sector. She may have flaws in a variety of areas, but she has done some great things also that I think need to continue. Taking her away from that Senate seat would take away a great advocate for banking reform.

Second, it would effectively nullify the potential for a Sanders-Warren ticket in 2016. At this point it is almost impossible for Sanders to overcome the super-delegate fiasco, but there is the highly unlikely chance in Hades and Hyannis that things might change. But by taking away his most likely running mate, that would become more of an outside chance. And as Nate Silver has pointed out previously, a major element of the original base in the Sanders campaign came from when the Run Warren Run PAC dissolved this summer and sent its members to, as it were, Feel the Bern.

Third, does Grayson remember that raving psychopath Scott Brown, the Tea Party darling who made everyone miserable with his faux-rugged tough guy attitude and boneheaded behavior? What is to say that either

  • Warren would not be replaced in an electoral free-for-all that would allow all sorts of goofballs and doofuses near the levers of power, or
  • Governor Charlie Baker would not appoint someone with deep ties to the financial, tech, and pharmaceutical industries that find solace in the Boston area, particularly since Baker has long-standing ties to the medical-industrial complex?

This of course is assuming that the Democrats would act in good faith and actually want to hold the seat. But I do not think that is a sure thing. If one thing is abundantly clear from this election season, it is obvious that Bernie Sanders, whatever his flaws (and they are many), has absolutely horrified the banking and medical industries that are known Democratic Party donors. The whole charade of the debates and controversy involving the behavior of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is demonstrative of a party in the midst of a massive identity crisis.

On the one hand, the Democrats are the party of Wall Street, the tech/drug/education deform advocates that make no bones about busting public sector unions and raiding pensions to help out their buddies in the banks. On the other hand, their major voting demographics are sick to death of this status quo paradigm and want to return to New Deal/Great Society Keynesian economics under the auspices of Sanders and Warren, something Hillary Clinton and her donors would rather drink hemlock than allow.

I would go as far right now to predict that, if through some absurd miracle Sanders does win the nomination, the Clinton machine and their slimy weasel operatives like David ‘The Real Anita Hill‘ Brock and Sidney ‘Birther Numero Uno‘ Blumenthal, along with the godforsaken mainstream press (MS DNC/Clinton News Network/New York Time/Time Magazine/whatever other birdcage liner you can name) would go into overdrive and actually work against a Democratic Party victory to protect Wall Street. Why think something so radically insane?

Because the Clintons did it before!

Arguably one of the finest moments in American Left history in the past two decades was the “Battle of Seattle”, the 1999 protests of the World Trade Organization conference that saw everyone from green anarchists to the Teamsters take to the street to protest a job-killing policy initiative that could have furthered neoliberal hegemony for decades to come. Bill Clinton knew he was in hot water when Jimmy Hoffa Jr. could not be silenced. And yet, in an electoral year that in hindsight we know was so vital for so many reasons, Bubba nobly soldiered forth. In fact, it was only because delegates from the Global South looked outside and knew they would be crazy to sell their countries down the river on a platter that more damage was not done.

A year later, my editor at CounterPunch, Jeffrey St. Clair, and his writing partner, the late Alexander Cockburn, promoting their account Five Days That Shook The World: Seattle and Beyond, told a packed crowd that one could make a decent case that what killed Gore’s votes in key states was the events in Seattle. Activists and socially-conscious liberals who were disgusted by the police brutality and refusal of the Democrats to cede to the whims of democracy were finally fed up and went to vote for Ralph Nader. This is not to say that Florida and the actions of the Bush political machine were not real, it is to say that Florida would have just been a side-show story with no impact on the election had Clinton and Gore listened to what people thought about their wretched World Trade Organization. But back then, the corporations were more important than the voters.

What’s to say they would not do this again? It’s why I have been keeping my vote for Jill Stein squeaky-clean all year while everyone else goes nuts for Chairman Bernie.

CJ9J5jiUAAEO4RL

kaGh5_patreon_name_and_message

RI business community launches pre-emptive attack on fair scheduling


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

11-Ways-the-Schedules-that-Work-Act-Would-Make-the-Lives-of-Working-Families-Better_blog_post_fullWidthAside from raising the minimum wage, fair scheduling legislation is one of the most important ways in which workers can get their lives under some semblance of control when working for companies that try to maximize profits and reduce labor costs by scheduling as close to last minute as possible. A little over a year ago San Francisco became the first city to pass the Retail Workers’ Bill of Rights, a series of labor reforms centered around the idea of fair scheduling.

Workers at many retail and food service companies are required to always be available for work as management waits until they have up to the minute sales data and weather reports before deciding on whether or not to bring the worker in and pay them. This wreaks havoc on a worker’s ability to arrange for child care, organize a school schedule, make travel arrangements to and from work or secure a second job to make ends meet.

Elizabeth_Warren_Nov_2_2012
Senator Elizabeth Warren (Photo (c)Tim Pierce)

A report, Set Up to Fail, demonstrates the difficulty many low-wage workers with unfair schedules face. “For many low-wage working parents, the conditions of their jobs effectively set them up to fail: meeting both their work and family obligations becomes an impossible juggling act. And too often, despite their best efforts, parents’ low wages and work conditions undermine their children’s chances for success as well.”

After the success of fair scheduling legislation in San Francisco, activists in Minneapolis were cautiously optimistic about passing similar legislation in their city, until Mayor Betsy Hodges withdrew her support after getting pressure from the local Chamber of Commerce. According to writer Justin Miller, “In late September, opponents formed the Workforce Fairness Coalition by the Chamber of Commerce, and included prominent members like the Minnesota Business Partnership (which represents about 80 businesses, including Target, U.S. Bancorp and Xcel Energy) and the Minnesota Restaurant Association. They took specific issue with the scheduling law, saying that it would impede operations and could force businesses to flee the city.”

Here in Rhode Island, the fight over fair scheduling began when the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (GPCC) brought the subject up at last week’s luncheon. GPCC President Laurie White asked RI House Minority Leader Brian Newberry (R, District 48 North Smithfield and Burrillville) about fair scheduling, what she referred to as, “long term work scheduling requirements, otherwise known as predictive scheduling.”

“How do we set the right balance between employers and workers in order to keep our small and mid-sized businesses competitive,” asked White, “and also keep Rhode Island businesses competitive vis-à-vis other places?”

“You folks know better than anybody what kind of mandates help or hurt your businesses,” replied Newberry, “so when it comes to [mandates such as fair scheduling] we need to hear from [business leaders], because there are always… well meaning advocates out there for all kinds of groups who are less interested in the fundamental cost of what they want… You need to talk to us. The business community in this state, not just the big business community but small businesses need to be more active [in lobbying government representatives]… if you don’t do it, we don’t hear from the right groups of people and we will make mistakes.”

The language and contours of the coming fight are already taking shape, and advocates for fair scheduling here in Rhode Island have yet to raise their voices. Note that advocates for fair scheduling are condescendingly pronounced “well-meaning” by Newberry, as if their concerns simply emotional and compassionate, lacking any sense of business reality. Note that Chamber President White can’t bring herself to call the scheduling “fair,” that implies present scheduling is unfair, so she calls uses the words “long term” or “predictive” scheduling instead.

Note how Newberry recommends that the Chamber and other small business groups show up when these kinds of bills are being discussed in General Assembly committee meetings because presumably if the “right” groups of people don’t advocate for profits over people, then the wrong groups of people will secure additional legal protections for people, something Newberry refers to as “mistakes.”

