All In The Family

And The Beat Goes On…

2011-08-04T07:17:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, August 4, 2011.

Let me tell you about my uncle. He’s usually a pretty good guy, always lending a hand to those in need. He doesn’t like to see people suffer, so he has a tendency to overextend himself from time to time. In fact, he has become so “compassionate” toward others that his own children and family have suffered. After spending all his savings, he has been forced to travel far and wide seeking lenders and creditors. Each time he promises a quick repayment, but then he sees another needy soul or another grand project and back to the creditors he goes.

The people to whom he gives so much assistance, however, have become so accustomed to my uncle’s charitable ways that they scream and whine whenever he tries to scale back his gifts or if he asks them to accept some personal responsibility for their own needs.

Now my uncle is so deep in debt that he really needs an intervention. That is why some concerned members of his family and I got together last year and introduced him to some people who would tell him the hard truths about financial security. They met with him and told him he would have to slow down his spending habits, restore his credit rating and to think of his children and grandchildren who would be saddled with his debt.

Of course, my uncle, like so many others who have addictive personalities, doesn’t like the idea of limiting his spending. He seems to think he can just go and find another source of revenue and then everything will be okay. He says he will spend less and be more responsible - if he just gets a little bit more to spend. He seems to think he can spend his way back to a good credit rating if he can only find another lender (China) to borrow a little more or ask for more money (confiscate) from some wealthy people in the neighborhood.

Now, we all know this uncle is our dear old Uncle Sam, and we are all suffering as his children when he doesn’t see the error of his ways. Our current debt – over 14.3 TRILLION DOLLARS, weighing over 315 MILLION POUNDS in $100 bills – is like an anchor on the ship of our economy. She can’t float with that kind of a burden dragging along the bottom of the ocean.

We MUST do something about the debt. Merely raising the ceiling without reinforcing the floor doesn’t make the house fit for the elephant. We need to remodel the house. That means making tough choices and facing hard facts.

Fact number one was raised by former Republican Senator from New Hampshire, John Sununu, writing in the August 8, 2011 issue of Time magazine (pg. 27). He revealed that an alarming 47% of all Americans are receiving at least one Federal benefit. Our uncle is supporting, in one or way another, almost half of us!

People, we have met the enemy and he is us!

This budget problem will not go away – even if the debt ceiling is raised (at the time of this writing, Saturday – 7/30, no deal had been made to raise it by Tuesday) – it will have to be raised again and again, unless and until we get serious about limiting our spending.

This means we (at least 47% of us) have to stop asking our uncle to do things for us we can and should do for ourselves. We have over 24 different job training programs, for example, that are wasteful and redundant. We subsidize everything from Alpaca farmers to Mohair producers to Ethanol blenders to Oil drillers and yet we wonder why our uncle can’t pay his bills.
The time is ripe for a revolution in our way of dealing with our uncle. We need to intervene. Just as we did in November of 2010, we need to tell him the hard truth. He is out of his own money and he just cannot afford to give away other people’s money.
In closing, let me quote a speech I heard recently:

“America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began…”

Again, I must give credit where credit is due. The above speech was delivered by Barack Obama on the night he won the primary campaign in June, 2008. I agree. This is our moment. Let’s turn the page on the past and slow down the spending!

A Dysfunctional Household

2011-08-04T07:13:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, August 4, 2011.

There has been a trend of late, on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum, to make comparisons between the national debt and budgetary concerns and the average household. The justification is typically that it makes it easier for folks to grasp a concept because they can get their heads around how their own finances work and can apply those principles to the government in terms of spending and revenue. It would make sense, too, if it weren’t for the fact that government budgets don’t work like our home budgets and the resources available for spending and saving models are quite different.

Of course, there are reasons of expediency that prompt us to use these analogies. For instance, it is easier to paint a picture of this household with a crazy uncle spending his money frivolously on those in need at the peril of his own, than it is to look at the painful truth and ask the difficult questions. Why is it that 47% of Americans require some federal benefit? The quaint Uncle Sam scenario ignores the fact that decades of lopsided policy, which favors the wealthy and corporations over the average citizen, has nearly eliminated the middle class, decimated the working poor and created an insurmountable wealth gap.

Not only is our crazy uncle more schizophrenic than Sybil, the entire family is dysfunctional. It’s bad enough that they eschew compromise like a plague and can’t come to agreement on important decisions. They also can’t think clearly about issues because their own habits have them feeding the corporate junky, or off on some reckless ideological binge. Republican House Speaker John Boehner is torn between pragmatic moderates, the Tea Party minority among Congressional Republicans, and an unrealistic anti-tax pledge he signed at the behest of powerful lobbyist Grover Norquist. Add this to the fact that he is clinging desperately to his leadership position in the House as Republic Majority Leader Eric Canter strives to undermine him and steal his job.

The Tea Party representatives seem incapable of grasping the potential damage of debt default or a downgrade of economic ranking. They appear publicly either denying the impact or downplaying it significantly. And as the nation heads toward a cliff of uncertain peril, they are trying to exploit a crisis to ram through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution — dangerous legislation, which should only be the result of careful and protracted debate.

Democrats, for their part, make a show at protecting programs that are of vital need (especially in a weak economy), only to slowly cave to political pressure. Meanwhile, real people are worrying over a future that discounts their existence and increases their burdens.

My brother Gordon’s personification of the spendthrift Uncle Sam has real flaws. When American households fall on hard times, they cut out frills; they take fewer vacations; they limit their trips around town and carpool; they keep that older car; they avoid large purchases. They don’t stop feeding Grandma. They don’t tell her to choose between medication and other daily needs. And they don’t write off their niece with breast cancer simply because she’s had the misfortune to be downsized by the company for which she used to work. Oh, by the way, these people receiving the help of “compassionate” Uncle Sam aren’t outsiders. They’re all members of the same American family.

Real American wage earners don’t turn down raises in income out of some sense of loyalty to a corporation. Republicans continue to protect the wealthiest two percent in the nation from any form of shared sacrifice, even as they scream about the deficit and national debt. No, raising the tax rate at the highest brackets a few percentage points won’t close the deficit gap, but turning down income in the face of rising debt is irresponsible.

And I’m tired of an insistence that the wealthy already pay their fair share. Yes, a majority of the tax burden falls on the wealthy. The wealth gap they helped to widen created that imbalance. More Americans than ever before don’t earn enough to pay income taxes. Consequently, the burden falls to those with the means and the healthy paychecks.

Pompous Libertarian Nick Gillespie appeared on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher recently. Regarding shared sacrifice, he said, “I believe in shared sacrifice. I just believe it should be a choice.” Are the poor, sick and elderly given a choice over the sacrifice that is soon to be imposed upon them?

Corporations are also favorites in the personification game. In fact, they enjoy all the rights of personhood bestowed upon them by their kindly Uncle Sam. Unfortunately, the responsibilities of personhood don’t fully apply. Our friends on the conservative right keep insisting that lower taxes for the wealthy and corporations manifest themselves in the form of jobs. Unfortunately, it’s not true and we can apply a household model to get us partway to the reason why.

The principle behind tax breaks at the corporate level is that if operating costs are lower and therefore profits are higher, there will be incentive to invest in the form of jobs. First, look at the household model. If we have more disposable income we might aspire to shop at local merchants and pay a bit more for goods and services that help the community and common good. The reality is that our addiction to “low, low prices” keeps us sheepishly shopping at Wal-Mart.

The same holds for corporations, only with an added consideration. Corporations are legally bound to the interests of shareholders. Therefore, any additional profit or savings in operating costs are absorbed as part of the unsustainable continual growth curve that corporations strive for to satisfy boards and investors. So, any investment in jobs, facilities or other expenditure that benefit the common good are made from the top down. And since corporations are addicted to Wal-Mart-priced jobs, they will continue to create their jobs overseas.

I am certain that by the time you read this column, the debt ceiling will have been raised and the immediate crisis averted. However, the family will still be as dysfunctional and the partisan wrangling over spending and taxes will rage on. Like Gordon, I think the nation needs a revolutionary intervention. His vision continues to favor the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Mine seeks to eliminate the codependency between corporate power and political leadership.

Impasse

2011-07-23T10:33:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 21
, 2011.

As the nation watched the grueling battle last week over the deficit and the debt ceiling, I became convinced of a troubling transformation. I believe we have witnessed, over the last few years, the slow demise of the democratic process in our federal government.

The structure and balance of the United States’ governing mechanism is based on compromise that facilitates the representation of its citizens. We have watched as this productive compromise has given way to power brokering and political posturing.

We have come to mistrust Washington and expect that partisan politics will trump policies that benefit real people. Accepting this fact is depressing enough. However, my fear is that the problem isn’t Washington’s culture. I fear that radio personality Rush Limbaugh is right when he insists that the American people (or at least those who voted for Tea Party Republican candidates in 2010) don’t want to see compromise among our political leaders.

Has every day’s congressional session become like the Super Bowl? Are we all just picking our side to win at any cost? When we watch a sporting event, none of us is rooting for a tie. In fact we have organized our athletic contests in such a way that a tie or draw is impossible, or at least implausible. We want to see a clean-cut victory.

But governing is not a team sport. Yes, we have a two-party system that has become a perpetual election cycle. The Republicans and the Democrats in office are constantly seeking political cover and appealing to the public for approval. Yes, like fans of the Dallas Cowboys or the New England Patriots, the average person identifies with their chosen political party. Indeed, many people proudly wear their affiliation as part of their identity, declaring “I’m a Democrat” (or Republican) as naturally as announcing “I’m a Christian” (or Muslim, or Jew). The problem is that unlike team sports, governing is vital to our existence as a republic. Cuts to safety net programs will have real consequences to real people. Defaulting on our financial obligations will have real consequences — not just for Americans but on a global scale. Failing to address 9.2 percent unemployment will slow the recovery of our economy and prolong the pain felt by the majority of the working class and poor.

Still the game continues in Washington.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made his position clear long ago when he stated his top priority was making Barack Obama a one-term president. Any doubt that politics still outweighs policy for this man was put to rest this week as he scrambled to lay down cover for the Republicans. He even proposed allowing Obama to raise the debt ceiling independent of congressional approval in order to placate the Tea Party base while avoiding a default that could be devastating to the economy. Apparently, McConnell realizes that as the fallout of inaction impacts every American it will be obvious that stonewalling by Republicans puts them squarely to blame.

McConnell warned Republicans that default would make the GOP co-owners of a bad economy and would help Obama win reelection in 2012. Of course, this political cover only works if the American people ignore the fact that a Republican administration ushered in the bad economy the U.S. is currently struggling with. We also have to ignore that although Republican House Speaker John Boehner came to power calling for job creation, the Republicans have not introduced a single bill that would create domestic jobs. Who can blame them? It’s hard to run on economic recovery in 2012 if the unemployment rate starts falling and people begin to see that they are, in fact, better off than they were four years ago.

It is also clear to me that the White House and Congress are unlikely to reach a deal that would accomplish anything meaningful. The president has put programs like Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block (against the will of his Democratic base) to secure a deal that includes revenue increases. Unfortunately, Republicans bound to a Grover Norquist pledge to avoid tax increases refuse to consider rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy (from 36 percent to the Clinton-era level of 39 percent). They also turned down the repeal of a tax break for owners of private jets on the same principals. To be fair, Mr. Norquist doesn’t deserve all the credit. The greed of wealth and Corporate America still traps both parties in a stranglehold that leaves them impotent to enact policy that benefits any but their benefactors.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope that President Obama is right when he insists that the majority of the American people (Republicans included) want to see a balanced approach to our economic woes. I hope that the average citizen cares more about the consequences of partisan politics than about seeing their team win a battle of power. I hope that democratic representation returns to our republic’s governing bodies. I hope that “We the People” start to again matter to our representatives as more than mere votes in the next election.

I agree with Obama

2011-07-23T09:35:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 21
, 2011.

If one were to read Keith’s column without a clear knowledge of history, one would have to conclude that the era of partisan politics began in the fall of 2008 when the American Electoral College declared Barack Hussein Obama the President of the United States of America. Many, like Keith, believe the Republican party has been having a hissy fit since then. They see the GOP acting as petulant adolescents, opposing everything Obama proposes merely for the sake of opposition.

I suppose Keith, and others who believe as he does, would prefer a nation where one party rules and the other just sits back and nods in agreement. Perhaps that would make for a peaceful news hour, where rhetoric and politics would melt away and choruses of Kumbaya could be heard from the House floor, but I contend it would make for terrible policy. If you doubt me, just think of other nations who have that “peaceful” air of one-party rule, where none dare to utter a word in opposition, where dissent is met with handcuffs and a one-way ticket to a re-education camp.

I would remind Keith, and others who believe as he does, that our nation was born in a spirit of passionate debate. Our founders recognized the fact that truth and progress usually lie somewhere between two polar opposites. In fact, most of the greatest accomplishments and reforms in our nation’s history have come only after many hours of rancorous debate.

However, in the spirit of spreading some goodwill and compromise in this current battle over extending our nation’s debt limit, I am hereby proclaiming my agreement with a Democratic senator. When I read this man’s words, I immediately concurred with his points. Knowing that words can sometimes be taken out of context, I actually did the due diligence of searching the Congressional Record and read the actual transcript. The following are his words copied and pasted from the Congressional Record of the 109th Congress, dated March 16, 2006 on pages S2238 and S2239:

“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

I said “Amen, brother, preach it!” He went on to add even more:

“…the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans – a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”
Another “Amen!” from me. Then he went even further:  “Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Of course, that senator’s name was Barack Obama – but that was the Obama of 2006 – not the Obama of 2011, just as the Obama of 2008 opposed the surge of Iraq, until the Obama of 2009 ordered the surge of Afghanistan, but I digress.
Keith followed the party line of the Democrats and the tired class warfare tactic of blaming owners of corporate private jets for taking advantage of a tax deduction that was signed into the stimulus package contrived by President Obama and Geithner. The tax deduction merely allows accelerated depreciation for new jet purchases and its repeal would have diminished our deficit by a whopping $3 Billion over ten years! In other words, it is 0.075% of the deficit spending this year alone! Yeah, baby, let’s get that tax deduction repealed even though it has been credited with increasing sales of domestic aircraft by 43% and has pumped $2 Billion into the economy and saved American jobs.

It has often been the tactic of the Democrats to portray the Republicans as favoring the rich, the corporations and the military, while they themselves come across as compassionate and caring for the middle and lower classes. This latest battle over the debt limit merely perpetuates both myths.

The facts are clearly stated in the above quote from Barack Obama of 2006: raising the debt limit without reducing spending is irresponsible “…it is a failure of leadership, and it is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

I couldn’t have said it better. 

Why Libya? Why not Syria? Why Yemen?

2011-07-19T06:18:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 7, 2011.

As I watched our president’s latest press conference, I was intrigued by his response to a question from a reporter who asked him about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. I will not go as far as Mark Halperin went in his description of President Obama’s demeanor (for the story on his comment, follow this link: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/msnbc-suspends-mark-halperin-obama-remark-145819640.html), but I will say that he was less-than-congenial and that he was very defensive of his position. He claimed that the War Powers Act did not apply to the situation in Libya (our drones are dropping bombs, our planes are flying sorties, our military personnel are involved in strategy and our warships are sending rocket attacks toward a specified target and we have declared a mission that involves the removal of a foreign leader), does not rise to definition of war, therefore he does not need to answer the question about the constitutionality of the legislation that every other president since Nixon has had to deal with.

According to President Obama, war is not war unless our soldiers are “in harm’s way”. (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/169043-obama-dismisses-libya-fuss-congress-as-political-game-playing). Right. And according to Bill Clinton, sex was not sex unless…but I digress.

As we examine the reasons for our “involvement” in Libya and our reluctance to get involved in similar uprisings and reprisals in Syria, Yemen and the Saudi peninsula, we have to ask our leaders the right questions. Why Libya? Why not Syria? Why Yemen? Why not the Sudan?

The answers to those questions are important and the American people deserve a better answer than President Obama gave in his press conference.

If our mission in Libya is to protect citizens from a despotic and malicious ruler who is brutally murdering civilians simply because they are protesting his policies, then we must also send missiles and drones into Syria, where, according to the latest reports from the Associated Press, more than 1,400 rights activists have been slaughtered by government forces under the direction of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Why have we basically ignored the situation there?

In Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, where poverty and unemployment rates both top 50%, protesters have been marching in the capital city of Sanaa since January, demanding jobs, education and social services. Their demands have been met with gunfire directed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh, killing hundreds of civilians. What has our State Department done in that situation? Did they rush in with humanitarian aid and missile strikes against Saleh’s palaces as we did in Libya?

The answer to the above question is yes and no. Yes, we sent Predator drones, missiles and rockets into Yemen. And yes, we have CIA operatives and Special Forces on the ground there. However, it is not quite the way you think.

You see, in Yemen, the Obama administration has decided to back the Saleh regime in this civil conflict. We have been carrying on military operations in another foreign nation, plotting assassinations, identifying targets and killing civilians – and all of this without congressional consultation or approval or the knowledge of the American people. Meanwhile, our news media finds the Casey Anthony trial worthy of 24-7 coverage! So much for the Fourth Estate!

Please read the following quote from author, Niall Green, writing for World Socialist Web Site, on June 17, 2011 (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/yeme-j17.shtml).

Though Washington has been secretive about the extent of its operations, there are reports in the US and Arab media of an increased use of US air strikes in southern Yemen, with six alleged Al Qaeda militants killed in such attacks over the past month.

One such air strike led to the killing of an alleged mid-level Al Qaeda militant in the country last week. The Obama administration is also attempting to assassinate US citizen Anwar Awlaki, a Muslim cleric believed to be living in Yemen, accused of playing a leading role in the group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

There are reports of US Special Forces troops on the ground in Yemen providing intelligence for air strikes and carrying out assassinations of alleged Islamist militants. The Obama administration has denied that any US troops are involved in active operations in the country, but has acknowledged that some armed forces personnel are engaged in providing weapons, advice and training to Yemeni counterterrorism forces.

I agree that this source should be verified with additional sources, but the overall point is clear:

Our foreign policy is a muddled mess of conflicting signals and inconsistencies. We have troops and ongoing military operations in several Arab nations. Our “limited kinetic operation” (as Obama calls it) is looking much like an incremental war as France has begun supplying weapons to the rebels, which, if Khaddafi succeeds in overthrowing them – unless we step up our efforts with “boots on the ground” – will undoubtedly be used against us and our European allies when Khaddafi retaliates, as he has recently vowed to do.

I believe we should re-evaluate all of our missions. If there is no direct threat to our national security, we should not be involved. Our military is not a humanitarian agency – it is a killing machine. Most of these Arab nations have been fighting tribal conflicts since biblical times. We cannot pick and choose sides and expect to foster democracy in an area where loyalty to sects is more powerful than the urge for freedom.