Fair scheduling legislation has many different parts, but taken together, it empowers workers so that they are protected from abusive scheduling practices. Included in typical fair scheduling legislation are the following ideas:

  • Advanced notice of work schedules- Requires employers to give 3 weeks notice of schedules and 3 weeks to notify workers of changes to their schedules. It also allows workers to decline work hours not included on the original schedule.
  • Compensation for changed shifts- Provides one hour of predictability pay for employer-initiated changes to the schedule and provides minimum reporting pay when a shift is cancelled or significantly reduced with less than a day’s notice.
  • Right to request flexible working arrangement- Allows workers to request scheduling accommodations without fear of retaliation.
  • Right to rest- guarantees a day of rest every week (workers do not have to work more than six days in a row) and guarantees adequate rest between shifts (no more “clopens” where a worker closes the store at midnight and opens the store at 6am.)
  • Equal treatment regardless of hours worked- prohibits discrimination in pay, promotion and benefits based on the number of scheduled hours
  • Retention pay- Requires employers to compensate workers for their availability by making a minimum biweekly payment of $150, which can be met through wages or benefit payments. No worker can be paid less than this amount for two weeks work.
  • Offer of work to existing workers- requires employers to offer work to existing qualified part-time workers before hiring new staff or temporary workers.
  • Also included in any legislation will be language on protection of these rights with penalties for employers who violate them, prohibitions of retaliation against workers who claim these rights, the posting of notices explaining these rights to workers, and enforcement requirements.

A decent list of fair scheduling resources can be accessed here at the National Women’s Law Center. As with minimum wage and tipped minimum wage, women are disproportionately impacted by unfair scheduling.

Jobs with Justice has a terrific overview of fair scheduling legislation with links to additional resources here.

Also, CLASP (Center for Law and Social Policy) has a national repository of fair scheduling news articles, briefs, analyses, etc.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been out front on this issue, and has introduced the Schedules That Work Act, though the likelihood of such a bill passing on the national level in a Republican controlled Congress is low.

This is why the battle for fair scheduling is being done on a state by state or city by city basis, and why the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce is already making moves to oppose such legislation.

We cannot live our lives serving the whims of work. Work exists to serve people, and when we forget this, families suffer. Fair scheduling is a small step in addressing this injustice.

Patreon

Sheldon, progressive senators oppose free trade deals like TPP


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

tppHave you heard about the Trans Pacific Partnership yet?

If not, that’s exactly what the corporate interests – like big pharma and Wall Street – who wrote this trade deal were hoping. The TPP would be the largest such multinational pact ever and it’s been crafted entirely in secret. “It’s a trojan horse in the global race to the bottom,” said Robert Reich, “giving big corporations and Wall Street banks a way to eliminate laws that get in the way of their profits.”

Thankfully, the progressives in the US Senate are finally starting to vocally oppose it – even though it puts them at odds with President Obama, who supports it. Elizabeth Warren had this op/ed in the Washington Post this week, and 8 senators spoke on the floor yesterday to oppose such “free trade” deals.

“I start with a state that has been on the losing end of these trade deals,” said Rhode Island’s Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. “Rhode Island, not a big state, has lost more than 50,000 good paying manufacturing jobs since 1990.”

Whitehouse was joined by sens Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

“I don’t like the process very much either,” said Whitehouse on the senate floor yesterday. “It is secret, we are kept out of it and who’s is in it is some really big corporations and they are up to I think no good in a lot of these deals.”

So does Pascoag resident Chris Currie, a member of the RI Progressive Democrats who has been sounding the alarm about the TPP locally since before many in the beltway even knew it existed.

“As we have seen in the recent mid-term elections, multinational corporations have been collectively spending billions … to rig and/or otherwise determine the outcomes [of] elections, and they have succeeded in that regard in many ways,” he said in a recent email. “But they are well on the way toward achieving such objectives in the future without having to spend anywhere near that much money by financing the implementation of the so-called Trans Pacific Partnership (“treaty” and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) “treaty” which have the full support of President Obama, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and most our Republicans in Congress.   Once either of those two “treaties” are implemented, multinational corporations won’t have to worry about bribing our politicians anymore, because if our federal, state, or municipal government enact ANY KIND of legislation that impedes the “expected profitability” of multinational corporations.”

Currie has been sending warning emails about the TPP for years. Here’s an excerpt from one sent in August of 2013: “Promoting (and attempting to “fast track”) the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans Atlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) treaties which will surrender our nation’s sovereignty to a cartel (world government?) of greedy multi-national corporations (that have no god but money) by empowering them to effectively nullify US federal, state, and local laws which “interfere with the profitability” of their corporations. It would be like surrendering our national sovereignty to greedy bastard (and deadly) corporations like Monsanto!”

Jared Paul Show: Capitalism vs. Juno, Why Warren shouldn’t run, multi-party politics


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

This week on the Jared Paul Show … Capitalism vs the blizzard, Why Warren shouldn’t run and why we need a multiparty system.

paul podcast

Stay, Warren, stay


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Elizabeth-Warren BW
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) The best Senator money can’t buy

There is a strong movement among the liberal base of the Democratic party encouraging Senator Elizabeth Warren (D – MA) to run for President. With social media pages like Run, Warren, Run popping up, and local gatherings organized by Democratic fund-raising powerhouse MoveOn.org, it seems that, in spite of the Senator’s own vehement denial of Presidential ambitions at this time, popular pressure might have built momentum too strong to abate.

I, for one, do not want Senator Warren to run for President.

I am a Senator Warren devotee, bordering on being zealot. I organized field for her in 2012 as a canvass-team leader in Fall River, Massachusetts, in a joint effort of SEIU and the Coalition for Social Justice. I had the honor of meeting her twice. Once as a candidate and then as Senator. I have followed her from the Obama apointee to head the Consumer Protection Bureau, blocked by Republicans, to her vindication as the now senior Senator from Massachusetts, to her current role as the polestar of the liberal (or progressive … whatever) wing of the Democratic party.

I have cheered as she has publicly shamed usurious banking cartels and corporate plutocrats for the economic imbalance that they caused with their collective greed. I have watched her verbally eviscerate the entire fallacy of supply-side economics in just over a minute, while speaking before leaders of AFL-CIO, championing the resurrection of the middle class and the empowerment of working families.

Why then, one may ask, do I not want her to run for the highest executive office in the nation?

From her legislative office as a high-profile Senator with a mobilized following, she is able to maintain her liberal ideology and focus on very specific issues without having to compromise the very values and agendas that make her so laudable. To run for president, I fear she would have to water-down her principles and move to the center. No longer would she need only to appeal to her constituents in the very blue and historically liberal state of Massachusetts when seeking re-election as an incumbent. Rather, she would have to cater to a much broader audience on a carefully coordinated national path, including key battleground states where Democrat is often defined quite differently.

From a Democratic primary perspective alone, pitting Warren against the far more centrist Hillary Clinton, would not only showcase Warren’s relative inexperience in foreign affairs as compared to the former Secretary of State, but would factionalize a party that needs to rally behind a unified message that spotlights sanity and pragmatism as a stark contrast to the Republican theatre of the absurd that is currently staging its primary play with a cast of thousands.

Well then, one may say, can she do both? After all, since her six year term as Senator in Massachusetts is not up until 2018, she would not be appearing twice on the ballot. Therefore, she can run for President without sacrificing her seat if she loses.

Running for President is an exhausting, time-consuming, and expensive undertaking that would expose her to a level of public scrutiny against which she has not yet had to defend, forcing her to take positions on issues that may not be within her realm of expertise. It is one thing to cast a vote as one one-hundredth of a chamber in a bi-cameral legislature. It is quite another to have to explain a position on which you may be expected to speak on behalf of your entire party and, potentially, lobby support of the nation and even multiple nations. Additionally, the level of fund-raising needed to run for President in the era of Citizens United may very well force Senator Warren to accept contributions from groups that would compromise her integrity and contradict the very values that she wields as her populist arms.

Clinton, on the other hand, (and I use her only as an example because it is a certainty that she will run and she has a prior presidential campaign history with which one can compare) is far more economically conservative and seasoned at fund raising. She is a far more corporate-friendly political pragmatist and, therefore, more likely to attract the kind of money necessary to compete against the nearly $900 million the Koch brothers alone have pledged to a Republican Presidential victory. Clinton also has the advantage of her skeletons being publicly aired ad nauseum, and a husband who spent eight years as Commander in Chief and still boasts a higher approval rating higher than our current president even after a decade and a half out of office.