I know Keith will accuse me of changing my stripes and of being inconsistent. Perhaps I am guilty of those charges, but apparently I have company in the White House when we consider the inconsistency of the man who once thought one war was too many; now, he seems to think three are not enough.

A Consistent Foreign Policy

2011-07-19T05:57:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 7, 2011.

My brother Gordon and I agree on one point in his column. I do see the views he expressed as a change of stripes and inconsistent with his past views. If he keeps those isolationist views – opposing military action for ethical reasons – when a Republican occupies the White House, I’ll withdraw my criticism and welcome him to the world occupied heretofore by my liberal colleagues and myself. I suspect that there will be a shift, though, back to the familiar trappings of Bush doctrine preemptive war to further American interests with little concern for issues of human rights, justice or international law.

Gordon isn’t alone, though, in departures of this type since a Democrat was elected as the leader of the free world. Conservatives who used to characterize those who would criticize the policies of George W. Bush as unpatriotic, are spewing personal vitriol on a daily basis at Barack Obama. A Democratic Congressman would have been crucified for the disrespect of shouting “you lie” as Bush addressed a joint session. A political pundit would not have been so cavalier as to hurl a derogatory term at the President of United States on national television; a term more likely to be reserved for conversation at a local bar. That has been the transformation from civility and I can only hope it returns once the power shifts to a party of favor.

Of course there is blatant hypocrisy. Gordon was never critical of Bush’s combative tone when dealing with a Democratic Congress. I never heard him judge the casual attitude with which Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the rest of the administration discussed the deployment of America’s sons and daughters into harm’s way. I’m glad to see new concern for the expense of life and treasure we invest in military intervention around the globe. I just hope it is genuine and not a knee-jerk reaction to the policies of the “other” team.

I did advocate the United States’ involvement in the NATO operation in Libya. From everything I could see, the danger of a dictator mowing down his own citizens was a destabilizing element in the region. I am concerned about the political consequences of skirting the War Powers Act and the fallout that might bring. However, there has been considerable legal coverage and Obama has been meeting with a legal team for months before and after the 90-day deadline to ensure he was on firm ground. Do I believe that settles the debate over the constitutionality of the action? No. Do I believe that there will be those who will use the lack of formal approval as ammunition? I do.

Gordon’s reference to a socialist blog that discusses specific clandestine missions in the region, at the same time he claims that Obama is reluctant to get involved in similar situations to Libya’s, is really irrelevant. The United States military and the arms of its intelligence organizations have historically and continually engaged in covert missions. These missions by their very definition are secret and have a close circle of officials who are privy to that information. These operations are often reviewed by congressional committees charged with security, defense and intelligence, but they are not brought to Congress for its approval.

I have been concerned with our recent and frequent use of drones and other unmanned weaponry that allows us to execute brutal warfare with precision, and also with the comfort and relative coldness of distance. We had been engaging terrorists and assassinating key personnel constantly during the Bush administration, and are continuing through Obama’s. The CIA operations on the ground in Pakistan were instrumental in the execution of the Osama bin Laden Navy Seal mission. I have severe reservations about much of this and do not support many of the missions in which our men and women engage, but it is consistent with United States military policy.

There were differences in the circumstances of Libya that made action to prevent further killing of protesting civilians a viable solution, when similar action elsewhere was not. The NATO operation had the support of the United Nations, and Arab nations in the region were giving it a nod. A strong coalition of nations signed on to help impose and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. There were both international and U.S. interests at stake.

Also, despite the implication by my fellow columnist that the Obama administration rejected the interests of Israel (June 9, 2011, Broader View Weekly), Obama respected Israel’s wishes by not acting in Syria. The chaos of regime change in Syria could destabilize Lebanon and threaten Israel. Therefore Israel has been urging caution. For better or worse (more often worse, I fear) the United States and Israel have their wagons hitched together.

I think we need to reevaluate our military involvements. I think we should view each mission through lenses that account for ethical concerns as well as those of justice and international law. Our policies should be consistent, which would also be comforting to other nations who share our interests, and not bend to the winds of party politics.

The Real Reasons for Slow Recovery

2011-07-19T05:45:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 23, 2011.

Last week former GOP House Speaker and apparent 2012 Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich referred to the current economic downturn as the “Obama Depression”. It was an effective sound bite and popular with the conservative media and with the rabid right of the Republican base. Tea Partiers and disgruntled conservatives, angry at Obama and seeking any justification for their visceral disdain ate it up. Radio personalities Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh used identical talking-point phrases to imply that the U.S. is headed for a “double dip recession – some say ‘depression’”.

But few people other than those with an agenda tied to economic failure under President Barack Obama’s auspice believe that a second wave of recession is likely. And no one paying attention to the economic indicators is taking the word “depression” seriously. Even the right’s exalted Wall Street Journal discounted reports of a potential relapse. In the article “What it Would Take to Do a Double Dip”, Justin Lahart made the case that it would “take a significant shock to knock the economy off course”.

In all the talk of economic recovery – especially in the conservative media and blogosphere – it is easy to lose sight of the economic facts surrounding the issue. It is true that unemployment remains at nine percent and recovery is moving slower than expected or desired. But blaming Obama for the slow growth ignores factors outside his policies.

One important consideration is that this is not Obama’s recession. The collapse of the financial market, bursting of the housing bubble and decline of industry are the results of decades of failed economic policy, spanning the Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush administrations, and culminating in the deepest recession in years.

Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Washington’s lopsided policies have benefited the nation’s corporate and elite wealthy, while shortchanging the working poor and the middle class. Through subsidies, deregulation, tax breaks and other legislation the government has feathered the nests of Corporate America at the expense of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren – without demanding a return on that investment in the form of job and industry growth.

A recent report illustrates the fact that George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy “have exacerbated the trend of widening income inequality, accompanied the worst economic expansion since World War II, and turned budget surpluses into deficits.” The Economic Policy Institute released a June 1 report titled “Tenth Anniversary of The Bush-Era Tax Cuts: A decade later, the Bush tax cuts remain expensive, ineffective, and unfair”, in which Andrew Fieldhouse and Ethan Pollack listed how the breaks disproportionately benefited the wealthy, while failing to trickle down to the working class and failing to stimulate economic growth. But, even during Bush’s administration, the lack of stimulus was evident as the country hemorrhaged jobs at a rate of 700,000 per month at the end of his presidency.

Of course, my brother Gordon will claim that Obama continued the Bush tax cuts under the advisement of many economists. It is true that he publicly admitted that some economists did recommend extending the tax breaks for the wealthy, but there is little reason to assume he favored the decision. In fact, Democrats and the president were blackmailed into acting against their will by Republicans who were holding the working poor and unemployed hostage at the end of last year.

Despite the insistence that these policies would allow the “job creators” to boost the economy, Corporate Wealth chose instead to invest overseas, outsourcing jobs and devastating industry. Until we begin investing in real job creators – education, tomorrow’s technology, employment opportunities that pay substantive wages, infrastructure that yields long-term benefits – the United States will fall behind other competing nations and the economy will fail to grow.

There are some who believe that Corporate America is conspiring against Democrats and working to stifle economic prosperity for political reasons. It is true that Republicans have a reputation for catering to the corporate agenda, and blaming Democrats for a faltering economy will certainly help the GOP in next year’s elections. It is also true that despite the fact that profits are rising, job creation has remained relatively stagnant. It is conceivable that big business is holding the working poor for ransom in the form of political power.

One need only look at the power that corporate lobbyists have over legislators of both parties to see the immense power they already exert. Instead of bringing forth legislation aimed at creating jobs, Congress remains mired in fights over repealing the health care reform designed to provide coverage for the neediest Americans, and reinstating the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act – bickering that does not benefit those struggling in a weakened economy.

Congress is also preoccupied in a debate over the national debt and the deficit. In the Wall Street Journal article mentioned earlier, Lahart admits that this protracted battle is debilitating to economic growth. Experts feel that the uncertainty of foreign debt, the impact on credit and the potential of default is creating instability in the market.

The Republicans’ emphasis on the budget deficit (when the primary concern of most Americans is the job deficit) is damaging consumer confidence, which in turn slows economic growth.

All of this, of course, plays favorably into the GOP strategy. A weak economy heading into 2012 will only benefit opposition candidates as they seek to present themselves as a positive change. They may need to propose a viable solution to the ails of the current economy, but in the current climate of public opinion the collateral of political rhetoric outweighs hard facts – bumper-sticker slogans trump real legitimate ideas.

At any rate, don’t look for legislation aimed at creating jobs and growing the economy within the next year-and-a-half. Republicans will be hard at work attacking the Democrats for the deficit George Bush worked hard to create, and obstructing any policy designed to aid real hard-working Americans. Democrats will be busy caving to the whims of a Tea Party minority that imposes its will as if it were the majority voice.

We must either eliminate the current two-party system in which both sides are beholden to corporate interests – and which places political ideology ahead of public service – or we must hold our leaders’ feet to the fire and demand adequate representation. The status quo is unsustainable if we ever again wish to compete in the global economy. I fear, however, corporate-driven policy and partisan politics will continue to hinder our weakened economic system.

“There you go again…”

2011-07-19T05:34:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 23, 2011.

After reading Keith’s column, I was reminded of the above quote spoken by Ronald Reagan during the final presidential debate in the election of 1980. Reagan was responding to President Carter’s repeated fallacious attacks upon Reagan’s Medicare proposals. It was seen as a pivotal point in the debate when Reagan showed that Carter was being misleading in his accusations, and it was used again four years later when President Reagan defended himself against Walter Mondale’s equally false charges that Reagan would have to raise taxes the following year. I humbly use it now to reply to my fellow columnist:

Keith, there you go again.

Now normally I would just grin and shake my head when I encounter misstatements and obfuscations in the press or on TV, however, I feel it is my duty to respond to what Keith sees as the “real reasons for slow recovery”.

First of all, Keith claims the economy (and the current longest recession in history) doesn’t really belong to Obama. Keith should get in touch with Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairperson Debbie Wassermann-Schultz and White House Spokesman Jay Carney, because they both claimed ownership of the economy this week.

Jay Carney said: “We all own the economy. We all work together in Washington to devise policies to improve the economic situation.” And “We own the economy. We own the beginning of the turnaround and we want to make sure that we continue that pace of recovery,” – Wasserman-Shulz http://www.commentsonnationalamnesia.com/2011/06/19/democrats-economy-fault/
Second point – if, as Keith claims, the “failed economic policies” of the past decades are to blame for the current malaise, then why haven’t the promised results from Obama’s (successful?) policies brought relief? How many years should we wait for the turnaround?

Apparently, the majority of Americans do not follow Keith’s assessment either. Those polled recently (NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43308329/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/) see the current direction as “on the wrong track” (62%); 54% disapprove of the way President Obama is handling the economy, and over 82% see his policies as “somewhat”, “mainly”, or “solely” responsible for the condition of the economy.

Keith then brought up the reference to Reagan’s presidency as the beginning of the policies which have “feathered the nests of Corporate America at the expense of our children…”. Well, Keith, since you mentioned it, let’s look back at those policies and compare Reagan’s record against Obama’s.

To begin with, Obama inherited a much better economy than did Ronald Reagan. When Carter finished his term, he handed off a 10.8% unemployment rate; inflation was also in double digits as were the interest rates. Poverty was also on the increase – during Carter’s final two years alone, it rose from 11.4 to over 15.2%. Median family income was decreasing and the Dow Jones Industrial Average had lost 70% of its value.

Reagan’s policies initiated an immediate effect upon the economy. In the first 16 months of Reagan’s presidency, unemployment fell from over 10.8% to less than 7.5%, while in the same time frame of Obama’s experimental presidency, unemployment has actually increased. Reagan’s economy created over four million jobs (comparable to six million jobs in our population statistics), and also averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters; the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%.
Need I go on?

Keith continues to blame the Bush tax cuts for the woes of our jobless numbers and budget deficits, and he was right to predict that I would call him out on that, but instead of using the words of Obama (which Keith seems to think were not truly indicative of his real beliefs, hmmm… so does that mean Obama was being disingenuous?) I will use the words of his economic advisor, Peter Orszag, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, who wrote in a New York Times editorial, dated September 6, 2010: “…No one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as planned. Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html)

It is also disingenuous of Keith to blame this mysterious entity called “Corporate America” as the sole source of our nation’s ills, capable of “conspiring against Democrats and working to stifle economic prosperity for political reasons” – as if all these corporations with competing interests for labor, market share and consumer goodwill could or would somehow join together in a smoke-filled chamber somewhere and construct a nefarious plan to cut their own livelihood and profit margins for the sake of putting a Republican in the White House. Yeah, right, it makes perfect sense to me.

A better answer seems to be that “Corporate America” (whoever or whatever that is in Keith’s eyes) is, like the rest of us, waiting and wishing for an economic plan that will work. You know, like the one that worked in 1981.

History Lessons from the Middle East

2011-06-20T06:50:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 9,

2011When a smoldering ember is infused with a fresh breath of oxygen, it usually results in bright flame that can spread to a full-fledged fire if the source of that oxygen remains. It is one of the paradoxical qualities of fire, that it can be a force of warmth, comfort, beauty and useful for preparing food and/or other vital products, and it can also become a scorching, fearsome destructive force that can take lives and wreak havoc.

When President Obama said the “pre-1967 borders” between Israel and Palestine should be considered, when discussing the possibility of peace in that region, he blew a fresh breath of proverbial oxygen onto a smoldering ember of hatred and resentment toward the Jewish state. This simple remark – juxtaposed as it was on the eve of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to our Capital and the White House – ignited a flame that, if not quenched by more reasoned words, could potentially lead to a very destructive conflagration.

When one hears of the “pre-1967” borders, one should look into what exactly those borders were and determine the cause of why those borders changed.

The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, literally, goes back to Old Testament book of Genesis and the prophetic statement made by Yahweh; that the family feud between Isaac’s offspring (Israel) and the offspring of Ishmael (Arab nations) – both sons of Abraham – would continue forever (Genesis chapters 22 – 25). I do not intend to go back that far but I do believe we should at least go back as far as 1967 and revisit the events that led to the alteration of the political landscape that summer.

Egyptian forces were encamped along Israel’s southern borders, Jordanian troops were also poised for attack from the west and north, Syrian forces accompanied by Pakistani aircraft were ready and joined the Egyptians as willing partners, along with the freshly formed and virulently hateful Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The aim of this coalition of Arab nations was total annihilation of the infant state of Israel.

When Egypt’s Nassar shut down the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping in the last week of May, 1967, it was, in essence, an act of war. Israel responded with a pre-emptive strike and an historic military campaign that stands alone in world history as one of the most brilliant and well-conducted operations ever mounted in a nation’s self defense against hostile forces. Within six days (June 5 – June 10) Israel had captured all of the Sinai Peninsula and extended her borders into Jordan, Palestine and Syria.
Most of the lands and territories captured during those days in early June of 1967 have since been relinquished by the Israelis in exchange for promises of peaceful coexistence. However, the aim of those in Palestine who are, to this day, still sending rockets and sniper fire into Israel, continues to be the annihilation of – not the peaceful coexistence with – the nation of Israel.
The PLO and Hamas (the terrorist organization recognized as a legitimate political party in Palestine) still refuse to recognize the statehood of Israel and until that recognition is established, it matters little what President Obama says or how eloquently he says it. Peace will not come to that area, even if Israel reverts back to pre-1948 borders.

We should bear in mind that this conflict is not about territories or settlements. It is about the right to exist without fear of sniper bullets or suicide bombers or rocket fire. Israel faces these fears each and every day. Many Arabs live and move freely within the borders of Israel. No acts of hatred and violence threaten their commerce or sleep. However, very few Jews dare to risk their lives by moving into Palestine.

President Obama was right to say: “For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa)

However, he was wrong – or misled – when he said, in the same speech: “I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past.” (ibid)

Current events (the evidence of Iranian support for Hamas’ continued terrorist activity aimed at Israel) and the fact that Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas has made several public statements that he does not recognize the state of Israel as legitimate, prove that the majority of Palestinians are indeed looking to the past. “I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land,” Abbas declared in a recent interview. Israel is home to a sizable proportion of Arab citizens, who have the vote and are represented by Arab parties in the Knesset. (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-another-palestinian-precondition_30.html)

President Obama should know the Palestinian authorities are not merely looking back to 1967, they seek to return to 1947, when there was no official state of Israel.

Perspective is Everything

2011-06-20T06:47:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 9, 2011

When judging President Barack Obama’s policy toward the continuing unrest between Israel and Palestine, it is important to approach the situation with an honest perspective. It’s true that a historical context is helpful, but it is dangerous to focus on biblical prophecy, especially when two Abrahamic religions claim the same territorial birthright. It is also dangerous to view Israel as an innocent victim of Palestinian aggression.

Furthermore, it is counterproductive to mischaracterize Obama’s speech as a betrayal of an ally while ignoring important points.

The president chastised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for attempting to persuade the United Nations to recognize Palestine while delegitimizing Israel. He said “symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.” Still, the right-wing of conservative punditry called the speech a slap in Israel’s face and a giveaway to Palestine.

The right also treated Obama’s two-state solution as an unprecedented stance. The fact of the matter is that it was not a ground-breaking departure from U.S. policy with regards to the region. In fact, the Washington Institute think tank has already published maps outlining swaps in an effort to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Oddly enough, Obama’s predecessor had proposed similar concessions years before. In a speech in June of 2002 Bush said, “Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.”

To me that sounds an awful lot like Obama’s statement: “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

It may be true that religious hostility is at the core of the conflict. However, resigning to a prophetic impasse is not only an impediment to viable solutions, it reinforces a mindset that continues to mire the Middle East in the perils of jihad and holy war. And, since certain Christian fundamentalist sects believe that a sovereign nation of Israel is a prerequisite for end-times events, a large number of Americans (including many in military and governmental leadership positions) have an unrealistic perspective of the conflict.

History doesn’t show Israel as an innocent victim of Arab aggression, seeking only its self-defense. The timeline is peppered with pre-emptive strikes on Arab states, denial of rights and humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, and violence. Indeed, last month over a dozen Palestinian protestors (commemorating the war of 1967) were gunned down, and another handful were killed in demonstrations last weekend. Scores more were wounded in the incidents. Ignoring Israel’s aggressions and painting Palestinians as wholly responsible for the unrest is dangerous.

These recent protests illustrate the urgency of the situation, and provide important context for Obama’s treatment of the conflict in his Middle East speech. The Arab spring which is waxing into the Arab summer has changed the dynamic in the region. Israelis and Palestinians find themselves in the center of a swelling thirst for liberty and freedom. My brother Gordon has implied that Obama is fanning the flames of resentment, but other risks are certain. As the fire of self-determination sends sparks scattering across the desert plains, a sense of futility about the prospect of peace and resolution can be incendiary.

Obama brought this perspective into his speech. “At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever,” he said, adding “…The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just one or two leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.”

Resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict is vital to any hope of peace in the Middle East. I have always been critical of the dysfunctional alliance the U.S. and Israel enjoy, but I fully recognize that the United States can be an agent to facilitate resolution. However, our perspective of the situation must be grounded in honest reality, along with the historical context.

Socialism for Corporate Wealth?

2011-06-20T06:44:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, May 26, 2011

Last week, the Senate voted down a bill that would dramatically reduce the federal subsidies that oil corporations receive. This followed a hearing the week before in which CEOs from the big five U.S. oil corporations testified about being treated unfairly and pressured Congress to keep the tax breaks in place.

The subsidies would add about $2 billion to the insane profits big oil has been earning over the past few years. The oil execs claimed to have little effect over gas prices, but the rising prices at the pump have been very good for the oil industry. The industry’s profits in the last decade totaled more than $902 billion. Exxon-Mobil alone has seen profits of $10.7 billion in the first quarter of 2011 (their share of $32 billion industry wide).

There is nothing wrong with earning a profit in the American model of capitalism. However, when we commit federal funds and tax revenue to any industry we should do so responsibly, especially at a time when the focus is on national debt and budget deficits. Not only are Democrats in Congress saying these subsidies are not needed, but oil industry leaders have echoed the sentiment in the past. In February, former president of Shell Oil John Hofmeister said in light of gas prices it was clear that the industry didn’t need incentives in the form of subsidies. Conoco-Phillips CEO Jim Mulva testified specifically in 2005 that with respect to oil and gas production “we do not need incentives.” Of course, Mr. Mulva changed his tune a bit a couple of weeks ago. His company may not need incentives to drill, but it sure wants the added income.

The fact of the matter is that oil companies will explore and drill where the oil supply is. This is as it always has been and always will be. The same is true of all energy-related industry. Locally, we see state and municipal officials pushing for subsidies and provisions for natural gas exploration even as it is clear that the companies are coming. They will explore and drill and hydrofracture where the supply is, regardless of incentives. So if the net result is the same without the subsidies as with them, then the lost revenue is merely a government handout to companies that can do just fine without it.

This type of big government federal spending is abhorrent to conservatives when it benefits the poor or the working class. Entitlements meant to help those struggling day-to-day in a depressed economy that has left many financially strapped or downsized out of a job is seen as socialism. Interestingly, the corporate wealthy who are riding high on a wave of prosperity brought about by high gas prices are seen as needy by those same conservatives.

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, who has wrongly accused President Barack Obama and his administration of being socialist and anti-business (look at Obama’s record regarding corporate America, as well as his pick of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head his council on Jobs and Competitiveness), has defended oil subsidies. When the bill to end the handouts was introduced, Limbaugh danced verbally around the subject trying to make the case that since the oil industry had to spend billions of dollars in investments in exploration and preparation before drilling and production can begin, the subsidies were merely a way to recoup that cost. Every corporation in every industry has such expenditure in research and development of method, process or operation. These operation costs are not offset by federal handouts and shouldn’t be offset for the oil industry either.

The flip-flop on big oil is a remarkable contrast to Limbaugh’s sentiment regarding corporate stimulus and measures intended to ease the financial crisis, or the impact of the recession on the automobile industry. Limbaugh still calls General Motors a government-owned entity (despite its recent public stock offerings) and ignores the relative success GM has seen over the last couple of years. At least the stimulus funds are being repaid to the government and can be applied to the deficit.

Rush is not alone in contradiction to conservative values. Tea Party candidates who ran on reducing government spending and the national debt seem to be happy to give away the farm to the oil industry. It is becoming increasingly clear that the concerns of the working class, grass roots movement that propelled these candidates in the elections of 2010 take a back seat to the concerns of corporate America and the wealthiest two percent (who have seen their tax breaks protected regardless of budget shortfalls).

Paying $4 per gallon at the gas station is painful enough for most of us. When we see the giants of the oil industry profiting from our misery, it inspires rage against those powerful companies. But that’s not the reason why subsidies must end.

A pragmatic approach to the situation reveals that eliminating those subsidies will have little impact on gas prices. Market speculation, industry collusion and price control will continue to be the factors that set pump prices. However, the elimination of subsidies will not impact the drilling and production of oil in the United States. If we espouse free market values as part of our capitalist model we must be consistent to those values.

What are the facts about those oil “subsidies”?

2011-06-20T06:40:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, May 26, 2011

It is always interesting to me when I see inconsistencies in a person’s philosophy and selective outrage in their responses to certain issues. Apparently my fellow columnist finds inconsistencies just as interesting. However, a more careful reading of Keith’s column would reveal that the “inconsistencies” in the conservative ranks as it regards the issue of subsidies to the oil industry are not inconsistent at all and are, in fact, aligned with the overall tenets of free market capitalism as Keith suggests we should be in his final sentence.

Before I address Keith’s final sentence, I believe I should address some facts that are not being clearly reported by our media (surprise?) in the coverage of government subsidies in general and the oil industry in particular.

First of all, the bill produced by the Senate, which the sponsors knew would be nothing more than a political exercise to cast a shiny lure toward a fish-brained public who seem too eager to swallow any half-truth about the current bogeyman of the left, was never intended to limit government spending or to lower the price of gas at the pumps. Even some of their own party members realized the bill would have been counterproductive to growing our economy.

“Why are we harming an industry — five large oil and gas companies that work internationally, that employ 9.2 million people in the United States directly?” asked Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. “Why are we doing it?” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/politics/18congress.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

The narrow application – it was only aimed at the big five oil companies, namely: BP, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips – would have amounted to singling out one specific industry for elimination of tax deductions (they are not really subsidies) that all other manufacturers and industries enjoy.

For example, the bill would have taken away the Domestic Manufacturing Tax Deduction – something every industry receives in an effort to keep factories and jobs in the US. It would have also eliminated the Foreign Tax Credit – again, a tax credit every other company –and individual – receives when they pay taxes to foreign countries, in essence, it would be paying taxes on taxes.

These and the other tax deductions would have only netted $21 Billion to the Federal budget over TEN YEARS – essentially less than the $2 Billion/year President Obama is willing to loan to another oil company to SUBSIDIZE OFFSHORE DRILLING. Yes, that is correct! Obama is proposing that taxpayers subsidize (truly) the oil exploration and drilling off the coast of…BRAZIL! By sending money to a state-owned oil company – Petrobras in Brazil - we see a true subsidy and a true inconsistency!

Now, while we are dealing with facts, I believe it is worthwhile to expose a few forgotten or underreported realities about the oil industry in particular and free market economics in general.

I have long held the opinion that the use of government subsidies – not merely offering tax deductions or tax credits – is a clumsy and inefficient means to regulate the economy. By its very makeup – it must try to portray itself as objective and equitable in its assistance - the government is forced to create a bureaucratic monstrosity and convoluted pathway that sucks the life out of every dollar it distributes, making it a weakened - and sometimes even a diseased - source of revenue for the recipient.

Another reason to oppose subsidies is that industries, like people, will become dependent upon the artificial source of income and once dependent, like the animals in a zoo, they will become incapable of procuring necessary nutrition on their own. We have seen this in agricultural subsidies, educational subsidies and other price and/or market controls.

When we pull up to the gas pumps and watch those dollars fly by a rate four times faster than the gallons it is easy to aim our anger toward the name of the big oil company on the sign. So, what should we do about it?

Well, I suppose we could start our own oil company. Of course, that would take a lot of money. Just to get the permits and weave our way through the jungle of environmental regulations would require a team of lawyers and engineers working around the clock, then we would have equipment costs and research and development and I suppose we would eventually have to hire employees and supply them with incentives such as health care and after all that we would need to spend some money on advertising and then we would finally have to pay more than our fair share of corporate taxes - oil companies pay an average (as a share of net income before taxes) of 41.1% compared to 26.5% for other S&P industries – and then we would have to pay royalties and lease payments to the federal government or private landowners – oil companies have paid more than $100 Billion to the federal government since 2000, or over $85 Million/day!

Or we could just pay the $4.00/gallon and be thankful we have a free market system (for now) that keeps us away from the price paid by drivers in London or Germany (well over $8/gallon) where the governments try to manipulate more people to depend on the public transportation treadmill and take away consumer choice.

Deliver us from Evil: Justice to Bin Laden

2011-05-12T08:32:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, May 12, 2011

History is filled with examples of very evil men who have acquired power and then used it for malevolent purposes. These same men have used their powerful positions to shield themselves from the normal means of justice. But justice eventually comes to even the most shielded.

We have, in the past few years, seen the rightful demise of several evil characters. The image of a scraggly, humiliated Saddam Hussein being pulled from a filthy pit by our Marines is still fresh in my mind. We have just recently seen Hosni Mubarak ousted from his former position of glory and excess, by his former subjects, and a comparable fate awaits Qaddafi in Libya. We can look a little further back in time and recall similar scenes, as Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Mao Tse -Tung, Pol Pot and others rose to great heights of depravity and then fell in dramatic fashion.

Now we can see another vivid example of an evil man’s breath being extinguished from our planet. When the news of Osama bin Laden’s execution was broadcast to the world by President Obama, some people felt compelled to celebrate with flag waving and patriotic chants. I can understand their jubilation even though it seems a bit morbid and unbecoming of a civilized and moral people; we must recognize the truth of Obama’s statement that the world is indeed a safer place with certain evil persons removed from it.

That being said, I think it is important to look at this event in a broader context and to see what lessons we can learn.

First of all, I think we should realize that while the world is safer, it is not now nor will it ever be completely safe from evil. Evil will be with us always because as long as men rule other men the corrupting influence of power will inevitably lead to evil actions. Despite the best efforts of legislators or leagues of nations, someone will rise to take the place of bin Laden, Mubarak, Saddam, Hitler, etc. So then, what should we do? Should we just drop our hands, sigh a sigh of resignation and accept it as fate? I say NO. We should redouble our efforts to seek out the dens and lairs of these evil men and use every available means to frustrate their plots of mayhem. As we have seen, good does triumph over evil in the end, because good people carry a sense of justice and duty that evil men shun.

Furthermore, we should realize that killing a killer is not only justified by rules of war, it is actually an ethical and moral duty. Men like bin Laden cannot be rehabilitated or reasoned with, nor can they be appeased with acts of conciliation. They must be eliminated. Evil men who have gleefully and with forethought (months, years and millions of dollars spent in forethought) plotted and carried out the destruction of civilians have polluted their souls to the point beyond which laws can reach or cleanse. It is a sad fact but a fact nonetheless.

Which brings us back to that ticklish (I know, poor choice of words there) topic of “enhanced interrogation methods”. This topic was covered almost two years ago (May 19, 2009) in my column in which I stated that Pelosi and company (including Attorney General Eric Holder and other members of the Obama cabinet) sought legal action against the members of the Bush administration who ordered these tactics against the captured terrorists in Gitmo.

My point then, as now, is that these tactics do not diminish us as a nation of laws and moral rules of conduct. As stated above, I believe it is ethical and moral to administer pain and suffering and loss of civil rights to a few guilty individuals if it prevents further pain and suffering and loss of life to a greater majority. The charge to our leaders is to protect their citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to carry out that charge it is sometimes necessary to use covert intelligence gathering, deliberate and sustained interrogation of captives in secret locations and sometimes to even infiltrate the sovereign soil of another nation without their invitation or assistance for the purpose of eliminating a threat to our national security.

The ironic point about the taking of bin Laden being done on President Obama’s command is so stark as to be almost comical. If you believe in Divine Providence (as I do) and if you believe that He has protected our nation and heeded our prayers to “deliver us from evil”, you have to wonder if He didn’t plan to deliver us during the presidency of the man who campaigned against the very practices that made this deliverance a possibility.

Think about it and smile. The evil one is vanquished. Our citizens have been spared. More information has been received. Our morals and ethics have survived because we have done the greater good.

Credit Where Credit is Due

2011-05-12T08:28:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, May 12, 2011

My brother and I disagree about many issues. Unless one has avoided any medium with any bias or editorial slant (which lately would require a complete boycott of television, radio, print and Internet), it is no surprise that a far-left liberal like myself and a right-wing conservative like Gordon would have vastly different opinions about the recent killing of Osama bin Laden. Although there is some common ground there are several points on which we stand at odds. I’ll discuss only a few.

The word “evil” is an emotionally charged term, which makes for effective rhetoric. Former President George W. Bush’s classification of an “Axis of Evil” was used to manipulate the fear and rage upon which much of his administration’s foreign policy was based. Calling his hit list of terror suspects “evildoers” helped him sway public opinion toward unconventional tactics in much the same way as fans of the television show “24” are programmed to support Jack Bauer’s extreme techniques.

But the word “evil” falls short of telling the full story. It eliminates the factors of motivation and justification, which are elements of the human psyche. The nuances are far too complex to cover in the limited space of editorial content, but the implications are important to note. We must realize that as heinous as bin Laden’s crimes are, he didn’t characterize them as evil. Just as madmen before him and those currently plotting and committing atrocities, bin Laden justified his actions as beneficial to a greater good.

Now, I do believe that justice was done on Sunday, May 1, when bin Laden’s countless victims were vindicated at the hands of brave Navy Seals. He willfully murdered thousands and sought to orchestrate the deaths of many more. His trial has been held publicly over the past 15 years and his confessions and other damning evidence is incontrovertible. However, merely labeling him “evil” oversimplifies the issue.

Ignoring motivation and justification is dangerous, most of all, in judging our own actions. When we accept “any means” of warfare or interrogation by speaking in terms of ourselves as the “good” guys versus the “evil” others, we tread on perilous ground. In a heated battle we can see the benefit of using chemical or biological warfare in order to save lives or even protect our shores. Even if the use of such extreme measures were proven reliable and efficient, their use is immoral (as well as illegal by international standards). But the U.S. holds itself to an even higher ethical standard that precludes such actions. That is why, throughout our history, we have eschewed the use of torture. Even if it were proven to produce good actionable intelligence, our collective soul would be tarnished by a violation of our own ethical standards. Or so it was, until the Bush administration, when we sanitized extreme tactics in terms of “enhanced techniques” and began to ask intelligence officers and soldiers to torture captives in our name. Those responsible for taking us down that slippery slope should be investigated, and held accountable.

There is still much to learn about the path to bin Laden, but so far there is little evidence to show that torture techniques led to the courier and then to his end. In fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was tortured extensively, downplayed the significance of the courier and gave information that would have set the CIA on a wild goose chase. So we shouldn’t be so quick to use bin Laden as a case for dropping an investigation. It’s a weak argument, regardless of what Fox News says.

I understand why Gordon failed to give President Obama the credit for the decision to move on Osama bin Laden. With 2012 looming large on the horizon, the last thing Republicans want to admit is that a Democrat is anything but weak on foreign policy. It’s a tired and tattered banner, but one that has been waved proudly for decades. And it has worked fairly well in the past. But seeing it trotted out on stage at the Republican mock debate last week was kind of pathetic in light of the news splashed over the entirety of media.

I’d even heard Bush receiving the credit, which is ironic since he admitted that he didn’t really “spend that much time” thinking about bin Laden. That was obvious when, early in his second term, he closed the bin Laden intelligence unit at the CIA. Two missed opportunities in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan had even military and administration officials scratching their heads, and many thinking “conspiracy”. Osama bin Laden did make an excellent bogeyman all these years.

I have to admit, though, that my fellow columnist’s approach was the most interesting I’d heard. He attributed the deliverance of bin Laden to the benevolent hand of God. I would smile wider if that hand had stayed the terrors of 9/11, and the tragic loss of life in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Class Warfare

2011-04-28T10:50:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 28, 2011

A couple of weeks ago, my brother Gordon sent me an email that asked a specific question. The headline read “How high should we tax the rich?” In the message he implied that I saw all wealthy as “evil” and sought to punish them for their prosperity. That is an unfair characterization of me and of the large plurality of Americans who poll in favor of requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share.

Gordon’s premise was that no matter how high we set the tax rate for the rich, the increased revenue would fall short of addressing the deficit and national debt. His claim was that it would only meet 10 percent of the federal deficit. Well, his math is a bit skewed because it uses IRS “earnings” figures, which fail to allow for all the sources of wealth the wealthy enjoy. It also wasn’t the first time that I had come across this particular mathematical argument. It has been making the talk radio rounds for the past few weeks as conservatives are attacking President Obama and calling speeches defending his budgetary strategy a “Soak the Rich” tour. Rush Limbaugh laid out the scenario that even if you “confiscated” 100% of the wealthy’s income (a one-time deal, in his mind, because then it’s gone), it would fall short of resolving the deficit of the current year. Well, nobody is proposing a 100% tax rate for the wealthy, but all of this detracts from the real forces at play here.

At the core of our nation’s economic problems (at least for the 99 percent of Americans profoundly impacted by the recession), is a class war that has been going on for decades, nearly unchecked by those in power (regardless of their political party affiliation). There is a systemic agenda to distribute wealth from the bottom to the top, which is intended to maintain and grow an enormous gap between the wealthiest among us and the poor. Through legislative policy, tax codes and funding for services like education and job creation the middle class has been shrunk to near extinction and the poor have been devastated.

Corporate influence in Washington (and even at the state and local levels) has gotten so out of control that every politician from the freshman congressman, to the senior senator, to the President of the United States is beholden to corporate interests. During the debate, which resulted in the current crippled health care plan, conservatives adamantly opposed the proposal out of selfish motivation (“I’m not paying for your coverage”). However, an enemy just as big was the fact that health care represents a third of the U.S. economy. Private insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and other health industry powers exerted enormous influence over the process and the imperfect product that emerged. Of course, conservatives and Tea Partiers are intent on repealing the law and stripping from it any benefits that still exist.

I am not interested in punishing the wealthy with taxation. I don’t even demonize CEOs and executives who receive obscene bonuses and salaries at a time when the rest of us are struggling to put food on our tables and gas in our cars. But I absolutely don’t subscribe to the theory that tax cuts at the top stimulate the economy in a way that benefits everyone. The trickle-down lie upon which Reaganomics was based is still doing its damages to our economy (except to the economic growth of the top earners who have had positive growth even in the midst of deep recession). If we could somehow tie tax breaks as an incentive to create jobs, I would lend my support. But no one from either major party is “seriously” pursuing this.

What I believe is ridiculous is the conservative claim that the deficit is chief among the nation’s problems. If Paul Ryan and the Republicans in Congress were really serious about addressing deficit spending, why are they still fighting for the tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent? And why is Congressman Ryan seeking even greater tax giveaways to the wealthy while asking the middle class and the poor to make sacrifices? The answer is clearer than it appears. Corporate corruption of the democratic process in the United States feeds itself.

Budgets are increasingly being used to feed the rich and starve the poor. Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare (among other dastardly provisions of his “Path to Prosperity” – for the prosperous) will benefit private insurance on the backs of seniors and others who will end up paying out-of-pocket money they can’t afford for substandard coverage. State budgets across the country are being used to wage war on public workers and other working class individuals, while refusing to even ask corporations to share sacrifice.