Does the idea of a centrist Democrat in the White House make me squeamish? Somewhat, yes. But not as much as the idea of Bush 3, Mitt 2.0, Ted Cruz, or any of the radical right wing Republicans vying to be tied to the marionette strings of Corporate America. And, to those who find little difference between a centrist Democrat and a right-wing Republican overseeing social security, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the most frightening military the world has ever seen, you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Then there are those who think that Senator Warren, herself, is hypocritical in her economic progressive rhetoric. Unfortunately for you, Alexander Supertramp has no plans of running for elected office.. But, I digress.

I do not believe Senator Warren would win a presidential election. That does not make me respect her or support her any less. But, from a political strategy perspective, it is a distraction from her current job at which she is excellent and, in which has a responsibility to her constituents and supporters to continue performing to the best of her abilities. Running for president would not make her a better senator for the next two years. One does not run for president to make a point. One runs for President to be President.

I do not know if I am “Ready for Hillary.” None of us know, for certain, who all will be running for the 2016 vacancy. In that time, my mind may change … multiple times. For now, I do know that I hope Senator Elizabeth Warren decides to continue devoting 100 percent of her efforts to her role as senior senator of Massachusetts, fighting for a level playing field, speaking as the voice of the working families, promoting policies that restore economic equity, and doing what she does best: legislating for a better future.

Stay, Warren, stay.

Saturday: 3 RI meetups encourage Elizabeth Warren for president


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Elizabeth Warren at Netroots Nation in Providence, 2012.
Elizabeth Warren at Netroots Nation in Providence, 2012.

Don Weilberg is a 79-year-old retired orthodontist who lives in Saunderstown. He was a member of the Westerly Democratic Committee, the state Democratic Committee in the 1970’s, and a George McGovern delegate to the 1972 Democratic presidential convention.

And on Saturday, he’ll be one of three Rhode Islanders – one of the 224 across the nation – who will host a house party to help inspire Massachusetts Senator and progressive champion Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

“Young people have become so disillusioned with politics,” Weilberg told me. “They have tuned out. They say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and in many ways they are right.”

Weilberg said Warren can help reverse this apathy.

“Warren is a very different kind of politician,” he said. “She just doesn’t back down. She’s very strong for the middle class. That’s why she is galvanizing the country.”

Move On, Democracy for America and Ready for Warren are helping to organize some 224 house parties to entice Warren to run for president. Ian Donnis, RIPR’s political beat reporter, recently interviewed Anna Galland, executive director of Move On and a Brown University graduate, on why the grassroots organizing organization is focusing its efforts on Warren. She told him, in part:

…she’s uniquely suited to take on some of the toughest challenges our country faces: income inequality, a skewed playing field, the middle class and working people taking it on the chin. She’s proven she’ll stand up to lobbyists and corporate interests, and fight to give the rest of us a fighting chance. That’s what we need right now…

Warren is America’s liberal superstar, her popularity increasing almost as sharply as the income inequality she’s made a reputation battling. She first electrified the liberal base in September, 2011 with her now legendary “you didn’t build that” speech. She went on to beat moderate Republican Scott Brown to win her Mass. Senate seat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-P-CoSNYaI

More recently, as a senator, she seemingly by herself defeated President Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Treasury. In a piece titled “Behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Treasury takedown: How the Massachusetts senator rallied the left and blindsided the White House”, Ben White writes:

“The game in Washington had changed … Elizabeth Warren, sometimes disregarded by the White House as a largely irrelevant nuisance, could no longer be ignored. Bolstered by grass roots groups eager for any anti-Wall Street crusade and a vibrant progressive media that hung on her every word, Warren succeeded in knocking out Weiss’ nomination.”

Warren isn’t the only progressive considering running for president; Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is also keeping the option open. Meanwhile, ahead of the house parties this weekend, expected Democratic establishment candidate Hillary Clinton is sending signals she doesn’t see Warren as a possible competitor. According to Politico: “A Democrat familiar with Clinton’s thinking said: ‘She doesn’t feel under any pressure, and they see no primary challenge on the horizon. If you have the luxury of time, you take it.'”

 

Elizabeth Warren slams pension cuts, hedge fund investments


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

elizabeth warrenIn a recent interview on New England Cable News, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was asked about Illinois’s pension cuts, which were much milder than Rhode Island’s more draconian version.*  (The key bit starts at 11:35.)  She did not mince her words.  Calling pensions “a promise,” Senator Warren made it clear how she felt about breaking that promise:

The idea to come in and say, “Oops!  We’re really sorry about that, but we’re going to have to cut the pension,” I just think is fundamentally the wrong approach.

Warren went on to excoriate pension fund managers for hedge fund investments, warning that many pension funds made a “big mistake…when they invested in one of the big hedge funds that it turned out fooled them about how much that investment was going to be worth and ended up taking a bunch of money from them.”

Often we hear Raimondo apologists pretend that slashing pensions or dumping retirees’ money into hedge funds is the progressive thing to do.  Fortunately, we have Elizabeth Warren to destroy those arguments with her signature passion, poise, and (presidential) gravitas.

*Illinois has a similar conservative Democrat problem to Rhode Island, albeit on a much smaller scale.  Perhaps the most famous example of this is when Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan attended a fundraiser for John Boehner.   Interestingly, when Raimondo’s husband was on its board, the corporate charter school outside money group Stand for Children worked very hard to elect conservative Democrats in Illinois.

Elizabeth Warren: pensions for middle class workers

elizabeth warrenAre pensions coming back into fashion? Perhaps, said progressive hero Senator Elizabeth Warren who was in Providence last night at a fundraiser at the Convention Center for her Senate Banking Committee colleague Jack Reed.

Hailed as one of Wall Street’s worst nightmares and the intellectual godmother of Occupy Wall Street, Warren told me that public investment in education and infrastructure is the top priority for progressives in Congress. She also said the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is looking at ways “to get more people of moderate income to be able to build their own pensions so they have something in addition to Social Security when they retire.”

Here’s the video:

When Progressives Fight, Progressives Win


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In 2008 progressives across America were basking in the warm glow of the nation’s first black president. A breeze of Democratic victories had blown through Congress and the long, dark night of the Bush era had given way to the rising sun of the Democratic super-majority. A Democratic executive branch and a bicameral legislative branch teaming with enough blue fruit to overwhelm any red agendas devised by the defeated and deflated Republican party. The progressive tree was blooming in the new era sun and progressives across America were able to relax.

Were the conservative, right wing Republicans relaxing? Were their minds changed and their hearts quiet? Was their spirit broken and did they skulk away quietly, tail between their legs in acceptance of America’s new direction of a liberal and populist agenda? Does the phrase 2010, mid-term elections answer that question?

Shortly after the 2008 election, the general public was struck with the reality of the total economic collapse of the American banking system, the bottom dropping out of the stock market and the the real estate bubble bursting. Frightening and confusing terms like “derivatives,” “toxic assets” and “ARM loans” were brandished by the talking heads on the cable news networks and the true inheritance of the new electorate was made apparent and they reacted accordingly. President Barack Obama consulted with his cabinet, with economists and stepped up, proposing a Keynesian stimulus package that stalled an economy in free-fall. No need to further recount the history of so recent a period in history; one in which wounds are still in various stages of recuperation and rehabilitation.

Suffice it to say, the Republicans were quickly seeding the sky with storm-clouds. The population, just moths before filled with warm, sunny hope was scared. And rightly so. Jobs were lost in record numbers. Income was falling while prices were rising and the conservative, Republican agenda was ready and mobile with a new and radical group of flashy and simple politicians called the Tea-Party. They catered to the three Gs of right wing, fear-mongering: God, guns and gays. They tied these social-issue weapons of mass distraction to the real, pressing issues of the day and (quite neatly and effectively) laid blame for the Nation’s rapid decline, both socially and fiscally, on the President and his socialist administration.

It worked like a charm. The 2010 mid-term elections were a cyclonic victory for conservatives. The super-majority was blown away and the House of Representatives was owned by the Tea-Party influenced Republicans. Surely the less than honest messaging of voices like Eric Cantor and the less than heartfelt tears of men like John Boehner are worthy of blame for the GOP sweep. Not to mention an entire cable news network dedicated to promoting untruth, injustice and the Glen Beckian way. But just as important to consider is the lack of preparedness and distracted complacency of the Democrats.

Obama promised to reach across the aisle and compromised in spite of having the power to push through any progressive agenda the Democrats and their constituencies wanted. The Democratic message was convoluted and tried too hard to explain why and how and, in a stagnant economy, it is nearly impossible to use economists to prove a negative and certainly impossible to win an off year election on that message. There was no “Go! Fight! Win!” There was no message of solidarity and spirit.

The 2012 elections were a very positive message for progressives. The light shone through the clouds and, once again, the Democratic agenda allows for a deep breath and an enjoyment of the light of populist understanding. But only for a few moments. In this administration, there can be no room for error. There can be no time for compromise. There can be no sacrifice of agenda in exchange for good faith because the anti-progressive movement, given an inch, will take a mile.

In a lesser known speech, Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote:

“… Until the Democratic Party [through this convention] makes overwhelmingly clear its stand in favor of social progress and liberalism, and shakes off all the shackles of control fastened upon it by the forces of conservatism, reaction, and appeasement, it will not continue its march of victory.”

The progressive movement, if it wants to survive and burn off the cloud-cover of the remaining storm, it must not rest on this victory. The election may be over but the great work just begins. The middle class must stand together. Unions must double their efforts. Progressive politicians must dissent, speak up and speak well. They must not merely make their voices louder, but also their arguments better. The 2014 mid-term elections are just around the corner and, if the issues embraced by the the majority this year are truly issues of importance to those who voted, the progressive campaign must begin immediately. The preservation of Medicare and Medicaid as we know them and the expansion of affordable healthcare to everyone and the taxation of the wealthiest while regulating the disenfranchisement of the working class by those same wealthiest – these and many more progressive agendas need to be reinforced and protected a little more every day.

The work is not easy. Nor should it be. Frederick Douglass, a true American champion of freedom, once said, “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the the awful roar of its many waters. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Progressive Democrats want social justice, but they also want to be nice and expect that if they are nice, so will be the other side.

Although often mistaken for one and the same, there is a difference between what is safe and what is comfortable. And, if progressive Democrats believe that there is safety in American solidarity over the opposition’s beliefs in safety being individual financial insulation at the expense of those less fortunate, then progressive Democrats need to be willing to fight, to throw comfort to the wind and to keep on keepin’ on.

At a rally in Boston’s Dudley Square last week, a congregation of labor and activists reminded one another of what the power of unity can do: hello Elizabeth Warren, goodbye Scott Brown. Hello Barack Obama, goodbye Mitt Romney. “E pluribus unum” has been proven by the American voters to be a preferable national ideal to “sic semper tyrannus.” But, like any dream, ideal or hope for a nation , it requires foresight, strength, perseverance, blood and sweat. It takes a will to fight. Progressive Democrats remember, “When we fight, we win.”

Scott Brown TV Ads Are Theater of the Absurd


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The battle between Senator Scott Brown and progressive challenger Elizabeth Warren has spilled over the Massachusetts border into Rhode Island, and those who have missed the volley of advertisements are either altogether abstaining from TV or hopelessly engrossed in what happens next to Honey Boo Boo.

Those in the latter group have probably stumbled upon this article by mistake and may wish to return to searching for video footage of pocket sized canines dressed as famous seventies sit-com characters. For the rest, however, the pro and anti candidate propaganda has become as familiar as it is nuclear in nature.

But in the spirit of fairness, Elizabeth Warren’s media blast to her political universe is purely self-defense. Senator Scott Brown, along with his super PAC America 360, has launched a campaign of misinformation, misdirection, racism and lies. And the sad part is, to an unfortunate extent, it is working. They are not dubbed “low information voters” for nothing.

He has drawn attention to her Native American heritage. This is something Mrs. Warren was informed of by family members as a child and grew up believing to be true. It may have been a family tie of which she held some pride. Or, it may have been a legend that was misconstrued among the oral history passed between generations, as is the case in many families. Who knows? Who cares? This much, however, is guaranteed: to be Native American has certainly not been advantageous for Native Americans since the first Europeans decided to claim this land as their own. So, for Brown to allege that Warren has achieved her success due to her claiming a small percentage Native American heritage is merely fueling distrust and racism. It has even led to such bigoted name calling as “Little Liarwatha,” and “Granny Pocahontas.”

If that is not enough to make one’s blood boil, Brown has accused Warren of cheating victims of asbestosis and their families out of settlement money during her time as an attorney with Travelers Insurance and profiting from their misfortune. The slanderous statements are a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. In fact, Mrs. Warren fought for the victims and their families and set aside a half-billion dollar trust to compensate the workers affected by the asbestos, both present and future. True, she earned wages for her legal services rendered as most working people do. But it was only after she was no longer employed by the insurance company responsible for the case that Travelers weaseled out of payment of the trust. Mrs. Warren no longer had any say in the matter. Furthermore, it is suspected that, upon separation with her former employer, she signed a confidentiality agreement forbidding her from commenting on this or any other legal matters.

Are Brown’s ads only slamming Mrs. Warren? Is he taking any measures to promote himself? One might think that, in a political climate where likeability is often more important that facts, how is Senator Brown attempting to win the hearts of his constituents? Keep in mind, the Massachusetts political universe is deeply and sincerely Democratic and the seat currently held by Senator Brown was previously occupied by the beloved and quintessentially Democratic, Ted Kennedy.

In fact, Brown has been distancing himself from certain political personality traits associated with the Republican party. His television ads show him as being just a regular working guy as a means by which to paint his opponent, Elizabeth Warren, as elitist and out of touch with working class people. He is seen driving a truck and wearing plaid and eating a hot dog at a farmers market. Personal experience has confirmed that, in fact, many voters actually think he is running as an independent.

One of Brown’s television spot shows his support of women, a voting demographic that encompasses a large percentage of the registered independent voters in Massachusetts. The advertisement is composed of a montage of women extolling Brown’s virtues as a strong supporter of women’s rights.

 

Scott Brown is pro-choice, and he supports a woman’s right to choose. I like that Scott Brown is independent, he really thinks for himself. His record shows that he supports women, he supports families. When my daughters grow up, I want to make sure that they have good jobs with equal pay, and I know Scott Brown will fight for that. I support Scott Brown because I know he wants to get our economy moving forward again. I’m a mom, I have a family, and I know that Scott Brown will fight hard for families.

This is a different Scott Brown from the Senator we have seen before. In fact, his record shows that many of these statements are either misleading, coded or just plain false. The Senator voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, in spite of the ad’s promise to “fight for” equal pay. He was a co-sponsor of several bills related to ant-choice positions, including the Woman’s Right To Know Act, which would force a woman to wait 24 hours before getting an abortion and view pictures and literature about the fetus. Senator Brown was in favor of the Blunt Amendment, designed to allow employers and insurers to deny women any health coverage they might find morally distasteful. Furthermore, Brown has also voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. And, while it might not be in direct relation to women’s issues, the repeated use of phrasing pertaining to “families” suggests both strong anti-choice and anti-marriage  equality sentiments.

Elizabeth Warren makes no secret of her support of Unions and growing the middle class, not from the top-down as proposed by supply-side economics, formerly known as “trickle-down” economics. She believes in a level playing field and government providing a strong safety-net role in economic regulation to promote fairness and job-development. Warren sees affordable education as a real and necessary foundation to growing a stable workforce. She was the architect of the Consumer Protection Act that has led to punishment for predatory banking and credit card practices.

Scott Brown, on the other hand, was called “Wall Street’s favorite congressman” by Forbes Magazine. Perhaps it was because during the December, 2010 debate on terms for extending the Bush tax cuts, Brown voted against an amendment to keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, but end them for people making over $1 million a year. Or maybe it had something to do with the May, 2011, vote to block a bill that would reduce the federal deficit by closing special tax loopholes that benefit oil and gas companies. This specific measure was designed to target only the world’s five biggest oil companies, not small producers, and could have reduced the deficit by nearly $21 billion over ten years.