Voucher programs like the Ryan Medicare proposal have been used for years to dress cuts in programs in seemingly innocuous terms. Vouchers for education have been used to drain money from public school systems and funnel it into the private sector. As education is increasingly under fire, vouchers, charter schools and funding cuts will be commonly used as tools to bankrupt public education and further disadvantage the poor. All of this is part of the systemic shift currently building the abysmal U.S. wealth gap.

There is no attack on the nation’s rich, but there is undeniably an attack on the working poor. One only need listen to conservative punditry to get a sense of the disdain the conservative movement holds for the poor. Limbaugh, last week, expressed his extreme dismay that 47% of Americans pay no taxes. The premise of that show’s bloviation was that the nanny state had created half a nation of lazy citizens, happy to rest on their laurels and have the wealthy pay their way. The sneering tone was nauseating, but not nearly as sickening as his disregard for the corporate bias and systemic corruption that has created the ranks of poor who don’t earn enough to pay taxes.

I am not interested in punishing the “evil” rich, but I will stand proudly in defense of the middle class and poor against an unfair vilification and despicable attack.

We’re all in this together

2011-04-28T10:44:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 28, 2011

It is a curious thing to behold when one follows the current debate being waged in Washington over the 2012 budget and the need to address the ballooning U.S. debt and our ever-increasing deficit spending. It is no surprise that we have differing views about how we should meet this challenge. After all, our system of two-party representative government assures that we will have disparate views on economic policies and almost every other topic. It is also no surprise that neither side will admit or disclose weaknesses or fallacies within their respective position.

The most curious aspect about the debate centers around certain words and ideologies that have been co-opted and/or misappropriated.

For example, if you listen carefully or read carefully, you will notice certain words are almost always grouped together. Take the words “fair share” and “wealthy” – it seems the common misconception being presented here is that the wealthy take a disproportionate amount of government services and return a less than equitable amount back into the treasury. This is the policy being promoted in the current presidential campaign by Barack Obama. He suggests that if we confiscated just a bit more from the top earners in our nation, we could bring down the debt and lower the deficit.

The idea of increasing taxes will not fulfill the purpose of lowering the deficit – even if we could take 100% of all earnings from the top 1% of earners, we would only garner the cost of last year’s health care legislation cost ($968 Billion). Despite what Keith says to the contrary in his article, the figures used represented the net worth of the top 1% and are legitimate. Therefore we must look elsewhere if we really want to stimulate the economy and lower our deficit – and the debt and deficit is a serious inhibitory influence upon our economy, as well as a threat to the future security of our nation’s sovereignty.

At the risk of losing some readers who find statistics and studies to be too much like going to class, I feel I must spend some time explaining why tax cuts will do more to enhance our economic growth and lower our dependence on foreign investors (China) for our operating capital.

There is valid proof that lowering tax rates for all taxpayers does more to stimulate the economy than raising taxes.

First of all, all we have to do is look at the recent news story about how GE (you know, that tiny, multi-national corporation that is run by Obama’s Jobs Czar and buddy, Jeffrey Immelt) paid no corporate taxes this year on its profits of over $14 billion – $5.1 billion from U.S. operations – because they were able to, with the help of over 975 tax experts (cheats) in their tax evasion department, find enough loopholes to squeeze all their profits through the tax code and into the pockets of executives and shareholders. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1)

We see here that increasing tax rates serve to stimulate the economy of the lobbyists and tax lawyers while doing very little to stimulate the general economy,
Conversely, there is much evidence that lowering tax rates across the board – while also sewing up those leaky loopholes (hmmm…sounds like that Paul Ryan “Path to Prosperity”, doesn’t it?) does indeed stimulate the national economy and raise the standard of living for the general populace.

For example, an article written by Alan Reynolds on The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, cites a book, Economic Growth by Robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (MIT Press) which demonstrates how decreasing the marginal tax rates has stimulated the economies of several nations including Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Botswana, Thailand, Ireland, Malayasia, Portugal, Mauritius, and Indonesia. All these countries either had low marginal tax rates to begin with (Hong Kong) or cut their highest marginal tax rates in half between 1979 and 2002. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html)

Now, we have two clear choices before us as this debate goes forward and the 2012 presidential campaign begins in earnest. We can either choose the status quo, represented by President Obama’s rehashing of failed policies (raise taxes and maintain or increase spending levels) or we can “man up”, face the adult facts of life – like the fact that we cannot sustain an economy in which over 41 cents of every government dollar spent goes to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security – and make serious reforms in the system.

In conclusion, listen carefully and skeptically to those who try to separate us into camps according to the Adjusted Gross Income on our 1040’s. In other words, a person’s private property is still private property whether it is measured in hundreds or hundreds of millions. We should realize that we are all Americans and we all benefit from a healthy economy and likewise, we all suffer from a poor economy. History proves that a higher tax rate stifles and inhibits an economy while a lower tax rate puts more capital into the system.

Notes from the Battlefield

2011-04-23T12:00:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 14, 2011

In spite of my opposition to the overuse of militaristic terms to describe things that have no real comparison to the bloody, noisy, messy, pain-filled, stink-of-death reality of genuine warfare, I hope you will indulge me this time as I try to put a perspective on the current debate centered around our federal budget.

It was 150 years ago this week (April 12, 1861) that shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. As we all know (or should know) those shots were followed by many fierce battles that left thousands of bodies of fellow citizens strewn across farm fields and family lawns for four long, brutal years.

As we look back upon that terrible and divisive time we can gain some lessons about what took place recently in our nation’s capital. As with the Civil War, first shots do not determine the final outcome and advances and retreats must be made by each side before victory or defeat is finally registered.

I believe the deal struck between Messrs. Reid, Obama and Boehner late Friday night represents the first shots fired in what will definitely be a long, brutal conflict between two ideological encampments.

On the one side we see those who seem reluctant to acknowledge the danger faced by stifling debts and deficit spending. On the other side we see those who feel compelled to limit the reach of government and to bring spending under control.

The agreement reached late Friday evening represents a historical shift in fiscal direction. For once we are talking about cutting spending rather than increasing spending. The final agreement set the budget of the 2011 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, at $1.049 trillion. That is $39 billion less than was budgeted for 2010 and $79 billion less than President Obama had requested. These figures are less than what I would want in an ideal world, but I recognize the advantage of gaining objectives by incremental steps and I can see larger and more significant battlefields ahead.

It should go without saying that our national debt is a serious threat to our national security and the continued deficit spending cannot be sustained, but if one were to listen to many of the critics of Boehner and his proposal, one would think the lesson needs to be taught over and over again. Any serious attempt to cut back on spending is met with howls of protest from those who somehow believe the problem can be shoved down the road to future generations.

That is why I believe the real budget battles lie ahead as Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity is introduced as the model for the 2012 fiscal year. The serious spending cuts and revolutionary reforms contained in that document may not all make it to the light of day, but at the very least it will spur open debate and any progress it makes toward lowering our deficit will be worthwhile.
While time and space do not allow me to go into detail about his plan, some of the highlights are the following:

_ The plan would cut spending over the next decade by $6.2 trillion from Obama’s budget. This would return Washington’s slice of the economy to its historical average, below 20 percent, rather than Obama’s 23 percent spending floor.
_ Ryan would also eliminate $2.3 trillion in tax hikes, including $800 billion avoided by repealing the unpopular healthcare bill.
_ The “Path to Prosperity” would also combine hundreds of overlapping programs, scrap others, and reform some, such as Medicare. While leaving beneficiaries over age 55 untouched, Ryan’s plan would give future retirees funds to help them purchase their choice of health coverage, rather than one Washington-dictated plan. Similarly, instead of a single federal Medicaid model, governors and state legislators would use federal block grants to serve the diverse needs of poor people in, say, Arizona and Vermont.

“The U.S. government is not running sustained deficits because Americans are taxed too little. The government is running deficits because it spends too much,” Ryan’s plan continues. It adds, “Over the past 40 years, government revenue has averaged between 18 percent and 19 percent of GDP. This level has generally been compatible with prosperity, even though there is broad agreement that the structure of the tax code should be simplified and made more conducive to economic growth, high wages, and entrepreneurship.”

Hence, the Path closes deductions and loopholes and lowers top individual and corporate taxes to 25 percent. This outright tax relief would end America’s 35 percent business levy, the industrial world’s highest. (http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf)

In conclusion, do not be quick to claim victory or defeat for either side at this point. The consequences of last November’s “shellacking” of President Obama and his policies will be forthcoming in several minor skirmishes and we can only hope our nation will come out the better for it just like she came out the better for going through that long, bitter conflict 150 years ago this week.

The Casualties of the Budget Battle

2011-04-23T11:57:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 14, 2011

I agree with my brother Gordon that the fight that ended with a last minute agreement on the April 8th deadline is just the beginning of a long struggle that will only get nastier and more politically charged as the process goes forward.

Even as time and the funding of the government was running out last week; even as the threat of a shutdown that would be most painful for those least able to withstand its effect loomed ominously, negotiations were hijacked by politicians pushing ideological issues like abortion, and climate change. And after the shutdown was averted, Republicans in Congress beholden to conservative Tea Partiers still vowed to withdraw their support for the budget (even though the amount of cuts won through negotiation exceeded the amount originally sought by the GOP).

As the wrangling dragged on and the Republicans held the nation hostage (acting as if they had won both Houses of Congress and the White House in November), it became clearer that the debate over the budget was not about the national debt or reducing the deficit. It was all about posturing for 2012. Not the 2012 Fiscal Year Budget that Paul Ryan’s joke of a plan would make a pretense to address, but the 2012 Presidential election that began last week with Obama’s official campaign kickoff.

The Republican line-up of serious candidates is a bleak showing indeed. One need only note that Donald Trump, whose outrageous “birther” platform is decried by his own party, is second on the 2012 GOP leader board to judge the lackluster pack of presidential hopefuls on the Republican side. The party’s only hope against Obama (who is still scoring high on polls, despite a drop in approval rating) is to rally the existing base without alienating the swing-voters who often decide elections.

More problematic is the fact that Republicans are facing the inevitability of raising the debt ceiling. The Tea Party has already expressed its extreme displeasure at this likelihood. The reality of economics and processes of governing are not likely to appease the disgruntled masses.

Another complication facing Paul Ryan, and those conservatives currently worshiping him with puppydog drooling and heaping praise on him, is the fact that he must now defend the details of his plan.

I have completely lost count of the scores of times that I have heard the Ryan proposal characterized as “serious”. But how can anyone take a deficit reduction plan seriously when it refuses to rein in the tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans? Not only does Ryan’s plan fail to do that, it heaps even more tax cuts on those who least need them, while forcing painful cuts on the poorest among us. It’s little wonder that Republicans are seen as lacking compassion.

There are some serious aspects of the proposed Path to Prosperity (for those already prospering). There are serious flaws in the numbers that Ryan presents in his proposal. Apparently, he turned to the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation for some fuzzy math, that turned out to be funny math. Part of Ryan’s figures rely on an unprecedented and unsubstantiated 2.8 percent unemployment rate. After Ryan had already presented his plan, the Foundation adjusted its figures on unemployment. Among other math errors currently being disputed are tax revenues and housing numbers.

The plan also poses serious impacts to the livelihoods of many Americans. The voucher system that is part of the plan to privatize Medicare would limit the benefits available to seniors as well as threaten them with dramatic reductions in coverage over time that would put strain especially on those with limited fixed incomes. Fixed maximum dollar amounts for coverage of procedures for Medicaid members will prevent many patients from receiving much-needed treatments.

As I look at current and future budget debates in Washington and around the country I am alarmed. I see the casualties that will fall as a result of the brutal battling of politicians seeking public favor above favorable public policy. I see the stark adjectives of human toil reduced to cold numbers as real consequences are discounted. And I see the tangled discourse dwarf all other important news and issues.

In a time when the nation is continuing its long struggle toward economic recovery, the focus is misplaced on the deficit. Of course, we should strive to be fiscally responsible and limit the generational impact of our national debt. But the dearth of jobs nationwide and the trends that continue to exchange good jobs for Walmart jobs is a dire prospect worthy of our attention.

The attack on the middle class is lost in the nightly news graphics of all-caps “SHUTDOWN” and “SHOWDOWN”. One of the most appalling stories last week that registered merely a blip on the media radar was the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice election. This race, between union-busting Governor Scott Walker’s man David Prosser and Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg, smacks of election fraud. The late-Thursday night announcement that enough votes to reverse Kloppenburg’s declared Tuesday win smelled like corruption. While the tomfoolery evident in this case is a threat to the democratic process, it was overshadowed by the coverage of Boehner, Reid and Obama negotiations.

Debate and discourse is vital to democracy, but it should not overpower real issues.

A Reasoned Discussion

2011-03-31T08:41:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 30, 2011

The Middle East region has been difficult to navigate in terms of foreign policy. U.S. oil interests are rich there and a sense of animosity that America has played the aggressor there for its own gain has infected many Arab nations. The United States’ dysfunctional relationship with Israel has added to the difficulty, and mistrust of western agendas is rampant. The recent unrest in Libya has added to the complexity of the dynamic.

Emboldened by the protests in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, citizens and grassroots rebel forces stood for the first time against power-mad dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Retaliation was swift and brutal. Claiming at times that the protestors were drugged by al Qaeda, Gaddafi ordered his troops to fire on the opposition, killing hundreds. As the international community warned Gaddafi of sanctions, he sent air forces to gun down his own people.

During this process, the United States and the United Nations declared an imposed no-fly zone over Libya to protect its citizens. Gaddafi seemed to comply by declaring a cease fire, and then escalated attacks against protesting Libyans.

On March 17, in answer to Gaddafi’s defiance of an earlier resolution, the U.N. authorized use of air strikes to enforce the no-fly zone. The United States, in compliance with our obligations as a member and security council power, led a coalition of international forces, including those of Arab nations, to support this resolution. This enforcement was executed with the use of U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles and collaborative air support.

Now, there is a great deal of criticism over the way the Obama administration handled the crisis, and the process in which the commitment of military force was enacted.

There is definitely a legitimate discussion to be made about any such action. Especially in the sensitive Middle East. I, for one, am as leery of committing military personnel and dollars now as I was during the previous administration. I heard a recent analogy that each missile launched at a building in Gaddafi’s compound or other strategic target represented the cost of our nation’s head start program, which will be cut, under conservative budget proposals. A couple weeks ago, I ranted in this column about the reluctance to cut military spending, while harping about growing national deficits. I stand by that position on military action and I think any time we commit men and women to service we must carefully weigh these and other consequences.

That said, in order for the discussion to move forward responsibly, we must apply standards that transcend political affiliation.
A frustration for me over the past few weeks is the outcry on the right against the way the current administration is handling the situation. The hypocrisy is sometimes surprising in its stark contrast to previous statements and opinions leveled.

Conservatives who were military hawks when George W. Bush was proposing engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are suddenly appalled that we are involved in enforcing the U.N.’s resolution. Those same voices are now dovish and isolationist in their criticism of Obama. While I’m glad to see some restraint militarily, I would have preferred it when Bush II was racing to invade Iraq under the false pretense of non-existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction).

My brother Gordon is in this camp, as is Republican House Speaker John Boehner. He was so up in arms over the way Obama handled the situation, that he issued a public statement and then penned a strongly-worded criticism asking for clarity and a defined goal. It seems that the White House briefing given to Boehner and other congressional leaders would have been the perfect opportunity to ask those questions. Of course, a published letter proclaiming that the sitting president mishandled the affair is much more beneficial politically. It is disturbing that the letter implied that Congress had not been involved at all in the process (and disturbing that the media failed to stress this fact in any way that would dispel the myth).

Boehner’s mention of the cost of the operation was interesting given the Republicans’ stance during the last decade. When Bush was frittering away the national treasury on his war of choice in Iraq, they seemed to believe that there was an endless supply of funds. Now, interestingly, we can’t afford military action in the Middle East. I say it’s about time the GOP saw the light.

Another oft-repeated claim is that the administration refuses to call the action a “war”. This has been used by both sides to protest Obama’s strategy. Democratic Senator Dennis Kucinich went as far as calling it an impeachable offense to commit forces without congressional approval. Well, as much as I agree that proper authorization should be required before putting our sons and daughters in harm’s way, the current operation does not qualify as a declaration of war.

The president has committed U.S. forces to join a coalition of forces to this mission. However, the mission has a finite goal of providing protection to Libyan citizens and is authorized under the auspices the U.N.

The declaration of war has been problematic in light of the Constitution. And, by some standards, every U.S. military operation since World War II has been unconstitutional.

In September of 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, then-President Bush effectively declared a metaphorical “war on terror”. This broad and open-ended war had no clear objective or metric for success. Yet the president was afforded a great deal of authority (under the approval of Congress) to execute a broad range of military aggression against real and perceived threats. Many of the conservatives who supported this unfettered power, hypocritically question Obama’s role as Commander in Chief. Obama is not acting under any such authority (either conditional or unconditional).

I think it is important to have a dialog about Libya, just as it will be important to openly discuss other emerging hot spots in the Middle East. However, we must be consistent in our standards and reasonable in our approach. The United States is in danger of forfeiting democratic compromise to political contest.

Obama’s War of Choice

2011-03-31T08:35:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 30, 2011

If the issue at hand was not so serious and its outcome so important to our nation’s position as the world’s sole superpower, it would be hilarious the way our Commander-in-Chief has been forced to reveal the fluidity and vacuity of his words.

I am speaking, of course, of the current war in Libya (despite my brother’s claim that this current “kinetic military operation” does not rise to that definition, my Encarta Dictionary provides the following definition: “a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air, or sea battles.”). So, when we send Tomahawk missiles toward military targets and fly sorties over Libyan airspace with hostile intentions, we are at war and when those missions were ordered without congressional approval, it is unconstitutional, but then, why should words or protocol matter when one determines policy and principle based solely upon the ethics of the moment and the popularity of the polls.

The “hypocrisy” Keith mentions in his essay referred to the apparent change of heart taken place by those who favored military action in Iraq, but who now seem reluctant to use force in Libya. I would point out to Keith that these two operations bear little resemblance to each other. True, they are both Eastern nations controlled by despots and both leaders have defied UN sanctions, however, there are several areas in which they are very dissimilar.

In Iraq we had a history of Saddam’s willingness to invade and conquer his neighboring states (Kuwait), we had evidence of weapons of mass destruction used by Saddam against his own people and the Turks, we had over 39 nations join us in a coalition of forces (Obama could muster less than 25 and several of those in the Arab League have since declined to continue their support) and we had debate and approval (including over 118 Democrats such as Hilary Clinton and John F. Kerry – before he opposed it!) in Congress before operations began – not 45 hours after the missiles were fired and troops deployed.