What has he done for his home state of Massachusetts? Brown voted against a bill to keep 2,400 Massachusetts seniors from losing in-home care and assistance with basic living activities, and protect vulnerable children.He voted for a bill cutting Pell Grants for approximately135,000 Massachusetts students and for budget cuts that would have cost Massachusetts 17,000 jobs and job training for 27,000 residents.

Perhaps Brown is moderate by Tea Party or radical Republican standards. One probably will not catch him saying that pregnancy occurring as a result of rape are is God’s will or referring to Mrs. Warren as acting unladylike. But make no mistake, Scott Brown is a GOP man through and through and when it comes to the decisions that will define the plot of this nation’s drama, Brown will have no qualms about playing the protagonist that leads the rising action to the right, to the one percent and to a tragic outcome for the dwindling working class whom he sees fit to do nothing but fill the cheap seats.

Progress Report: Ugly Campaign Olympics; Brien Down to Last Strike, ProJo for Warren; NEA-RI to NK: We Bat Last


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Foliage on the banks of the Queens River in Exeter. (Photo by Bob Plain)

I’m starting to get the feeling that Brendan Doherty doesn’t even want to serve in Congress. If he did, he’d probably audition for the job a just little bit rather than just trying to convince voters to reject incumbent David Cicilline. This campaign has become ridiculously negative, and their debates remind me of when my brother and I would fight as children – the primary difference being me and my bro, even then, seemed to understand public policy better than Doherty…

But if negative campaigning was an Olympic event, the gold medal may well go to my friend Mark Binder. The line between disavowing the hardball politics of Smith Hill and engaging in them is pretty clear; Binder crossed it a long time ago .. he proably doesn’t know who’s responsible for the anonymous ad attack ad running on WPRO, but candidates can and do set a tone for their campaigns.

There are few places I would rather be a fly on the wall than the editorial board meetings at the Providence Journal … for example, how did the typically very conservative ed. board endorse progressive Democrat Elizabeth Warren over moderate Republican Scott Brown?

Obviously us progressives wholeheartedly agree, but the ProJo lays out really good reasons why even moderates who may be more philosophically aligned with Brown should still vote for Warren. By the way, this reasoning applies locally too!

Elizabeth Warren could help prevent a Republican takeover of the Senate, at a time when extremists have inordinate sway in the GOP. Republican control could spell damaging rollbacks of environmental and other regulations, and set back health-care reform. Further, one or more Supreme Court justices could retire soon. Senator Brown named fiery conservative Antonin Scalia as his idea of a model justice, and voted against confirming Elena Kagan. A vote for Ms. Warren would keep the court in more centrist territory. In this race, she is the better choice.

And this is also great from today’s ProJo op/ed page … Cicilline talks up the progressive congressional budget proposal: “This plan would eliminate the deficit in 10 years, end the war in Afghanistan safely and expeditiously restore investments in education and infrastructure, strengthen Social Security and Medicare without cutting benefits, require millionaires, Wall Street and Big Oil to pay their fair share, and enact corporate-tax reforms that seek to make it harder for companies to ship American jobs overseas.

Prototypical DINO Jon Brien had three chances to win back his House seat this campaign season … the first was to win in the primary, which he didn’t. The second was to knock out primary winner Stephen Casey on a technicality, and that didn’t work either. Now, his last chance is to win a write-in campaign. If I were Brien, I wouldn’t invest too much time working on my victory speech…

Rhode Island just got a little greener, thanks to three new wind turbines at the waste water treatment plant in Providence.

NEA-RI President Larry Purtill pens a letter to North Kingstown Patch responding to the school superintendent’s letter in the local weekly paper. Evidently, the superintendent thinks the custodians whose jobs were outsourced should move on – which shows a little bit of ignorance to the dynamics at play … while management might swing a bigger bat, labor bats last.

Trial of the century: US v. Bank of America

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, who was paraphrasing Mitt Romney’s meta-campaign message: We broke the economy and Obama didn’t fix it quick enough so give it back to us.

Elizabeth Warren Reaches Rhode Island Family


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Photo courtesy of Elizabeth Warren for Mass.

It is all too often that I encounter the jaded political soul. Every day I hear a variation on the theme of distrust of all politicians.

“They’re all liars,” “I hate all politicians” and “None of them care about anyone but themselves.”

It is easy to think that way and, I must admit, I have become callous about many candidates and elected officials through my work with and for them in varying capacities. So when I was granted the privilege of meeting US Senate candidate from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, I was awestruck.

This woman is the truth.

Fall River is where I met her. This past Friday night, she was in town at the Kuss Middle School with Joe Kennedy III and Representative Bill Keating. Both men gave their own brand of well crafted rhetoric and warmed the crowd of locals before Elizabeth Warren took the stage.

She stuck to her message of growing the American economy from the middle class out and ensuring that women had a defender in Washington. She gave a summary of facts about the shortcomings of her opponent’s voting record on the same issues. I’m sure the readership of this site is well versed in Mrs. Warren’s platform vs. that of her opponent, Scott Brown’s, so I won’t rehash the details. Suffice it to say, her words hit home with the audience and the enthusiasm was electric.

However, It was after she spoke that I was most impressed with Mrs. Warren. Anyone who has followed her campaign for Senate knows the white hot spotlight that has been shined upon her by the media and by her opponent. This, of course, is part of the price one pays for running for such an important and strongly contested office. Of this Mrs. Warren is aware and spoke about it at the end of her speech, saying that in spite of the physical and emotional drain, each day she will work and fight from before the sun comes up until long after it sets.

I assumed following the raucous applause that she would spend a few minutes for photo ops with a select group of people chosen strategically to demonstrate her commitment to the young, the old, the working class, the students, etc. Then she would be whisked away through a back exit to rest or prepare or possibly meet in a quieter setting with other politicians or important benefactors. But she didn’t. Instead, she stayed and posed for every snapshot requested by her fans. She shook every hand in the room. She met everyone’s eye and listened – truly listened – to every single bit of praise or concern brought to her attention.

And after that, she stayed even longer.

I was there with my wife and eight-month-old daughter and an enthusiastic group of labor organization members. As soon as Mrs. Warren finished speaking, we pushed our way to the center of the flood of people and managed to get a group photo. Then the tide rose, tossing us to the outskirts where I was grabbed for an interview with a local newspaper and various sales pitches from other local pols.

Then I collected my family and we began to make our way to the exits. But as we said some final goodbyes, a nearby friend saw an opening and handed me a smart phone to try and snap a last minute photo with Mrs Warren. I agreed and took the snapshot. It was then that she walked over to us and hunched down to eye level with my daughter, Audrey, held by my wife, Michele. She hunched because she is taller than one would expect. She took Audrey’s feet in her hands and talked to her, then to Michele. She said mothers and daughters were why she was fighting so hard and why she would never stop fighting.

I saw tears in her eyes and in my wife’s eyes as well.

This was a moment I will never forget. This woman took the time to speak with strangers after the cameras stopped flashing. She put in the voluntary overtime to speak with a working family, rather than rest or fundraise or strategize against the onslaught of personal attacks launched by her opponent. Furthermore, she spoke with a family of Rhode Islanders who can’t even vote for her.

My job, as of late, has placed me in Fall River for most of my working hours. I travel the streets and speak with residents and I can say with confidence that the city has fallen on some extremely difficult economic times. In fact, Fall River fell into recession long before the rest of the country and sunk even deeper when the nation’s economy tanked. And, while I see a few Scott Brown signs tied to fences and tacked to businesses, the overwhelming sentiment is positive for Warren. But the commonwealth as a whole is a very different story.

Elizabeth Warren has a fight ahead of her. She is on a tear through Massachusetts in a final stretch attempt to rally as many supporters as possible for her November 6th showdown with Republican incumbent, Scott Brown. Mrs. Warren is using a grassroots approach to counter Senator Brown’s negative mailed literature, sponsored by super PAC America 360. The super political action committee funded the attack ad flier to the tune of $200,000 and I suspect many dark and stormy television ads with the same grim, grainy, anti-Warren message are to follow. Like many in his party, Brown seems to relish in truth avoidance when it comes to his own record, his party’s platform and his opponent in general.

But to see and hear Elizabeth Warren is to understand that she is more than just words. She is warm. She is honest. She is committed to her message in a way that instills hope in those like myself who understand too well the loud and greasy engine that powers the sleek and shining sports car of politics. In spite of her opponent’s portrayal of her as the elite, distant, wealthy professor, she came to Fall River and took the time to touch everyone who showed up.

Progress Report: Rent, Wages and Econ 101; Community Foreclosure Study, EG Ordinance Violates 1st Amendment


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Greenwich Cove (Photo by Bob Plain)

You don’t need to a degree in economics to understand why rent is skyrocketing while wages are stagnant. As the middle class is squeezed, fewer can afford the American dream of home ownership. So they rent instead. Demand then has its way with supply and the landlords win while the working class loses. Yet another failure of the trickle down theory.

Meanwhile one constantly hears, from Republicans and Democrats alike, that something needs to be done about our outrageously high unemployment rate. But no one really said much when the state Department of Labor and training laid off 65 employees earlier this year. Their jobs, by the way, were to help unemployed people get back into the workforce. Now, thanks to a federal grant, we’ll hire back about 20 percent of the laid-off DLT employees. It’s not enough.

Speaking of the war on the working class in Rhode Island, GoLocal has a list of the communities with the most – and least – home foreclosures.

And speaking of GoLocal, Dan McGowan makes a great point about former Governor Don Carcieri: “…the fact that URI’s funding was nearly cut in half between 2002 and 2010 is a black eye for the former Governor. One of the biggest complaints from business owners is that the state’s doesn’t have a prepared workforce and cutting funding to the state’s largest college certainly doesn’t help matters.”

East Greenwich Town Council President Michael Isaacs admits the town’s restrictions against political signs violate the First Amendment. Unfortunately, simply not enforcing unconstitutional laws isn’t sufficient. The Council should rescind the ordinance.

The irony in Scott Brown attacking Elizabeth Warren for her Native American heritage is he accuses her of using her roots for professional advancement … while the Washington Post refutes that claim, Brown is pretty clearly using Warren’s Native American heritage to advance his career!

No one should ever want to see another Supreme Court, state or federal, determine another election but there are so many reasons to doubt the veracity of the results in the William San Bento vs. Carlos Tobon Pawtucket Democratic primary for a House seat that we’re glad the ACLU stepped in. San Bento is a solid liberal on economic issues but he isn’t all that healthy and some doubt he can successfully fulfill his commitment to the district.

A little bit of Rhode Island’s rich history with pirates, privateers and the slave trade, also the Cranston Herald explains the difference between pirates and privateers.

Today in 1960, Ted Williams hits a home run in his final at bat at that “lyric little bandbox of a ballpark.” Here’s on the event aptly titled “Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu.”

Mitt Romney and the 47 Percent Movement


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

If  you were considering voting against Mitt Romney because of his disdain for the 99 percent; it turns out there’s only 47 percent of America that he isn’t interested in representing as POTUS.

In a statement that pits him squarely against the middle class and will certainly serve as another nail in his presidential ambition coffin, Mother Jones released a video yesterday that has Mitt Romney saying: “There are 47 percent … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

He added, “My job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

I don’t know what additional evidence one would need to conclude that Romney’s campaign is little more than a thinly-veiled war against the working class.

But don’t take my word for it, here’s what conservative columnist David Brooks said about Romney’s telling statement in a piece aptly headlined Thurston Howell Romney. He writes:

Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare? The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

But forget for a moment the political reality that Romney was effectively campaigning against a huge number of people who were potential supporters, a larger point is he was actually low-balling the percentage of America that relies on the public sector.

We all are. Elizabeth Warren describes how we are all dependent on public sector programs far better than I can in this famous Youtube video:

So why does Mitt exempt 53 percent of America from his ire? Because despite what they say it isn’t government Romney and the Republicans don’t like, it’s the middle and working class.

Progress Report: Anti-Choice Agenda Fares Well in Primary; Happy Birthday Occupy Movement; Chicago Still on Strike


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Anti-choice crusaders Rhode Island Right to Life was one of the most successful PACs on primary night, reports the ProJo. How DINO is that! On the other hand, Political Scene also gives some love to Planned Parenthood and the public sector unions for having a successful primary.

38 Studios will be the issue local candidates don’t want associated with their name, says Dan McGowan. Don’t forget, Don Carcieri said the only way legislators didn’t know he was considering the new loan guarantee money on Curt Schilling is if they weren’t paying attention to the news.

One year ago today, activists in New York City began the unrewarding but effective process of changing the political debate in America when they set up a protest camp in Zuccotti Park. Say what you will about the Occupy movement but we are talking about income inequality and corporate greed today because of them, issues that are defining the 2012 election.

Here in Rhode Island, Occupy Providence planned to spend the night at the State House to stand in solidarity with the anniversary. In New York, about 250 people marched and an unspecified number of arrests occurred.

But Occupy isn’t the biggest direct action in the nation this September … that honor goes to the Chicago Teachers’ Strike. Last night, the teachers’ rejected a proposal causing Mayor Rahm Emanuel to go to court today to try to force them back to work. Please remember, the two sides aren’t arguing over money – they’ve agreed on compensation – the breakdown is over how much reform Emanuel can embed into their contracts.

Here is Rhode Island, where it’s popular to pretend that people are leaving the state to find a better tax rate, researchers have actually proven a much larger theory: there’s less life on earth than initially thought.

Yesterday I was chided on Twitter for quoting Taegen Goddard as saying Elizabeth Warren is “pulling away” in polls from Scott Brown as they battle for the hotly contested Mass. Senate race. Today, Goddard writes that she is “surging” after going from 5 percentage points behind to 2 ahead. All political analysis aside, Liz Warren is simply more in line with Bay State voters and at the end of the day this will matter most. Just ask Bill Weld.

Convention Reflection: A Rant About Democrats


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Get ready for a rant.  I managed to engage in far less blogging than I’d hoped to over the course of my four days in Charlotte.  Here’s what I was left with:

The convention had its moments, for sure:  What I heard of Elizabeth Warren was very good, certainly by the standards of what you can get away with on national TV.  Her losing to Scott Brown would be a blow as big as Russ Feingold’s loss last cycle.  If genuine, incorruptible, economic populists can’t win in moderate and left-leaning districts then my continued hope for the future of our country seems particularly naive.  Feingold lost to one of the very worst hacks the Tea Party put up last cycle — one who incessantly and successfully framed Feingold as a lock-step party shill, even though he had voted against financial reform from the left (because it didn’t address too-big-to-fail), was the only vote against the Patriot Act, and even cast the sole Democratic vote to try Bill Clinton during the impeachment process in 2000.  (Though voted not to convict him.)

Scott Brown’s only legislative achievement is to have gotten a bill through the Massachusetts General Court outlawing public funding of sex-change operations for prisoners.  FOR REAL.  We shouldn’t be losing to these jokers.

Anyway, Warren is great.  But it was tragic that somebody so knowledgeable about, and dedicated to the cause of, banking reform had to bite her lip and introduce Bill Clinton, whose administration was responsible for much of the deregulation of Wall Street which precipitated the Crash and whose cast of economic “experts” spent eight years twirling though the revolving doors of Manhattan’s tallest towers only to be dredged up by Obama — helping compel him to hedge, again and again, on behalf of high finance.

Clinton’s speech was, of course, gripping and brilliant, but hinged on one’s willingness to suspend disbelief and forgive the corporate shill who brought us financial deregulation, NAFTA, and all that.  (At least he had the sense to veto the Joe Biden-backed bankruptcy reform bill in 2000.  Bush later signed it.)