The words of a senator who opposed that effort, despite all of the above reasons, are here offered for your consideration:

That’s what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors...and that, in concert with the international community, he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
-http://obamaspeeches.com/001-2002-Speech-Against-the-Iraq-War-Obama-Speech.htm

The words above came from a speech given by then Illinois State Senator, Barack H. Obama in October of 2002 while debate was being conducted in Congress and in the public sphere over the need to hold Saddam accountable to the conditions of his surrender and to prevent his continued support of international terrorism. We see none of these situations at play in Libya today.

What we see in Libya can best be described as a tribal conflict with no clear distinction between the ideals of the two combatants. It is true that the rebels suffer a disadvantage in firepower as long as Khaddafi has a functioning air force. In the present war strategy, we should limit our involvement to eliminating that advantage. We should not align ourselves (i.e. provide arms or training) with any rebel group unless and until we determine the true intent and content of that group.
Regarding Obama’s above warning concerning “an invasion without a clear rationale” we see in this current war no clear rationale or distinct goal. We heard Obama say “Khaddafi must go” but we also hear Secretary of State Hilary Clinton tell us that it is not our intention to attack Khaddafi directly (even though the main targets of our missiles has been his compound) and we hear another side from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, who said on March 20: it “isn't about seeing him (Gadhafi) go.” Mullen, asked whether it was possible that the mission’s goals could be achieved while leaving Gadhafi in power, said, “That’s certainly potentially one outcome”. Again we hear this from one of our allies, British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said, “It is not about regime change”.

In conclusion, it is clear that Obama has entered into this war without fully counting the cost or determining the desired outcome. It is justly named “Operation Odyssey Dawn” because the definition of “odyssey” is “a wandering trip or a long series of travels and adventures”, unlike the aptly named “Operation Iraqi Freedom” which could be seen as a success when we saw purple fingers waved in the air after Iraqi citizens were blessed with the freedom of voting. We have no idea what we shall see when this odyssey is over.

Federal Budget Battle 2011

2011-03-23T07:56:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 17, 2011

I find it amazing when I see how quickly we seem to forget certain unpleasant realities and go forth as if our perceptions or wishes alone could somehow change what has been proven to be true. For example, it seems that some members of our government are shielding themselves from certain fiscal realities and going forward with failed practices as if by wishing and hoping they could make a “new reality” in which debt and deficits have no effect and spending by credit is somehow harmless and maybe even beneficial.

Another example of this type of wishful thinking is seen in those who are trying to forget what happened in November of 2010 when a historical shellacking took place and a new political reality was established. Perhaps they are trying to delude themselves into thinking the voters of 2010 were only throwing a temporary temper tantrum and they didn’t really mean it when they voted for fiscal responsibility and lower taxes.

Both examples cited above can be seen in the current budget battle taking place in our capital. President Obama exhibited this delusion when he presented a budget that deliberately ignores the fact of credit costs – i.e. Interest Must Be Paid! This was exposed by the Washington Post Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_misleading_language_on.html) where he quoted Obama’s words:

What my budget does is to put forward some tough choices, some significant spending cuts, so that by the middle of this decade, our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt. To use a sort of an analogy that families are familiar with, we’re not going to be running up the credit card anymore. That’s important, and that’s hard to do, but it’s necessary to do. –President Obama, Feb. 15, 2011

Kessler then goes on to show how Obama used misleading (some may simply call a misleading statement a lie or untruth, but I, in an attempt to keep the peace, will just say he was less than truthful) language to say his budget “will not be adding more to the national debt”. When Obama was challenged by a clever reporter (Chip Reid of CBS – not FOX) who asked him how he could make such a statement when the submitted budget openly claimed the estimated deficits would rise throughout the next decade. Again using Obama’s own numbers from his own tables:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

The deficit in 2015 is $607 billion. In 2016, $649 billion. It keeps going up and up until 2021, the last year of the budget blueprint, when it shows a deficit of $774 billion.

Endless deficits mean more debt. And indeed, the debt climbs and climbs. In 2012, the total national debt would be $16.6 trillion. In several years – 2015 – it would be $19.8 trillion. By 2021, it would be $26.3 trillion.
Now, to be fair, Obama did respond to the reporter with an explanation – well, sort of.

We still have all this accumulated debt, as a consequence of the recession and as a consequence of a series of decisions that were made over the last decade. We’ve racked up a whole bunch of debt, and there’s a lot of interest on that debt. So in the same way that if you’ve got a credit card and you’ve got a big balance, you may not be adding to principal, you’ve still got all that interest that you’ve got to pay; well, we’ve got a big problem in terms of accumulated interest that we’re paying. And that’s why we’re going to have to whittle down further the debt. – Obama, February 15, 2011

So, according to wishful thinking and selective memory, we can keep on borrowing and spending and pretending that, by not adding to the principal, we are not continually enriching our creditors (i.e. China) and decreasing our financial security.

Now, to the other example of forgetting the Election of 2010, Obama and the Democrats seem to go forward on the assumption that the voters didn’t really mean it when they pulled the levers for a new direction. The new majority in the House has been given a mandate from the people and that mandate is to change the direction of the past two years.

The hard facts of life demand certain responses from each of us. Laws of economics are as real and as immutable as laws of nature. We cannot ignore the cost of interest and the weakness of being a “debtor nation” any more than we can ignore the pull of gravity.

To restore our credit standing, there is no alternative to limiting our spending – and that means in every category from defense to Social Security – and we must look seriously at eliminating redundant agencies. Even Obama mentioned this in his State of the Union address when he outlined the number of agencies supported by our tax dollars:

“There are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different agencies that deal with housing policy. Then there’s my favorite example: The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they’re in saltwater.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address)

In conclusion, budgets are never easy, nor are they fun, but they are necessary and we need to face them with a solid grasp on reality.

Reality Check

2011-03-23T07:53:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 17, 2011

It seems my brother Gordon and I find ourselves agreeing on at least one point. It is important to face reality with clear recognition. However, President Obama isn’t the only one facing harsh truths.

Last week, several thousand public employees in Wisconsin were blindsided with stark reality when the state’s legislature circumvented procedural rules in order to deny the workers’ rights. A second blow came when Wisconsin State Senate Leader Scott Fitzgerald admitted in a Fox News interview that the union-busting bill (all budget-related provisions were stripped to allow Republicans to pass it) was merely political. Senator Fitzgerald told Fox’s Megyn Kelly that the underhanded deal (which impacts the lives and livelihoods of not only current public employees and teachers but permanently revokes union rights) was about protecting Republican power. “If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.” Eight of Fitzgerald’s GOP colleagues facing recall elections this summer may feel the sharp sting of the fact that political football is unpopular when it harms the working class. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is already facing the stark reality of plunging approval ratings (he’ll have to serve a year before a recall threatens his temp job). So much for a mandate.

House Speaker John Boehner may or may not be bothered by the potential job losses the Republicans’ proposed spending cuts would cause. He publicly dismissed the losses out of hand, saying, “so be it”. It seems he is more likely to cry over his tavern-owner’s-son roots or his own personal American dream that lifted him to the third highest office in the land. Of course the hundreds of thousands who would be out of work will face the harsh reality of economic uncertainty.

Indeed, this proposal smacks of political agenda, as well. Why would the Republicans endanger the livelihoods of thousands in the guise of cutting spending? From reading his column, it’s plain to see that my brother’s answer would be “to honor the wishes of the Tea Party Movement. Remember the shellacking?” Well, there’s another theory to consider.

Republicans see the country beginning to rebound from a severe recession and the unemployment rate beginning to dip to acceptable levels. This “spending” bill is an opportunity to keep unemployment high. In 2012, you will see every GOP candidate run on a platform promising jobs, budget be damned. The ploy is not rocket science. If this victory comes on the back of displaced workers, “so be it”.

The harsh reality that the Republican cuts won’t address the deficit in a meaningful way is beside the point.

Public education is facing the harsh reality that district budgets are slashed before almost any other spending consideration. Correctional and penal costs are a large chunk of every state’s budget: 20 to 25 percent in some cases. Restructuring prison systems to make them more efficient, cutting waste, while taking advantage of revenue sources would help reduce the costs. Approaching drug abuse from a treatment angle as opposed to a law-enforcement angle would be another way to curb the growing cost of corrections and facilitate the prison closings already planned in some states.

Instead politicians from both parties are turning their daggers on education, which can ill afford the cuts. Both Democrats and Republicans have begun to vilify school district superintendents and their salaries. It has been amazing for me to watch those who were critical of a designation of $250,000 as a wealth cut-off point be politically reborn into a faith in salary caps as they demonize superintendents earning $150,000 a year.

Then there are those who have avoided the constraints of reality. Wall Street has been untouched by the nation’s financial collapse, as 2010 was a banner year for earners. They’ve had record incomes, even if the healthy bonuses of the past had to be offset by shifting into higher salaries. Good to see that some are escaping the perils of a floundering economy. Pity that those same people caused much of the financial woe.

The Tea Party’s outcry for lower taxes and lower deficit is self-contradictory. Simple economics tells you that spending cuts have to be steep and painful in order to reduce revenue and still pay down debt. Again, the wealthiest among us have averted this reality. The Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans remain intact despite all the deficit hawkishness in Washington. I guess shared sacrifice applies only to those already sacrificing in limited jobs and incomes.

Military contractors have been spared the unfortunate truth of budgetary restraint. War profiteers remain unscathed as legislators and even the president refuse to make meaningful cuts to military spending, though it looms large as a portion of the federal budget.

Gordon and I could go on all day about the realities of federal and state budgets, had we the column inches. However, when we discuss the deficit, taxes, and spending, we need to consider the impact of reality upon real lives. Cold numbers fall short of telling the whole story.

Haves vs. Have-Nots

2011-03-11T10:00:00.000-08:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 3, 2011

There is a clear danger to unity in the United States. Strategies designed to drive a wedge of division between American citizens are increasingly evidenced throughout the political landscape. The current use of state budget constraints as a weapon against targets like unions and public education is only the latest in the mechanism designed to maintain the “us versus them” climate that contributes to our dysfunctional two-party system. Partisan politics has pitted us against one another and turned complex issues that impact real lives into black and white oversimplifications that are manipulated to inspire fear and rage.

With the U.S. economy still recovering from the massive recession ushered in under the Bush administration, one particularly effective conflict is designating a chosen group as “haves” and another as “have-nots”. In America’s post-industrial era, when corporations are outsourcing decent jobs and the shrinking middle class is feeling the sting of downsizing and unemployment, an interesting division has developed. Public workers and schoolteachers with average salaries of $50,000 per year are now being called the “haves” and they are being criticized for their greed, and personally attacked by conservatives (including politicians and pundits as well as misguided common folk).

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has described the people of his state as two distinct classes; those “who receive rich benefits, and those who pay for them”. One might think he was talking about corporate fat cats, who enjoy huge bonuses and ballooning salaries, and the working class who see their wages stagnate as their jobs are shipped overseas. Nope. He was referring to the public employees of New Jersey.

And New Jersey isn’t an isolated case. Wisconsin’s highly-publicized standoff with protesting public employees and their unions is all about painting those workers as the haves, and the poor taxpayers of Wisconsin as the have-nots. But wait. Isn’t the issue that the state is experiencing dramatic budget shortfalls and simply can’t afford to provide benefits like health care and pensions for public employees?

Well, I’m certain that Wisconsin (like most states) is facing budget deficits. But that oft-repeated mantra doesn’t come close to telling the whole story.

Seldom reported is the fact that two-thirds of the corporations operating in Wisconsin enjoy the public services provided by state and local governments but pay absolutely no corporate taxes. Recapturing this lost revenue would go a long way toward bridging the budget gaps. “Aha!,” I can hear my brother Gordon say. “Asking corporations to pay their fair share will only worsen the plight of the working class by drying up jobs.” The fact of the matter is that regardless of taxation or lack thereof, businesses are outsourcing jobs. And not just across state borders. Continuing to cater to these corporations isn’t retaining jobs and is impacting the Wisconsin budget.

Furthermore, public sector unions and employees agreed to make financial concessions to help meet budgetary demands. Unfortunately, Governor Scott Walker refused to negotiate the terms of the bill he proposed, which has far-reaching and permanent impact on the workers’ rights to organize and on the power of the governor (who would be free according to the terms of the law to declare a state of emergency and fire any union or non-union state employee). No. It appears that the only thing that will fly in Wisconsin is a union-busting measure that denies collective bargaining.

The picture would also not be complete without looking at David and Charles Koch. These powerful billionaires not only contributed thousands of dollars to help Walker get elected in Wisconsin, they’re currently spending millions to put anti-union ads on the air and are exercising enormous influence over the governor and the Republican Legislators in the state to push through this damaging bill. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why corporate power brokers would want to crush any union.

And what about these greedy public employees who are overpaid at the expense of the taxpayer? Public schoolteachers are professionals who leave college with the requisite degrees for employment and with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans that they must repay on starting salaries of $25,000 or less. They are required to pay for their own certifications and much of their own teaching supplies (because public school budgets are constantly being squeezed). In exchange for accepting meager salaries schoolteachers and other public employees count on benefits like health care and pensions.

Of course conservatives point to some studies that show public employees surpassing the private sector in compensation. They have used these numbers to demonize public sector unions and because the private sector is feeling the misery of a failing economy, they are claiming success. But that isn’t the whole story either. I saw one report of 75 percent of Wisconsinites supporting retaining collective bargaining rights if employees agreed to absorb part of the health care and pension cost (a conservative source pegged the poll closer to two-thirds). Other reports dispute that public employees earn more. In fact, Wisconsin University Professor Keith Bender tells the opposite tale. According to an ABC news story he “and professor John Heywood found that wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than for private sector workers of equal education, and further, that for the past 20 years those earnings have been in relative decline.”

I think it is important to consider the impact on the public school system, because that is the second front in this two-pronged attack. The clear intent is to use the current economy and tight budgets to weaken both the unions and public education. States and local governments everywhere are choosing cuts in education above other spending areas. The City of Detroit just announced this week plans to close half its schools and double class sizes to 60 students. This will have a devastating effect, especially on schools that are currenty struggling. If public education continues to be assaulted in this way, it will be crippled and the wealth imbalance will grow, with only those who have access to private education afforded the promise of the American dream. Scott Walker, Chris Christie and those who demonize unions and public employees must not win out or the middle class and working class will lose big.

The good news is that many are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with public employees. Organizers have planned demonstrations in all 50 states as a show of solidarity and support. People are paying attention. And as much as some politicians are behaving as if the Tea Party represents the majority, those who call for smaller government at any human cost remain in the extreme minority. Be vigilant and protect our public schools. They are the only hope of a democratic future in the United States.

The Inconvenient Truth about Public Sector Unions

2011-03-11T09:53:00.000-08:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 3, 2011

In order to fully understand the protests unfolding in Wisconsin, New Jersey, Indiana, Ohio and even in good old Albany, New York, we need to take a short trip into the history of the labor movement in our nation, and then to take a close look at the issue of unions in general and the public sector unions in particular.

As we all know, things were not always as they are now. There was a time when avaricious employers took heady profits by manipulating desperate workers into back-breaking labor for poverty level wages in unsafe environments. Children and the unskilled were especially taken advantage of and a tremendous disparity existed between the lifestyles of the affluent and the working class.

Unions were organized, and through a painful process of strikes and negotiations, conditions improved to such a state that the demands went from mere safety and fair wages to security issues like seniority, health care and pensions. As each contract season neared, the collective bargaining process would pit the union representatives against the management. Each side would bring conflicting demands – the union would seek a fair compensation for the labor of their constituents and the management would seek the most profitable and productive return for their labor dollar. The pendulum swung to both extremes at various times in our nation’s history, as first labor and then management would benefit from favorable legislation.

The conception and growth of public sector unions was understandably a different story as the task of working for the government was not the same as working for a “for profit” corporation. In fact, one former president was adamant in his refusal to allow collective bargaining for public employees. Consider the following quote:

Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service… [a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.

Who made such a quote? Was it Reagan at the occasion of the Air Controllers strike? No, it was that labor-friendly liberal, FDR, in 1937, who recognized the incestuous relationship that would exist if government employees bargained with other government employees that they elected, with public funds extorted from taxpayers to extract more public funds from the taxpayers who would never have a seat at the bargaining table.

However, things changed in the late 50s, when through an executive order, which prevented that messy thing called the legislative process, Mayor Wagner of NYC declared city public unions could represent all city employees in collective bargaining, regardless of whether those employees were in the union. President Kennedy expanded the right to all federal unions in another executive order in 1962 and this led us to the point where we are today, with public sector unions growing in numbers and power while private sector unions decline in both categories.

In fact, a New York Times Online article (www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23/labor.html) reported that Labor Statistics now show public sector union members outnumber their private sector counterparts 7.9 million to 7.4 million. Other reports, such as a lengthy article by Daniel DiSalvo on National Affairs website, cites in detail the differences in wages and compensation between the public sector employee and the private sector employee.

Some of the decline in private sector unions’ members and power can be attributed to the loss of American manufacturing jobs due to over-reaching union demands and the need for corporations to produce a profit coupled with the realization that the security of union protection comes at a cost and sometimes that cost may lead to the bankruptcy or relocation of the corporation. However, in the case of the governmental agency, relocation and bankruptcy is not an option, therefore the costs just get pushed onto the overburdened taxpayer.

Governor Walker’s bill does not take away collective bargaining for police or firefighters nor does it stop the unions from negotiating for pay raises, it merely limits pay raises to the level of inflation. I could go on and on about the indefensible actions of the teachers who took fraudulent sick days to protest, and the doctors who sign their excuses illegally, and the truant Democratic Legislators who are neglecting their assigned (and paid for) duties to hide in Illinois. But I am already above my allotted column space.

However, if you would indulge me for a few more lines, I must correct Keith on a few items. First of all, according to figures from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newsar.html), the average compensation for public school teachers in Wisconsin was $75,587 and according to MacIver Institute’s report, Milwaukee, Wisconsin teachers earn a total of $100,005!

Another item that deserves correction is Keith’s claim that two-thirds of all corporations in Wisconsin pay “no corporate taxes and recapturing these lost revenues would bridge the budget gap”. Well, again the facts may be inconvenient, but according to www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/67.html, the corporate tax rate in Wisconsin is 7.9% on all corporations which ranks the state 17th highest in the nation. The report goes on to say that Wisconsin was ranked 40th in The Tax Foundation’s Business Tax Climate Index, which compares all corporate, income and property taxes as well as individual taxes.

To balance the budget by increasing taxes has never worked because individuals and businesses can always relocate.

American Exceptionalism

2011-03-11T09:50:00.000-08:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, February 3, 2011

The State of the Union address is always examined for its relevance and its meaning. The president orating is judged more closely by his words in this annual speech than by his actions and statements at any other time of the year. The mere fact that the political party not controlling the oval office begins preparing its response weeks before the speech is given illustrates this fact.