As mediocre as he’s been, Obama is right to claim superiority to Mitt Romney when it comes to domestic economic policy.  Even if he’s made no move to break up the banks or hold Wall Street accountable for its crimes, Romney would manage to be even worse in these regards.  Obamacare will probably be better than the status quo, even if he could’ve fought harder for a public option.  There’s a real risk that Obama will implement regressive reform of Medicare or Social Security — but Romney would (try to) obliterate them.  It’s good to see Obama take a more aggressive tack against Citizens United (now that he’s realized that he’s going to lose the mad dash for dollars that it’s precipitated).

In the civil liberties realm in which I now work, it’s actually difficult to imagine that Romney could be far worse than Obama:  This brilliant video by Gawker was recently circulated — it has the videographer asking prominent Dems if they think that Romney’s ready to be put in charge the kill list Obama instituted.  He supports the Patriot Act.  He supports warrantless wiretapping.  And I’m flabbergasted by his crack-down on medical marijuana — that cause is just so popular with Americans that I can’t even conceive of a cynical political calculus that could’ve driven him to take such a heavy-handed stand against it.

He’s kept us in Afghanistan, took us to war in Libya without approval from Congress, and as the Onion headline asked, could the use of flying death robots be hurting America’s reputation worldwide?

Obama’s made two recent attempts to jazz up the progressive base he once called his own: announcing his support for gay marriage and pushing through a modified version of the Dream Act.  Both are genuinely wonderful developments, but we should note that neither runs contrary to the interests of finance:  The Chamber of Commerce has consistently supported immigration reform — and fewer people will be helped by the Dream Act than have already been deported by Obama — who has deported immigrants at a rate about 50% faster than George W Bush.

But the most defensible reason to support Obama (at least in the swing states) is the chance that he’ll get to appoint another Sotomayor (and not a Kagan) to the Court during his continued tenure in office.  Those appointees who’ve made it past an intransigent Republican Senate caucus have actually been pretty good — some of his appointees have even been willing to buck the administration when it’s the right thing to do: Katherine Forrest, whom Obama appointed just last year, has so far defied his DOJ’s attempts to defend the indefinite detention law that he signed this past New Year’s.  (Demand Progress, the org I run, is helping fund the lawsuit against indefinite detention.)

This is all to say that while there are reasons to support Obama and hope that he beats Romney, it’s also imperative to remember that the national Democratic establishment leaves much to be desired.  Activists must remain in constant vigilance, and push back hard against party insiders who, in large part, came to power because of their allegiance to moneyed interests.  And the lack of such a nuanced understanding of the attributes and failings of our party was stark in Charlotte.  I participated in a wonderful event put on by Progressive Democrats of America, which attracted several hundred attendees over the course of the first day of the convention, but that was just about it.

Absent was any broader sense of the need to — let alone a strategy by which to — push back against a Democratic establishment whose inertia has it shifting ever-further to the right (with rare exceptions like gay marriage) — a phenomenon which serves neither the interests of the party nor those of our country.  (And just makes me so darned sad.)

Progress Report: Spending on State House Races; RI Has a Budget Surplus; Verizon Saves Your Texts, Henry Thoreau


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The other end of the #egriviera, the one not featured in the Projo today. (Photo by Bob Plain)

One has to like not only the name, but also the motivation, of a group backing progressive candidates for State House seats.

According to WPRI’s Ted Nesi: “People for Rhode Island’s Future spent $26,500 this week to support six pro-gay-marriage candidates (David Gorman, Gene Dyszlewski, Lewis Pryeor, Adam Satchell, Laura Pisaturo and Roberto DaSilva) and oppose six others on the ballot (Lou Raptakis, Frank Lombardi, Marc Cote, Michael Pinga, Michael McCaffrey and Dan DaPonte).”

Fight Back RI, a local group working for marriage equality, also endorsed some legislative candidates recently.

Meanwhile, Nesi goes on to report that 50CAN, a national PAC that supports the corporate charter school model for public education, is also spending money supporting local candidates. “50CAN Action Fund said it spent $44,902 on Aug. 30 supporting four candidates in next week’s primary: DaPonte, Jon Brien, Maura Kelly and Mia Ackerman,” Nesi writes. “The group’s Rhode Island chapter endorsed all of them except DaPonte.”

Rhode Island should be concerned that RI-CAN, the major proponent of the big box charter school model in the state, is supporting Brien. He’s one of the most conservative members of the General Assembly who is already a direct conduit for corporate America into our political system through his involvement with ALEC.

And spending money is only one of the ways in which the corporate charter school agenda is trying to influence local politics. Ed Fitzpatrick looks at the race for Senate District 3, which pits former RI-CAN executive director Maryellen Butke against Gayle Goldin, who works for the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island.

Here’s one of the biggest problems with our political process: many pretend that the state is broke but it isn’t. In fact, it turns out Rhode Island enjoys a $115 million surplus in its budget this year.

Yet still, the state is cutting services that help those hardest hit by the recession.

Such contradictions are just one of the many reasons we should discount blowhards like Harriet Loyd of RISC … especially when she uses inflammatory rhetoric like trying to “eradicate” incumbents.

Speaking of nonsense from GoLocal, there is so much that is offensive about this story and the way it is presented, I hardly know where to start. How about with the stock photo of the bloody knife? GoLocal could write the same story about any weekend night on the East Greenwich waterfront, but I think it’s safe to say it wouldn’t.

Verizon is keeping a copy of the texts you send, and if asked they’ll share them with law enforcement.

Bill Clinton’s line of the night at the DNC: “We believe ‘we’re all in this together’ is a better philosophy than ‘you’re on your own.'”

Elizabeth Warren had a pretty good one too when she explained how corporations are not, in fact, people.

On this day in 1847, Henry David Thoreau leaves Walden after two years of living deliberately and moves in with Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Netroots Nation: A Review


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Preparing for my Netroots panel discussion on revitalizing local political blogs, I was corrected by moderator Andrew Villeneuve of the Northwest Progressive Institute when I introduced myself as having come to the blogosphere from the mainstream media.

“You mean the traditional media,” he interrupted. “We are the mainstream media.”

While it’s a debatable claim, it was certainly one of the underlining theme of Netroots Nation, the annual meeting of the progressive movement that took over Providence for the past few days. The idea is that lefty activists and journalists already enjoy a sizable slice of the media market, as well as a mandate from the American people, and they can be used to overcome the overwhelming advantage government-shrinking, big monied interests have in the political process.

“The big corporations want to take over social security, medicare, even our elections. The Republicans want to hep them, and they are hoping that with enough spin and propaganda they can get away with it,” Rhode Island’s own Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said in a keynote address on the opening night.

“But you,” he continued, “the online opinion makers who make Netroots Nation so great – with your blogs and your email lists and your Facebook pages and your tweets and and your videos – you can fight back against this tide of money, of spin, of extremism. You can help make sure that this remains our great democracy of, by and for the people.”

Sheldon, as he is known to his legions of fans on the far left, is a star in the Netroots community, as he is to liberal Rhode Islanders. He’s not only an up-and-comer in the Senate, he’s also one of the most solidly progressive politicians in Washington D.C. In a subsequent speech on Saturday he dubbed Roger Williams, Rhode Island’s founder who came here seeking religious liberty, the nation’s first progressive.

He was very accessible throughout the event, and even through an open-bar party with Providence Mayor Angel Taveras. Netroots officials and attendees were impressed by the Ocean State’s hospitality and downtown’s amenities. It was one of the many open bar parties in downtown Providence during Netroots.

But the real action happens during the day, when bloggers, congressional staffers and community activists hustled around the Convention Center, heading off to the many different panel discussions. Everything from building a better online community and using new media tools, to progressive messaging, to specific public policy discussions – income inequality, tax fairness, corporate greed, collective bargaining and public education were all popular and insightful topics.

Highlights included powerful speeches from progressive rock star Elizabeth Warren, who is of course running for the US Senate in Massachusetts, and up-and-coming progressive rock star Darcy Burner, who is running to represent Washington state in the House.

“This is a war we can win,” Burner told an inspired lunchtime crowd on Friday.