Last week, it was no surprise that Representative Paul Ryan echoed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell by rephrasing the word “investment” as “spending” (a term approaching obscenity status in conservative circles) and called for smaller government and a repeal of the administration’s health care reform act. These are agenda items that have been in the G.O.P. playbook all along. No matter what issues or points Barack Obama would have covered in his address, the Republican Party was prepared to tell you why we need to make him a single-term president and work to return the government to their control so they can fix the damage done by the Democrats.

Ryan told the audience (that stayed tuned for his response) that there was still time, but not much, to right the wrongs committed by the Obama administration. Of course, this fear and rage tactic has always worked to rally the conservative base, and in the furious climate of the Tea Party era, it is even more effective.

Tea Party favorite, Representative Michele Bachmann, continued the theme with her own response (a G.O.P. two-fer), aired following Ryan’s rebuttal. During it, she laid the ballooning deficit, unemployment and the nation’s collective economic woes at the feet of Obama. This was typical and expected, even though it was deceptive in its targeting of the current administration while ignoring the fiscal irresponsibility of the previous. She also ignored the fact that we are currently spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in Bush’s two protracted wars, even as she complained about $100 million worth of government spending.

This fear mongering reminds me of a favorite quote from the movie An American President, in which Michael Douglas’s character, President Andrew Shephard, says of his opponent’s interest in problem solving that he is interested only in “making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for it”. He goes on to say that that is how you win elections; it seems to be a favorite political ploy in the perpetual election season that has consumed our government. I’m not sure if art is reflecting life or vice versa.

In the days after the State of the Union there was no shortage of commentary about the content of Obama’s speech. Every pundit chose portions to highlight and to support views about the direction he was moving or taking the country. There was the inevitable dissection of phrases like “win the future” or terms like “competitiveness”. There were analyses of ovations and of how well or poorly his jokes were received.

Nearly every news show or news channel had a theory about what the atypical seating arrangements (with Democrats and Republicans sitting side by side and intermingled throughout the chamber) meant for the tone of politics and partisanship in Washington. None of this speculation added to the national discussion that is vital in times of great trials, as we are facing.

I was pleased with the eloquence with which the speech was presented but I didn’t find myself wowed or inspired by this State of the Union address. There was tiptoeing around topics that opponents were sure to jump on. There were the requisite statements that amounted to the political positioning that is necessary to prepare for the 2012 presidential race.

One thing that did strike me was Obama’s discussion of the United States as exceptional. I have been criticized in the past for disputing the blind American exceptionalism that proclaims America the greatest country in the world while denouncing policies and programs that would make us exceptional. Some conservatives who criticize Obama for failing to believe in American exceptionalism are now criticizing his focus on new technology, education and repairs to infrastructure that would put us on par with other nations.

I have to admit that I am skeptical about the actual results we can expect from the promises outlined in Obama’s speech. I would feel better if breaks given on corporate taxes were contingent upon domestic hiring. I am afraid that while reforming the corporate tax code may draw corporate headquarters to locate in the U.S., the nation will still fail to compete in the global job market. I have a feeling that plans to invest in green technology that establish us as a world leader in the field, or in desperately needed infrastructure projects that would create real jobs, will be defeated in a climate hostile to government spending.

As much as I caution against blind exceptionalism, I do believe that our nation can and should be exceptional. The United States should be a land of opportunity that shines as a city on a hill. The U.S. should continue to do big things. We should all live up to the expectations of our children. That is the only way we can win the future.

Obama’s State of the Union Speech 2011

2011-03-11T09:42:00.000-08:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, February 3, 2011

Due to my work schedule, I was unable to watch the live broadcast of President Obama’s State of the Union Address. I did get home in time to watch the re-broadcast at midnight. Before I fell asleep (his monotone voice and pause-heavy diction is a great sedative!) I heard some very interesting and surprising things. I heard him – who had apologized for America’s “arrogance” while before foreign audiences and who had stated that America had no greater claim to being exceptional than did Germany or Japan – say over and over again that we Americans were in fact an exceptional people. He said that we were unique because our nation was founded upon a dream. He even went as far as to say the following:

“America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers — no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We're the home to the world's best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.”

I was feeling like I was reliving a Reagan moment. I slipped into peaceful sleep and dreamed sweet dreams of waking to a new world with a re-born Obama. I dreamt of a world in which our president realized that oppressive taxation, stifling bureaucracy, unrestrained spending and repressive regulations were failed policies of the past, and the election of 2010 had brought to him an epiphany of what the people of America truly wanted from their federal government.

Ah, but then I awoke Wednesday morning and with a few clicks of my mouse I found and downloaded the full transcript of his speech. No new dawn, no new Obama, no repudiation of failed liberal ideals did I find. Instead I found a rehearsal of the same old tired rhetoric.

I read one paragraph where he said we will “win the future” if we “out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world”. He added in the next paragraph that “we have to make America the best place to do business” and “we need to take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government” and I was feeling pretty good.

But then I read in the later paragraphs that his idea of “innovation” really comes down to “imitation”. Imitation of South Korea’s educational philosophy (where teachers are called “nation builders”) was recommended. Imitation of China’s high-speed trains was recommended. And, surprisingly, imitation of enterprising private American companies was also recommended; but then that recommendation was later qualified with a small disclaimer. He just couldn’t let go of the liberal idea that innovation cannot survive without the federal government. Consider the following quote:

“Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.”

I wish it were true. I wish our government “provided support” for scientists and inventors today. But I believe the current administration is intent upon squelching scientists and inventors by bowing to the powerful trial lawyers and regulatory agencies (staffed by public-sector union lobbyists) which work together to inhibit innovation.

Obama spent a great deal of time discussing the need to “out-educate” the rest of the world by reforming our schools. Many of his points I found myself agreeing with. For example, he mentioned the need for involved parents. I agree, parents are a crucial resource that too many schools overlook or actively shut out from the educational process. He also mentioned that state governors are a vital force for reform of our educational system. I agree, however, I doubt Obama really means to allow at least one of the new ideas fostered by some of our state governors because their idea runs counter to the policies of the national teachers unions.

That idea is to promote competition and choice. Wherever we see true competition and choice, we see innovation and increased quality for lower prices. That is why we drive higher quality cars that cost a lower percentage of our income today, that is why every home in America can afford microwave ovens, two or more TV’s, cheaper cell phones, etc. etc. The same environment of competition and choice could produce better schools and higher quality teachers.

Several governors understand this and if Obama is interested in “out-educating” the rest of the world, he should follow the lead of Rick Scott in Florida, John Kasich in Ohio, Mitch Daniels in Indiana, Tom Corbitt in Pennsylvania and Chris Christie in New Jersey who have all proposed new policies to increase school choice by the use of vouchers and funding to promote private, parochial, charter, virtual and even home schools. These governors realize that jobs flow to educated populations.

“We go where the smart people are” – is the way the CEO of Intel Corp. put it in a recent interview.

To conclude, we are exceptional. We are innovative. We just need a government that will allow us to prove it to the rest of the world.

Income Inequality

2011-01-21T07:34:00.000-08:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, January 20, 2011

There is a certain spark that glows within the heart of every human. You may call it a sense of morality, or a recognition of “oughtness” – as C.S. Lewis described it – where we realize that things “ought” to be a particular way, that people “ought” to act according to set parameters.

Our founders stood on the shoulders of great philosophers and biblical teachings to declare this spark as evidence of our equality before an omniscient and omnipotent Creator. I choose to believe we have this spark because we are created in the image of a God who is just and therefore we seek justice. You may call it what you wish, you may even believe it is the culmination of millions of years of mindless, purposeless evolution, but you must admit it is there.
It is because of the existence of this spark that we bristle at inequities and unfairness. From the first introduction of sibling rivalry, to the playground, to the executive office, we scream when we see someone getting a different amount of toys or cookies. We, at these times, fail to realize that “created equal” refers to our inalienable rights (life, liberty, individual pursuits for property and happiness) and not to our economic equality.

Many utopian dreamers have sought to fan this spark of “oughtness” into the flames of revolution and some have succeeded – for a short time (Marx, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, etc.) – but sooner or later the futility of generating true economic equality through a synthetic means has been exposed.

Nevertheless, we continue to hear new cries for economic equity whenever new statistics are published that show a greater disparity between the wealthy and the poverty-stricken in our nation.

Recent news stories have mentioned the Gini Index, which is a value given to a society’s economic equality according to how evenly the riches of that society are distributed among its inhabitants. If a nation has a Gini Index of zero, it means everyone enjoys the same level of prosperity. Conversely, a Gini Index of one means one person owns everything and everyone else is destitute. Our nation’s Gini index rose from .39 to .44 in the past 20 years, which seems to indicate a troublesome trend of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Some have claimed that we should strive for that perfect level of zero, but is that such a good idea for the long term health of our economy? And even if it were a good idea, what mechanism is the best way to achieve that goal? To answer those questions, we can look across the globe and study the reaction of a chief rival.

China recently realized its own growing wealth gap when they achieved a Gini Index rise from .35 to .47, in only five short years of rapid economic growth. According to an article written in the Far Eastern Economic Review, there is an old Chinese proverb which states “Inequality, rather than want, is the cause of trouble” and it is belief in that proverb which has motivated Chinese leaders to begin a policy of wealth distribution to prevent growing class tension and political upheaval. The irony of this approach is that many experts believe, and other societies have proven, the drive to achieve income equalization would most likely result in decreasing innovation and entrepreneurial and labor incentives.

The next question to be answered by those who believe in income equity is: By what mechanism or method will this equality be achieved? Should we, as many have suggested, tax the rich at higher and higher rates until their income is decreased to an “acceptable” level (Obama seems to think $250,000 or less is an acceptable level)? Should we limit competition for skilled employees and executives by setting maximum wage levels?

It seems that the growing wealth gap has provided the social engineers with both the symptom and the pathogen of a threatening disease, for which they are all too eager to provide the cure. Like a fanatical pharmaceutical company that develops a drug and then searches for a sickness, these engineers found taxation and governmental control and then sought for a cause.

Wealth disparity is the symptom and the rich people are the germs. They are universally seen as corrupt, greedy and manipulative, while the poor are classified as unfortunate or disadvantaged – but seldom seen as greedy, grabby or fraudulent.
If we believe that corruption, greed and ignoble deeds only grow in the hearts of the prosperous, and that nobility, charity, and ethics only grow in the hearts of the poor, we are mistaken. You will find all of the above in the executive office as well as in the tenement slum. No class has a monopoly on any virtue or any vice.

If we think we can achieve peace and tranquility by removing economic inequities, we will be forced to learn once again the hard lessons learned by so many other utopian dreamers. The best we can hope to accomplish through wealth distribution is mediocrity, the worse we can receive will be slavery to the state.

It Is Not About Equity

2011-01-07T15:26:00.000-08:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, January 20, 2011

In the pages of this paper, on more than one occasion, I have talked about the growing wealth gap in this country. It is something that I have been concerned with for some time and something that I believe we all should be concerned about.

I think it is apparent, however, that at least my brother Gordon and possibly one BVW reader in particular misread my intent. In his column, Gordon focuses on the utopian concept of economic equity and on the distribution of wealth as an attempt to achieve this equity. In a recent e-mail message one Broader View fan asked several questions about the relationship between the wealth gap and taxation, one of which was “How does taxing the rich benefit the poor?” These approaches are oversimplifications of the complex issue.

Gordon is right that the extreme wealth gap in the United States is a symptom of a larger problem. But it is a problem that cannot be addressed by a distribution of wealth. As much as that term has been used against President Barack Obama, in order to label him as a radical leftist, Marxist or socialist, he and his administration do not see that as the answer either.

I don’t believe heavy taxation of the wealthy or somehow distributing their wealth among the poor is a solution to poverty and plight in this country. I do believe “of whom much is given much is required”. The national debt and deficit are growing in the U.S. and to continue to limit the wealthy’s tax burden as revenue sources, while cutting funding for programs that benefit the common good, is not only unfair, it is irresponsible.

There is no easy fix for the overwhelming disparity of income among Americans. There is no single target such as the greed and avarice of the wealthiest, nor the lack of opportunity afforded the poorest of us.

As I have said, it is a complex dilemma. There is an undeniable systemic bias favoring corporate America and the wealthy elite, while disparaging the working and poverty classes. This is a bi-partisan disregard for the poor evidenced in the policies of the current administration (even though less blatantly than during the previous administration’s reign). One need only look to the deal-making between the White House and the insurance, medical and corporate lobbies that stripped the healthcare legislation (which Republicans now seek to repeal) of meaningful provisions.

Policy makers who contribute to income disparity by imposing corporate welfare in all its forms, while devaluing safety nets and programs that benefit the poor, are part of the cause of the great plague that is the wealth gap. We citizens would do well to address those policies by expressing our displeasure to our representatives, by correspondence and, in a couple of years, at the ballot box. If we continue to allow the ruling elite (which includes members of both political parties) to strengthen the corporate and wealth classes while crippling the poor and eliminating the middle class, we become part of the problem.

I believe at the core of our failure to address this imbalance in policy, and the resultant income disparity, is a disconnect between the middle and working class and the realities of our economic system. Workers who still have jobs often protest high taxation when their income bracket currently excludes them from much of the burdens of the taxes they oppose. There is remarkable disapproval among the working class of the Estate Tax which impacts so few Americans that most of us would never feel its sting if it was doubled or tripled. The only explanation I can find for working poor voting against their economic interests and supporting relaxed taxation of the wealthy is a Horatio Alger syndrome in which if one somehow rises from rags into riches he or she seeks to avoid taxation of their bounty.

In past decades there has been an attempt to convince the working and middle class that supply-side economic imbalance would benefit all by trickling wealth downward. However, even though some conservatives cling to this argument and maintain that relaxing the tax burden on “job creators” will miraculously create jobs and prosperity, this myth is becoming increasingly hard to sell to those who are out of work because the corporate giants here have outsourced the best jobs to China, India and Pakistan. There is growing acceptance of the fact that industry and its employment opportunity in the United States will not return in our lifetimes.

Gordon may be correct that income equity is an impossible pipe dream and that it is an ideal with potential negative outcomes. But we should still be concerned as the United States rises toward the top of the Gini Index as a country with immense wealth inequity. It is an indicator that we are abandoning the interests of the common man while lifting up the wealthy elite. My fear is that within the century we will become like Haiti, with our ruling class occupying the mansions and state houses while the masses beg on the street or barely survive in service industries. As the wealth gap grows the American dream dies. As the wealth gap grows we risk descending from a super power to a third world country. As the wealth gap grows we surrender fairness and justice to the free market.

The Things They Must Now Carry

2011-01-07T15:23:00.000-08:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, January 6, 2011

Tim O’Brien wrote a very moving novel in 1990 entitled The Things They Carried. It was filled with stories about a group of soldiers during the Viet Nam conflict. He listed the many things they carried into the battlefield. Their burdens were physical, emotional and psychological weights that pressed down upon them as they tried to perform their duties. It was a telling description of the many stressors our military troops deal with on a daily basis. We should be careful to not add to the things they must carry.

I believe the lame duck Congress and President Obama have just added to the list of things our soldiers must now carry.
If one only listens to the sound bites and only reads the headlines regarding the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), one would think our military personnel have undergone a dramatic shift in their perceptions and feelings. One would probably conclude – as Keith does – that a “warm breeze of tolerance and progress” is blowing across our military bases and battlefields. However, as with most of the news stories these days, the truth is usually buried far beneath the sound bite and the headline.
Much was made of the report commissioned by the Congress and fulfilled by the Pentagon in which a survey of active military personnel revealed 70% of respondents (by the way, less than 30% of our troops chose to respond) claimed there would be “positive, neutral or mixed” effects from the repeal. What needs to be revealed is that the report itself is close to 300 pages and the implementation plan adds another 95, and within the details of the report is the fact that nearly 60% of the combat units (i.e. the Army infantry and the Marine Corps) felt the repeal would have a negative impact on troop morale and reenlistment decisions.

We all know our military is the greatest collection of personnel, weapons and tactics that has ever existed on this planet, and we rest safely in our homes each night solely because they are “on that wall” between us and those who mean us harm. They all deserve our highest respect and honor, and we should listen to them when they tell us their concerns.

Those who choose to sign their name to an enlistment form do so with the knowledge that certain things are going to change for them after the ink dries on that dotted line. They will no longer be free to choose their own hairstyle or color of clothing. Certain behaviors and modes of conduct will be prohibited. They will be expected to sacrifice their preferences and their orientations for the sake of unity and troop morale.

The DADT policy was initiated during the Clinton administration to allow those with homosexual tendencies to serve in the armed forces as long as their preferences and orientations were not made public because it was determined that such knowledge would disrupt the above-mentioned unity and troop morale. This policy had nothing to do with “fear and hatred” (as Keith likes to claim) but more with the reality that sexual relationships tend to add more burdens to the over-burdened soldier and commander in the field of battle.

The repeal of DADT will turn the focus of our military leaders away from the task of fighting real enemies and toward defending themselves from our own soldiers and citizens as a myriad of lawsuits will most definitely be filed. In fact, a report published on npr.org (npr.org/2010/12/27/132366702/legal-questions-linger-after-‘Don’t-Ask’-repeal) mentions that the ACLU has several lawsuits involving soldiers who have lost their positions ready to file as well as plans to use legal battles to force the military to recognize same-sex spouses for benefits.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates admits that implementation of the repeal will cause disruption and likens it to the five-year transition that took place during the military’s racial integration process. He also admits that the introduction of females into the military still causes problems.

“We have a continuing problem with sexual assault.” Gates said, referring to the issue of females in the military and then added. “I think the report is honest in saying we will have some disruption [if DADT is repealed].”

We should not use our armed forces as a social experiment. There are several other institutions with which we can teach diversity and tolerance. Our military is designed to work best when everyone wears the same uniform and works as a unified force. No differentiation is allowed if unity is to be achieved.

I have always been impressed by the men and women who serve our nation in the armed forces. It seems they all lose their identity as they go through their basic training so they can assume a new identity as a soldier. For the rest of their lives they accept the fact that they are no longer the individual they were before they “joined up”. They all refer to themselves by their branch of service as their first identity. Obviously, this new identity is necessary for troop unity.

It is easy to see how this unity would not be accomplished if everybody identified themselves first according to their sexual orientation.

Chrismas Questions

2010-12-24T12:03:00.000-08:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, December 23, 2010

This special time of year demands a departure from the usual. In that spirit, my brother and I have decided to break from the routine nature of our friendly but spirited debate of current issues and to offer instead our personal thoughts and wishes for the Christmas season.

So, as opposed to the standard fare of offering my opinions about the latest legislation or topic du jour, I decided to challenge you to consider some Christmas Questions.

1. Was there really a record producer somewhere who thought “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” would be a good investment of his time and effort? – And did he really think it would be funny after it was heard the first time?

2. Why do people get offended by the appearance of a Nativity Scene on public property? What are they afraid of?

3. What are children being protected from when the word “Christmas” is removed from public school calendars and assembly programs?