Both Burner and Warren, in their keynote titled ‘The War on (and for) Women” talked about how the female vote will prove to be among the most critical this November. So did state Rep. Teresa Tanzi, a staunch progressive from Wakefield, who gave a keynote address on the same stage as did Whitehouse, Warren and Burner – not to mention Paul Krugman, Van Jones, Mayor Angel Taveras and Congressman David Cicilline.

Gov. Linc Chafee was noticeably absent and Congressman Jim Langevin was noticeably present. Joy Fox, Gina Raimondo’s communications director, was seen at a few panels and Anthony Gemma had staffers at several. Gemma rode the progressive party circuit hard throughout the weekend.

“You need to join me,” said Tanzi, imploring more people to run for office, though I don’t imagine she was talking to Anthony Gemma per say. She predicted 2012 will be the year of the progressive woman. “Take the next step, run for office. Yes, you. The one with the family, the job, the crushing load of schoolwork, the fuller than full plate. You! Anything less than full participation will not be enough.”

“I need you standing beside me when the doors close to the public, and the negotiations begin,” she said. “I need you sitting beside me, after the debate ends, the votes are taken and a proposal becomes law. I need your voice to be the voice of all the women, families and children who are voiceless and invisible.”

Tanzi proved why she needs progressive allies in the State House on Thursday, just two nights earlier. When Capitol Police removed Occupy Providence activists from the gallery for mic checking on tax equity, Tanzi was alone in sticking up for the protesters’ rights.

Willingly or not, Netroots may have reinvigorated Occupy Providence. Not only did they sleep out on the sidewalk next to the Providence Journal building all weekend, but five activists were also detained in the Providence Place Mall. They weren’t arrested, but they were handcuffed and trespassed from the shopping center for one year. One activist went to hospital because he sustained what he called a sprained shoulder.

Netroots certainly didn’t reinvigorate the progressive base for President Obama – who will need us if he is to prevail against the right, and its near monopoly of money in politics.

In past years, the White House has sent a representative to speak at Netroots … this year, instead, Obama made a statement and played a short video, on the jumbotron screen. On Twitter, it was debated whether the president’s remarks were “warmly” received or “politely” received by the crowd of progressives who generally feel let down by the president. I’d have to say warmly, at best. Political staffers buzzed with rumors of Vice President Joe Biden making an appearance, but in the end it didn’t materialize.

Van Jones, whom the right wing misinformation machine pressured out of his job at the White House, didn’t so much defend his former employer. Instead he made the case that the left’s apathy could be the greatest asset of the right in the 2012 election.

“We like this president but we’re not in love with him like we used to be,” he said in the closing comments of the conference. “We feel that if all we do is support the president or support the Democrats that won’t do what we want. Then we look at the Tea Party. And for those of us who are no longer comparing Obama to the almighty but instead to the alternative, that don’t look too good either. The last election was a hope election. This one should be a fear election.”

He added, “We have to be as sophisticated as the machine we are fighting, we have to be as sophisticated as the system we are trying to change. We have to do two things that are hard, so we have to be twice as committed as we were in 2008. We have to both re-elected the president and re-energize the movement to hold the president accountable to progressive values.”

There were great Rhode Island political tales told as well – some good and some bad. In a particularly depressing panel called “When Democrats Aren’t Democrats: The Story of Rhode Island,” local progressive activists told their stories about how Rhode Island’s legislative record undermines its reputation as a liberal bastion.

Kate Brock, of Ocean State Action, talked about how she couldn’t win even a slight tax increase this legislative session. Steve Brown of the ACLU, told the now-infamous story of Rhode Island’s voter id law. Ray Sullivan, of Marriage Equality, admitted frustration at not being able to pass a same sex marriage law in a state with a supportive governor and a gay Speaker of the House. Paula Hodges, of Planned Parenthood, said she is often on the defensive in heavily Catholic Rhode Island.

It was interesting, I thought, that moderator Pat Crowley of the NEA-RI, didn’t speak more about the pension cuts that passed that legislative session, but the local delegation was buzzing after Ted Nesi put otherwise progressive state Rep. from Providence Chris Blazejewski on the spot about his vote to slash retiree benefits. Here’s hoping Ted will either post on this, or perhaps share Blazejewski’s response in the comments or by email.

But one of the most uplifting moments of the four-day event was the panel titled “Working Rhode Island: How We Built a Progressive Movement in Rhode Island” was about how all facets of the progressive movement – from organized labor to marriage equality – learned to band together to battle back against the pervasive conservative idealogy now ingrained into our political narrative. AFL-CIO President Goerge Nee said former Gov. Don Carcieri disgraceful treatment of the left during his tenure makes him one of the great organizers in Rhode Island history.

For obvious reasons, my highlight of the three-day, three-long-night event was the panel I sat on about revitalizing state and local blogs. We talked about how to make progressive online journalism sustainable – what tends to happen, the other panelists and attendees said, is not unlike the history of RI Future in that a new editor will put some hard work into it for a while but then suffer from a lack of operating capital and need to focus on more profitable endeavors.

Local progressive blogs will become increasingly important as right-wing think tanks (stink tanks, Netrooters tended to call them, teasingly) begin to fund blogs with conservative biases.

The outcome of our panel: we are going to organize a national network of local progressive blogs and websites … hopefully we can learn some stuff from one another, share story ideas and maybe even some resources. The idea is to keep the spirit and purpose of Netroots alive throughout the year – work together to see if we can help each other make the change we should all want to see in the world.

Learning to Love Taxes


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Instead of bemoaning Tax Day, we ought to celebrate it as a national holiday. It’s the day we chip in to pay for the services we all rely on to live our lives.

After all, who among us doesn’t benefit from taxes? Anyone who drives certainly does. Anyone who likes to spend a hot summer day at the beach does too. We’ve triumphed in wars due in no small part to outspending our enemies. And find me the person who thinks the United States would be better off if it didn’t have public schools and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t understand how the world works.

Here in Rhode Island, we have a particular problem with seeing taxes as a good thing. Consider this: a bill that would inject $40 million into our public schools is known as the meals tax because it would add $2 to every $100 dinner at a restaurant or 40 cents to every $20 lunch or breakfast. Why doesn’t the media call this the education investment bill? Similarly, a bill that infuse our health department with $45 million is called the soda tax because it would add a penny onto every ounce of sugary beverage.

Elizabeth Warren, Senate candidate in Massachusetts, once famously said of taxes: “You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

But despite the preponderance of evidence showing that taxes are, in fact, a good thing, Americans still love little more than to complain about their contribution.

Though I think this outlook is inherently bad for society, I can understand why people feel this way. For one, the United States was literally founded on the idea of paying lower taxes. Your high school history teacher may have told you it was all about freedom and democracy, but it was just as much about not ponying up to throne. Thus, it has become ingrained in our cultural understanding that taxes are bad, and if you don’t begrudge them you must, therefore, be opposed to freedom.

But, in truth, and most rational people will agree, that taxes are good. Some, fiscal conservatives in particular, just think we pay too much of them. In other words, they want to pay taxes for the services they use, but not for the services they don’t.

However, there is a fundamental flaw in this line of reasoning and it can be summed up as simply as the old saying, “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”

We’re actually seeing this play out live in Rhode Island right now. Our underfunded urban areas giving the entire state a bad name from coast to coast. In fact, just last week, Colin Kane, testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, said investors are afraid to invest in Rhode Island bonds because of the situation in Central Falls.

And just think how much better off our state would be if all school districts were as wealthy as East Greenwich and Barrington – this state would be cranking out job creators like nobody’s business!

One of the most important takeaways from the Occupy movement is that when society becomes inequitable, as it has increasingly become, people will take to the streets. The more inequity there is, the more people will take to the streets. Trust me, the very last thing the affluent class wants is for the lower and middle class folks to be taking to the streets. Indeed, most social service programs were instituted to insulate the job creators rather than to coddle to the job seekers.

Hating taxes is a completely outdated notion that may have worked when our country was still growing and flush with natural resources. But now that neither of those things are necessarily true anymore, we need to start seeing taxes as the societal good that they are.

So the next time you safely drive to the beach while your kids are on summer recess, you can say to yourself: but for our collective contributions, I wouldn’t have it nearly so good.