4. What is it about this holiday that inspires so many songs, stories, poems, lectures, sermons, paintings, movies and family traditions?

5. Could it be possible that the reason this day is so unique is because the person whose birth it represents is so unique?

6. What if all the songs about Him are true? What would you do differently if you knew He really was “God with us”?

I hope each of you finds some quiet time during these hectic days to admire a Christmas display, to listen to a child giggle, to read a Christmas story, to sing a Christmas Carol to yourself, to watch Jimmy Stewart or Ebenezer Scrooge “figure it out”, to give a special gift to someone you don’t even know and to say a solemn prayer of gratitude for our great nation.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good and prosperous 2011!

Looking Past Our Differences

2010-12-24T12:00:00.000-08:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, December 23, 2010

I am not terribly unique. I, like most people (even those who claim they are not “political”), have strongly held positions on many issues. I passionately embrace debate and relish spirited discussions. Few who know me would deny my voice is among the loudest when I am standing on my soapbox or upholding my opinion in the face of challenge.

But this time of the year is a special time. Often, we put aside our differences when we gather with our family and friends in celebration of the season. Certainly, my brothers see me as their ultra-liberal kin, but they are as likely to throw an arm around my shoulder or share a joke with me as they were before I began filling their email boxes with left-wing rants. When we gather around the table or the tree we tend to avoid conversations about things upon which we disagree.

In the din of opinion, commentary, and voiced outrage that we continually find ourselves surrounded by, it is sometimes difficult to see that we largely share common values. We world citizens tend to cling to bonds of family and friendship. Most of us celebrate our disparate holiday customs and traditions without contempt for others. For the most part, there is peace on earth and goodwill extended to all men (and women, and children), regardless of race, creed or religion.

This is true despite the inclination of many who insist on manufacturing the “War on Christmas” every year from thin air. Jon Stewart from the satirical fake news show The Daily Show recently led off a Christmas special parody demonstrating this phenomenon by saying “the season just wouldn’t be the same without people going out of their way to be offended by nothing”. The point he was making was that in spite of the fact that most of us celebrate our holidays with nary a thought to those who practice a different religion or none at all, there are those who wish to resurrect the same conflict year after year.

As intently as Fox news and Glenn Beck strive to convince me otherwise, the high school my son attends still hosts Christmas concerts featuring songs about Christian traditions and themes. At the choral concert you’ll hear the words, Christmas and Messiah as well as a whole list of other Christmas-related terms. The audience members of varied backgrounds and ethnicities applaud and cheer in unified ovation. I have not seen one person walk out in disgust.

When I finish a transaction at a store or bank this time of year I say “Merry Christmas” and hear the sentiment returned in more cases than not. If someone wishes me “happy holidays” I don’t take offense and I have not yet had someone twist my arm and force me to change my similar greeting to one that honors their Christian celebration.

Political correctness isn’t the enemy of holiday cheer. Media personalities and pundits who benefit by inspiring rage and discontent among their viewers, listeners and readers are.

As corny and cliché as it may sound, this is my most favorite time of the year. I look forward to friends and family enjoying food and drink around my table. I love the anticipation and delight in the faces of my children on Christmas morning (even now that they’ve grown into young adulthood). I admire the light displays that grace the neighborhood houses as I drive at night. Every Christmas Eve, I savor the emotion and serenity of my church’s annual candlelight service. Most people I know celebrate the season in similar ways and don’t notice any assault on their belief system.

My wish for all who read this column is that you enjoy whatever holiday you celebrate. I wish you a belated Happy Hanukkah. I wish you a belated Happy Solstice. I wish you a merry Christmas. I wish you a happy New Year.

Lessons Learned: the Value of the WikiLeaks Dump

2010-12-24T11:56:00.000-08:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, December 9, 2010

All right-wing attacks on liberals like myself (and accusations of America-hating treason) aside, the fact is that an overall concern for national security is a bi-partisan value. I care as much about threats posed by our nation’s enemies and as much about the protection of lives and operations conducted by our troops, ambassadors and diplomats as do conservatives like my brother Gordon and his heroes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.

That said, I cannot bring to myself assign much negative consequence to last week’s dump by media organization WikiLeaks of hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents for public consumption.

Obviously, the State Department and the Obama administration have been quick and harsh in their condemnation of the leaks uncovered and published by Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Cable communications that they assumed were private correspondence have been made public, embarrassing officials and complicating diplomatic relations. To be fair, some of the information that has come to light has presented potential game-changers for at least a few missions abroad.

But I think it is valuable to take an honest and candid look at what we have really learned from this massive revelation, instead of simply jumping on the political bandwagon, labeling WikiLeaks a terrorist organization, and calling for the arrest of an international whistle-blower.

First of all there were documents that were released that told us little we didn’t already know. We have always known that the State Department and American officials attempt to operate covertly and secretly. This is part of the business of foreign policy and is no shocker. It was also no surprise that the leaders of Middle Eastern countries have called Iran a threat. Those nations have a vested interest in security and a madman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the neighborhood would make most people nervous. Many facts that came out may have elicited an interested “hmmm” but were largely assumed or were accepted public knowledge.

There were also items of embarrassing humor. For instance, we “learned” that Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi is a paranoid prima donna who hates to fly over water and requires that his “voluptuous” blond Ukrainian nurse accompany him everywhere. Again, this is no shocker. We have seen the spectacle of his 2009 visit to the U.S.

But there are other gleanings that have real utility to us all as citizens of the United States. There are facts that are aligned with what we already know or suspect, but which bring nuances and specifics that are vital to important discussions that must be had.

Saudi Arabia, long considered an ally in the Middle East, has also been eyed with some suspicion, especially during the George W. Bush administration. WikiLeaks documents imply that Saudi King Abdullah has urged the U.S. to bomb Iran in order to stop her nuclear program. However, Saudi funding of groups like Al Qaeda casts shadows on the intentions of this so-called ally. With growing talk over how to deal with Iran, it is imperative to consider the influence the Saudis may have in the matter.

On the subject of Iran, cables were released last week that implied that while the Obama administration outwardly advocated diplomatic strategies to change the behavior of Ahmadinejad and of the Iranian state, there was little belief that those measures would be successful. This revelation told us two things. First, we learned that there was little concrete commitment to a diplomatic resolution; second, we learned that the Bush era tactic of carrots and sticks had remained in place and is the sole mode of operation for the current administration. Not only does this fact refute the assertions of Obama critics that his departure from Bush policy points to his weakness on national security (since there is no policy change at all), it opens up dialog about how the United States should approach relations with Iran going forward.

I found the documents discussing the corruption and graft, rampant within the Afghan government, particularly interesting. While I wasn’t surprised in the least to hear once again that corruption reached the very top of Hamid Karzai’s administration, the sheer magnitude of the corruption is sobering. With the recent admission by Obama that combat troops will be committed to Afghanistan until 2014 (an extension over the original 2011 estimate), I think that further dialog about the chances for success of the mission and the risks of prolonged involvement in the region is necessary. This new information confirms old suspicions and reminds a war-wearied U.S. populous of the dire nature of this conflict.

The WikiLeaks website has been the victim of attacks on its servers and the technology on which it operates. Julian Assange is under investigation and has been targeted for prosecution by several world governments. The leadership in the United States has shown rare bi-partisan unity in its condemnation of the leaks. It is difficult to say what the final outcome of the WikiLeaks “scandal” will be. But whatever our opinion of the organization, its founder and its intent, it is undeniable that the WikiLeaks dump has contributed to the political discourse already, and I feel that is an asset to our democracy.

Wikileaks Exposes Need for New Plumber

2010-12-24T11:47:00.000-08:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, December 9, 2010

As you may have guessed already, I find myself disagreeing with my brother’s assessment of the Wikileaks scandal. Keith concludes his column with the idea that an indiscriminate “dumping” of classified documents and confidential communiqués is an “asset to our democracy”. I do not agree. I believe it is a dangerous and costly liability – one that should be dealt with quickly and completely so as to stem the unrestricted flow of protected communications, prevent further leaks and to protect the identity and welfare of valuable informants.

In fact, many corporations and other governments have moved to restrict Wikileaks’ access to the Internet. However, our “Plumber-in-Chief” has decided to send his Attorney General, Holder, on a mission to coax the organizers of the World Cup to bring a soccer tournament to America. Priorities, man, priorities.

I think we need to make an example of Julian Assange the way our forefathers made an example of Benedict Arnold. Perhaps, if he was dealt with properly, (some have suggested execution, I prefer life imprisonment with no electronics) future generations would not be warned against “being a Benedict Arnold” but instead, they would be admonished: “Don’t make an Assange of yourself.”

Keith opens with a claim that he “cares about the lives of… our troops, ambassadors and diplomats.” Yet, he seems to downplay the significant damage done and enhanced risk being placed upon those very lives.

There are reasons why people must speak “off the record” and there are reasons why some secrets must remain secret. In fact, a very wise world leader (King Solomon) once said “…do not reveal the secret of another, lest he who hears it reproach you, and the evil report about you not pass away.” (Proverbs 25:9,10 NASB)

We live in a very dangerous world. We have terrorists plotting against us, we have rogue leaders seeking weapons of mass destruction, and we have allies that depend upon us for their safety. Therefore, we need an Intelligence network that can operate with the assurance that its communiqués are secure. People in our Intelligence community and in our military risk their lives to acquire and maintain contacts in foreign lands and those contacts take similar risks to keep our men and women informed. If there is no sense of security, there will be no more information.

In dangerous times we must take advantage of every source of information we can find. We must be assured the information is accurate and untainted by fear of disclosure. Secretary of State Ms. Clinton, was rightly distressed and troubled by the revelations, which did not disclose specific wrongful acts by the U.S., but did divulge intimate conversations; that divulgence will inhibit frankness and candor in the future.

Among the many ironies being played out by this scandal is the fact that many on the Left who saw the Valerie Plame ordeal, which centered around the disclosure of a CIA Operative’s identity, as a serious breach of National Security and classified information, see no similar breach in this case when we have the potential for far greater risk. Conversely, those on the Right who tried to downplay the risk to Plame, are now screaming for the head of Assange on a platter. I felt then, as I feel now, that state secrets should and ought to be secret. Not because I feel the state is always right and the citizens should leave the governing to the “experts”, nor is it because I feel the press should be fettered in its investigations of government. It is solely because I believe in the rule of law. The law is what separates us from anarchy and despite Keith’s attempt to claim that somehow the means used to “open political discourse” is justified by that end, I believe Wikileaks, its founder, and many of his sympathizers have anarchy on their mind.

The other irony in this mess is the statement made by Assange in which he claims that his intent is to create a “better world”. I suppose his definition of a better world is one in which no secrets are safe and no one dares to confide in another. I do not think that world would be better.
However, I do believe he may have ushered in a better world if this experience causes us to think twice about the safety of electronic communication. Perhaps we will return to face-to-face conversation and perhaps we will be more wary of the “send” button, for we have to realize that once a message hits cyberspace, it is no longer between just two people.

The final irony is the most humorous. According to a Reuters report from London, dated 12/2, Assange – who claims that Wikileaks is “an organization devoted to revealing secret documents” – was working on the next document dumping project from a “secret, undisclosed location”. Pardon me, but if this story wasn’t so serious, I’d be laughing milk through my nose right now.

An Exercise in Futility, or an Open Door for Change?

2010-12-04T17:51:00.000-08:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, November 25, 2010

The President’s Deficit Commission, AKA National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, has finally delivered a Draft Proposal that outlines in a brief (by Washington terms) 50-plus page report, their plan for reducing our deficit and – as the name optimistically describes – bringing fiscal responsibility and reform. I read the report and I glanced at the many charts and tables they provided. It was an interesting exercise.

The commission was created earlier this year by an executive order of President Obama. Its charge was to incorporate ideologies from both Republicans and Democrats and to deliver a bipartisan solution to the very real and present danger of our runaway deficit. It was co-chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles, a former Clinton Chief of Staff, and Republican Alan Simpson, a former U.S. Senator from Wyoming.

They worked with sixteen other members of the commission and came up with some bold steps that, according to their projections, would reduce the deficit/Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from the current 9.1% to 1.6% by 2020 and increase revenue/GDP levels from the current 14.6% to 21.6% the same year. It also predicts a balanced budget by 2037 and a positive deficit/GDP (i.e. a budget surplus) by 2040.

It is at times like these that I wish I could be as naïve and gullible as my leaders think I am. I wish I could believe they really could look ahead to 2040 and see our budget in perfect balance, our spending under control, and our revenues increasing. I also wish I could believe in the tooth fairy, the lottery commercials and hair growth products.

However, I am bound by the constraints of reality and I know these figures and projections are as reliable and as likely as the global warming figures and projections.

Any attempt to inject responsibility and reform into any institution will most certainly be met with resistance and protest – to do so in a governmental budget is to invite screams and squeals from every corner.

Before I add my own screams and squeals to the din, I feel I must be fair and offer up a few words of praise.
First of all, I am pleased to see that they are at least looking at the dangerous storm clouds on the horizon and they are cognizant of the need to address this threat to our national security and solvency.

I agree with the premise made in their opening “values” statements, in which they give ten defining principles that guided them as they sought solutions. Among these are the principles that we must start slowly, we must protect the truly vulnerable who are dependent upon social aid programs, we must cut waste, we must look at every program – including defense spending and even Social Security and Medicare spending – for cuts and savings.

I am in favor of putting everything on the table, and removing the Sacred Item – Do Not Touch! label from programs and subsidies that have failed to produce the desired effects, or have – like the misdirected welfare policies that destroyed the family structure – produced deleterious effects.

The commission recommended several cuts, which I approve. Among those were:
- Freezing Defense Dept. salaries and bonuses and non-combat pay
- Cutting Cost-of-Living increases for all Federal programs – including Social Security
- Cutting Federal work force by 10%
- Eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
- Cutting some redundant weapons programs from Defense spending

The increased revenue would supposedly come through some new taxes such as a 15 cent/gallon gasoline tax and by eliminating certain tax credits such as the Mortgage Interest Deduction and Child Tax Credit. Of course, we know how the travel industry, housing industry, and the pro-family lobbyists will respond to each of those proposals. I won’t even mention the idea of raising the Social Security retirement age they are recommending, for fear of sparking the howling protests we have seen from those across the pond.

As you can guess, this commission is making few friends and its chance of getting any serious consideration of passing these proposals through a divided legislature is paper thin. However, it has opened the door to a room we must all enter sooner or later – no matter how chilly and dark that room may be now – we have to walk in and sit down to the table and offer some sacrificial offerings.

I am in favor of a strong defense and I believe we should be the strongest military force on the planet, because I believe we are the most moral force on the planet. But I also believe our military can still be strong while cutting costs. I am opposed to most taxes, but I am aware that the privilege of living in a great nation requires something from every citizen.

The cost of doing nothing is far too great. Our deficit must be brought under control. Nothing should be held sacred and beyond the reach of the golden scissors – including that monstrous health care bill passed through bribery and manipulation last spring.

Let’s Get Serious

2010-12-04T17:36:00.000-08:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, November 25, 2010

When one looks at the current national debt and deficit dilemma it is undeniable that the assertion of President Obama’s appointed panel that a real solution must include both spending reduction and increased revenue rings true. Regardless of one’s political affiliation one must accept the fact that only a combination of tax increases and spending cuts will prevent leaving the tragic legacy of our irresponsibility to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. So, when a bipartisan commission makes a public statement that nothing is off the table it sounds hopeful that there is serious commitment to this end.

Unfortunately, a quick review of the draft proposal that was released last week reveals that not everything is on the table.

The most glaring omission from the proposal is the much-politicized Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The $700 billion in revenue that would be generated by allowing the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent is a bold step indeed. Apparently it is one that is an untouchable sacred item. My brother Gordon would argue that the tax cuts were necessary to bring jobs and speed economic recovery. Ironically, the cuts created zero net jobs during Bush’s terms of office, which saw unemployment nearly double during their span.

Apparently corporate welfare is the only acceptable form of government assistance to both parties in Washington. The commission lists, as one of its goals, the reform of the tax code to make “America the best place to start and run a business and create jobs”. However, one of the proposals under the tax code section is the elimination of a credit for domestic production. Once again, it is plain to see that the commission lacks serious commitment toward its stated goals if it is eliminating incentives to create local jobs. The only local employment we are insuring by offering the proposed breaks to corporations is at the executive level. Meanwhile the working class continues to suffer while the wealthy are once again the beneficiaries of government spending and legislation.

It is heartening to see cuts in defense spending on the table (and to see them receiving a nod of approval by my fellow columnist). In fact, I was happy to see a reduction in overseas bases was the second largest line item in the commission’s proposed cuts. Unfortunately again, many cuts effect those who can least afford them. Cuts designed to “modernize” the health benefits of soldiers and veterans will hurt military personal at the lowest incomes and the veterans who have bravely served their country. A freeze on non-combat military pay will add to the suffering of those low-income families who turned to military service in a time of economic crisis.

And even with a $100 billion reduction in military spending, the U.S. expenditure on defense far outweighs that of other countries. China (the number 2 nation in defense spending) spends only 1/6th of the U.S. expenditure and our defense budget is more than the next 23 nations’ combined budgets.

It is good to see the out-of-control military spending addressed, but reigning in the Pentagon’s budget is far from serious reform. Unless we look at the impact of supplemental military spending on the deficit and upon the foreign lending that allows us to sustain it, the discussion is simply rhetoric. An appeal must be made to tailor foreign policy with a mind toward constraining spending. Neither side of the political aisle denies that the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have contributed to the deficit and to our dependency on foreign aid. Yet few have suggested including these costs in the current debate. Even the president has ignored the cost when recently admitting that our military commitment in Afghanistan will last at least three years longer than expected (at undeniable economic expense, as well as the human toll). A bloated military, beholden to no-bid contractors, with wasteful spending makes us no safer.

Recent efforts to improve national security through the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia were blocked by Senate obstructionism. Despite the Obama administration’s contradictory promise of billions of dollars in investment toward modernizing weapons systems, Republicans still oppose reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. The military-industrial complex continues to hold our nation and its leaders hostage nearly fifty years after President Dwight Eisenhower made reference to it.

I found the commission’s words disingenuous when it mentioned that “Throughout our history, Americans have always been willing to sacrifice to make our nation stronger over the long haul.” Yes, it is true that during points of our history citizens have made great sacrifice to preserve the common good. The “Greatest Generation” is a testament to selflessness and a true spirit of patriotic commitment. However, this spirit is largely dead in modern America. We would rather ignore or dispute the facts of global warming than give up our luxuries or our SUVs. Those at the top of the income pyramid refuse to sacrifice even 3 percent of their millions and billions. The cry of “no compromise” is the loudest in our capitals and in our political discourse.

Still, this commission is applauded for making the “tough” decisions of asking those who can hardly afford it to make further sacrifices. Two of the biggest targets for cuts in this proposal are Social Security and Medicare, which provide vital support to the neediest among us. Is this really the best that 18 experts can come up with? Shouldn’t we get serious about the real issues?

Who Are the Real Losers?

2010-11-10T16:13:00.000-08:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, November 11, 2010

Many who have followed my columns might expect me to be despondent or depressed following last week’s “shellacking” of Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. True, there were disappointments like Tom Reed’s victory in the 29th Congressional District, and the amount of seats lost to Republicans in the House of Representatives as a whole. But unlike many on my side of the political spectrum, I’m not donning sackcloth and moping around the house.

First of all, the results weren’t a huge surprise. Historically, the party in power loses Congressional seats in times of economic crisis. Certainly, the public knows that the economic and financial decline in which the United States still finds itself mired began long before President Barack Obama occupied the White House. Still, fear and anger must find their targets and Obama and the Democrats fit the bill. Punishment was doled out in the form of ballots, and control shifted. Republicans claimed victory and retribution, and argued that the message of the people was heard loud and clear on Election Day.

But what was that message? Rush Limbaugh and other insist that it is a rejection of President Obama and his “dangerous agenda”. However, in 2008, 53 percent of Americans voted for Obama and the hope of change. That’s far too great a majority to account for “white guilt”, as Limbaugh would assert. It is hard to believe that people who voted for Obama’s campaign promises just two years ago would vote against those same policies in 2010. Any who voted for Obama but voted against Democrats this go around were likely disappointed that more was not done to further progressive issues. For instance, the arduous process of repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy angered some. I found the provisions of the health care reform that Democrats fought for to be inadequate. Unfortunately, expressing dissatisfaction at the ballot box in an election like this one does little to redress the shortcomings of which we complain most loudly.

There was also a factor that was undeniable in the lead up to, and in the days following, the recent elections. The Tea Party movement was an unmistakable influence upon the outcome. Not everyone who voted an incumbent out, or installed a GOP candidate in office, would describe himself or herself as a member of the Tea Party, but the movement’s message infected the media. It was trumpeted so loudly by the right wing that it was nearly inescapable and the same points were so oft repeated that it became hard even for normally centrist or left-leaning voters to resist its appeal.

The Tea Party ran its campaign on the same promise Obama did in 2008: change. This time change means a rollback of progressive values. Any advancement made by the Democratic President and the Congress (as insignificant as it has been) is targeted for repeal when the new dynamic in Washington is in place.

Of course, this agenda has no hope of success in the near term. The Senate (even with narrow margins) remains in Democratic control and the President is sure to veto any attempt to completely strip laws like health care reform from the books.

Republicans are really hanging their hopes on 2012. Senator Mitch McConnell has already made statements declaring that the best hope for undoing current policy is removing Obama from office. Fortunately, for McConnell and his crew, Republican wins in gubernatorial races will pave the way for state redistricting that will seriously impact the 2012 elections. Mitch McConnell’s cautioning is intended to dampen expectations, especially among the extreme right wing that conservative agendas will be advanced in the 112th Congress.

That doesn’t really matter. The GOP is happy to be the party of “NO” going forward. While Tea Party favorites like Michele Bachman (a Congresswoman from Minnesota who has her eye on a leadership position in the House) have threatened to shake things up in Congress, the current Republican elite will likely remain in power. McConnell and presumptive House Speaker John Boehner understand the way Capitol Hill operates and the limitations on their real control. Some have said this will bring conflict between the Tea Party establishment and those who are pragmatic about Washington politics, but I really don’t think it matters much to the average Tea Partier.

Many would be happy to see gridlock for the next two years. Limbaugh has devoted much of his broadcast time over the past couple of weeks to telling Republicans in Congress that he and his followers will not tolerate cooperation or compromise with the President or members from the other side of the aisle. Voters, he has said, do not want compromise. And apparently, in at least some cases, he’s right.

A Nevada Tea Partier, Ronald Hanvey, summed it up well. “I want gridlock. I don’t want any more laws.”

That is what I find saddest about the outcome of the recent election. The only change that has come to Washington in the post-Obama era is greater division and partisanship. A celebration of obstructionism is no victory. Neither is the rejection of the democratic ideals of cooperation that made our representative form of government unique and cherished in the world.

The real losers in the election on November 2nd weren’t the Democratic politicians. The real losers were you and me. We are losing the vision of our forefathers, of the United States as the shining example of democracy and liberty. We are losing the integrity of our republic.

We have allowed an extremist minority to shape the political landscape. We have forfeited our ideals to the political quagmire. We have given up on reforming Washington. Unless we stand up and vote for real democracy we have all lost.

Analyze This…

2010-11-10T16:10:00.000-08:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, November 11, 2010

As I look forward to the fourth Thursday of November, AKA Thanksgiving Day, I know this year I will be saying, as I do every year, a special prayer of gratitude for our great nation and the blessings we enjoy as American citizens. I will also be looking back to that first Wednesday of this November with a grateful heart and a solemn realization of the fact that when we awoke that morning and tuned into news, there were no stories of violence, bloodshed or rioting in the streets. Truly, it is no small virtue of our uniquely American system of government that we can have these political revolutions and reversals while still maintaining the rule of law and order. Give yourselves a much-deserved pat on the back America!
Now, let us go forward and try to analyze the evidence and statistics of this election.

I am not going to fall into the trap that has captured so many other analysts who think they know “what the American people think”, as if the American voter is a monolith. I cannot say this election is a rejection of or acceptance of any one particular ideology by the American populace as a whole. I only know what one American thinks, (me) and no matter what the experts say, they don’t really know “what America thinks”. Exit polls are not an exact science and votes are cast in privacy.

Only two short years ago we were told America had just held a “historic” election. We witnessed the inauguration of Barack Obama as our first black president who held the favorable opinion of over 60% of the American people and shared his party’s power in both legislative houses. It seemed the best possible scenario for change. And change did come. Deficits ballooned, legislators who were supposed to represent the voters enacted laws through trickery, bribery and closed-door dealing, town hall meetings became shouting matches between concerned citizens and obstinate officials, and disappointment clouded the once hopeful faces. The historic beginnings soon became politics as usual and politics at its worst.

Again, we are being told this election was “historic” and “unprecedented” and destined to “change the political landscape”. I find such talk humorous because every election is, and should be, noted in history books. Every day is technically unprecedented and each new officeholder is destined to bring change, no matter who they are and no matter the office they occupy.

However, in some respects this election is extremely noteworthy and I believe history books will justly note that 2010 was the year that changed the nation’s legislative process for decades to follow. I do not believe we can understate the impact of what has occurred, especially when we consider the fact that, as Keith mentioned in his column, the newly elected governors will determine some of the new congressional districts.

As we look at the state legislatures, and governor’s mansions across the nation, we see more and more of them now held by people who ran on strong conservative tickets. Over 675 state legislative seats now belong to Republican candidates and in 20 states, both houses carry Republican majorities. This bodes well for those of us who value our Constitutional right to defend ourselves, hold human life as sacred, believe in a limited federal government, ascribe to sound fiscal policies based upon free market forces and rest behind the security of a superior military.

While I agree with Keith when he says the chance of repealing Obamacare in this upcoming congressional term is between slim and none, I believe the newly elected representatives should send repeal bills to the Senate as often as possible and they should be accompanied with bold new alternatives and proposals that will use proven techniques and free market solutions to the challenge of health care for all.

However, I must disagree with Keith’s assertion that somehow “we lost” – just because he did not happen to agree with the majority rule aspect of our republican form of government. An “extremist minority” – no matter how well financed – cannot override the majority. Unless he has some evidence of a vast right wing conspiracy that somehow defrauded the election process, we must accept the fact that the people spoke their will on November 2, 2010 just as they spoke their will in November of 2008.

The integrity of our republic is still alive and well, and for that I will give sincere thanks.

Who I like in 2010 Election and Why

2010-11-10T16:05:00.000-08:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, October 28, 2010

Well, it’s that scary time of year again. You know what I’m talking about. The darkness falls early upon our leaf-strewn lawns and little people appear from every corner in masks and costumes asking for treats. No, I am not talking about Halloween, I am referring to that other “Autumn in America” tradition known as the Election Cycle. Each cycle seems to leave our national face a little dirtier and more wrinkled than the last as campaigns dig deeper and deeper into the muck of negative advertising.
With a commitment to clean the air a little, Keith and I have decided to give our choices for the various positions by listing what we perceive as the positive attributes of each candidate and to refrain from pointing out the negatives of their opponents.

New York State Governor
Carl Paladino will receive my vote for Governor of New York State for many reasons. First of all, I believe a successful businessman exhibits a drive and determination that transfers well to the executive branch of government. A chief executive must be able to make hard choices and delegate authority and I think Carl has demonstrated he has that capability.

Within Carl’s plan for an improved business climate in our state is his position on Welfare Reform. I found it very interesting and attractive. He proposes the development of what he calls The Dignity Corps. Modeled after the Civilian Conservation Corps, a successful program initiated during the Great Depression, the Dignity Corps would utilize underused minimum-security prisons as training centers where able-bodied welfare recipients can develop skills and gain the self assurance and pride that comes from gainful employment. Obviously, this proposal would face opposition from those invested in the status quo of welfare dependency, but we have to see that our state cannot sustain the current system. Difficult decisions like these are necessary if we are to see his promised 10% cut in taxes and 20% cut in state spending.

United States Senators
Jay Townsend is my choice for the six-year term of U.S. Senator, currently held by incumbent Chuck Schumer. Townsend is committed to sound fiscal policies that would slow down the growth of the federal government. Jay recognizes that the health care bill and the stimulus package approved by the U.S. Senate last year have been detrimental to our economy. The increased size and scope of the federal government has siphoned tax money from the states and Jay Townsend intends to fight for lower federal spending, limited federal regulation and lower federal taxes.

Joe DioGuardi has my vote for the unexpired two-year term in the U.S. Senate once held by Hilary Clinton and currently filled by Ms. Gillibrand. DioGuardi would bring the unique vantage point of a certified public accountant to the halls of the Senate. In fact, he outlines a five-point plan that would overhaul the current system by holding our federal government to the same accounting, reporting and budgeting standards that publicly traded corporations and businesses are held to by the Securities and Exchange Commission. His plan would include the publishing of accurate information about the finances of our federal government along with the amount of debt owed to foreign sources. He would also call for the chief financial officer to become a cabinet-level position who would take over some of the duties and responsibilities currently filled by the Treasury Department. This would increase efficiency and accountability.

United States House of Representatives
Tom Reed receives my support in both the special election and general election for the seat of the 29th Congressional District. Tom has proven his ability to create jobs as he has operated four different businesses and he recognizes the onerous burden of increased taxes and regulations that stifle economic growth. He voices support for the House Republican plan to lower the lowest tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. This would encourage increased consumer spending and saving, which, in turn, would spur the economy and job creation. Reed recognizes that “the so called stimulus plan was a horrible mistake” and he claims that a common sense approach must be applied to our government the way families and businesses apply common sense solutions to their challenges. In other words, any future spending increase must be paid for by a reduction in spending in another area.

New York State Senate and Assembly
I will cast my votes for Tom O’Mara and Christopher Friend to represent me in our state government. O’Mara has seen first-hand the dysfunctional quality of our state legislature and is committed to the need for a new state Constitutional Convention to reform the workings of our state government.

Christopher Friend recognizes the overwhelming burden the state’s Medicaid system has placed upon our counties and he has witnessed certain improvements that have already been made in the system by Tom Santulli, and offers further suggestions such as requiring Medicaid recipients to use generic drugs and other cost saving proposals.

Well, those are my choices. Obviously, your choices may differ, but I urge you to put forth your own effort to use the sources available to you and to make deliberate, positive selections. I encourage you to visit the very helpful website published by The League of Women Voters in which you can find information about the ballot in your area and the candidates: http://smartvoter.org/

Candidates

2010-11-10T15:58:00.000-08:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, October 28, 2010

As in every U.S. election cycle, there is no shortage of speculation or commentary surrounding this fall’s line-up of political races. Republicans are claiming premature victory in reclaiming a majority control of the House of Representatives and even of the Senate. Democrats are feverishly ramping up fundraisers, advertising and e-mail campaigns in an effort to stem any shifting of tides. Pundits and media personalities are falling over each other to offer their own predictions.

Amid the shouts and din of pre-election rhetoric, my brother Gordon and I offer our analysis. The old standard that if you don’t have anything nice to say about someone you shouldn’t say anything at all makes this a difficult piece for me. That’s not because I am a negative person. It is just that the political climate has so deteriorated into the muck and the mudslinging (and that there is so much anger among groups like the Tea Partiers) that it is difficult to find things that a candidate stands for among the things he or she stands against. I will do my best.

New York State Governor
State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has a history of working for the people of our nation and our state. He has applied and engrained work ethic to social problems in public service on a regional and national level. Among issues he has tackled are human rights, civil rights, homelessness, crime and corruption.

Cuomo understands that the still lagging economy is an important issue to New Yorkers just as it is important to the rest of the nation. He has plans to make New York the jobs capital of the United States. Key in his strategy is offering a $3,000 tax credit to companies for each unemployed New Yorker they hire. The strategy also includes organizing around regional industry clusters, reducing the cost of doing business in the state and increasing small business’ access to capital. Offering incentives to private sector businesses who keep jobs local makes more sense than sending the unemployed to prisons (even if they are called “training centers”).

United States Senators
Charles Schumer has been fighting for New Yorkers as a U.S. Senator since 1998. He has been the state’s Senior Senator since 2000. His record and experience make him a known quantity as a voice in Congress. During his career he has stood up for education, energy, the environment, health care, jobs and security. He will continue to do that work as Senior Senator. His commitment to health care reform, for instance, is evident in the prescription drug legislation he has helped author, his work to make healthcare insurance and services more accessible for all, and his support of hospitals and health industry professionals. He is also working to create jobs and lower tax burdens for New Yorkers.

Kirsten Gillibrand has filled the Senator’s seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, since January of 2009. She is committed to Democratic values and has worked to ensure that affordable health care is available to all, and that economic recovery comes to New York and to the nation. One priority that is important to Kirsten, as a parent of young children, is education. Gillibrand values public education and believes that quality education is not only worth funding well, it is vital to the future of our children and the future of our nation. Economic growth is impossible without access to quality education. Kirsten Gillibrand stands for public schools in an election year where some candidates are pushing for eliminating public education.
United States House of Representatives

I believe so much that Matt Zeller is the choice for the 29th District that I’ll be voting for him twice. He has served our country in Afghanistan and is ready to fight for New York and our nation in Washington. Zeller has plans to bring jobs to New York and take a practical approach to energy concerns (two issues that are, in some ways, interconnected). Matt believes that investing in jobs and technology is not a horrible mistake. Instead of rushing into a natural gas mining operation that could irreparably damage our environment and our drinking water (and imperil us all), he believes in investigating the process thoroughly and putting people to work advancing alternate forms of energy. These are plans that strengthen the economy and address national security, while safeguarding our resources.

New York State Senate and Assembly
I support Pamela Mackesey in the State Senate. She’s committed to building jobs, lowering the tax burden and reforming Albany. She recognizes that our state government is oversized and out of control. This fact should win her support among Democrats and Republicans alike.

I support Jason Jordan for Assembly in New York’s 136th District. He represents fresh leadership and promises to work to provide living wages, improve education and reclaim jobs that have been outsourced overseas.

As expected, my brother and I come down on either side of a predictable line. I may seem like a party hack but, on principle, I reject the idea of endorsing any one candidate over another. I encourage you to investigate the issues that are important to you before you enter the polling place on November 2, and find out who best represents your values.

Friendly Fire

2010-10-13T21:06:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, October 14, 2010

Among the many horrors and tragedies of war, the most horrific and most tragic consequences of battle are the casualties created by misplaced “friendly fire”. The idea that artillery designed for and aimed toward the enemy could actually strengthen the foe’s position by injuring or killing those “on your side of the line” is hard to comprehend.

Even more difficult to comprehend, however, is the idea that the commanders would see the casualties and yet make no attempt to redirect the fire or move the victims from sure harm. While this would certainly call for a court martial of those commanders in a conventional war, in an ideological war, it seems the commanders receive high praise and advancement in their careers.

The ideological war of which I speak and the Friendly Fire to which I refer is the War on Poverty and the Federal Welfare System.
This War on Poverty was declared during the Lyndon Johnson administration in the mid-60’s as the key component of his quest for a Great Society, in which social programs and government bureaucracies would create a utopia with a more equitable distribution of this nation’s great wealth. It has been over 46 years and over $15 trillion since Johnson made his declaration of war and vowed he “would not rest until the war was won”.

Can we rest now? Has the war been won? I think not.

The number of American citizens living in poverty when the first battle cry was issued in 1964 was estimated to be around 39 million, today – despite trillions of taxpayer dollars and conservative as well as liberal ideas for solutions to the problem – we still have over 39 million citizens living below the poverty line.

In fact, it was recently brought to my attention, via a forwarded email from our editor, Karen Frick, that the disparity between the wealthy in our society and the poorest among us still exists and tragic situations are faced daily by those who seem to have “fallen through the cracks” in the many social programs our government has instituted as part of this war.

What then should we do? Should we follow the plan set forth by President Obama who has proposed federal and state spending within the welfare system during Fiscal Year 2010 to reach $888 billion – that is more than Bush spent on the Iraq War in his whole term of office ($622 billion) – and that is only the beginning. Obama has plans to continue the increased spending for the next decade. According to his budget projections, total federal and state matching funding for welfare recipients will exceed $10.3 trillion. That amounts to $250,000/person or $1,000,000/family of four!

I propose that spending more money, establishing more social programs and creating government bureaucracies are not the solutions to poverty. I believe it is time to re-calibrate our weapons and adjust our aim.

Studies have proven that since the War on Poverty began, there has been a steady and precipitous decline in the rate of marriage and stable two-parent families within the black community. According to U.S. Census statistics, the number of children born to unwed mothers within the African-American population was only slightly higher than those of the rest of the population (14% for blacks compared to 3% for whites). However, a sharp curve developed after the War on Poverty was declared and government programs initiated a marriage penalty for those who were placed on the welfare rolls. The current percentage of children born into homes without a father within the black population now exceeds 73%!

Studies have also proved that – with controls adjusted for all other components – that marriage and stable families are associated with lower rates of poverty. (Calculated from data in U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2006–2008. See Fragile Families and Child Well-being Survey at http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/)

I believe the intent behind the War on Poverty was noble in its inception and I do recognize that standards of living have improved for the poorest among us (just ask AT&T, Verizon and Sprint how many cell phone customers pay their accounts with taxpayer money, or survey the number of cable subscribers and high-speed Internet users within the poorest communities), but I am not sure the methods currently in use serve to reduce the overall causes of poverty.

We can best serve the poverty stricken by heeding the advice of Benjamin Franklin who said (I am paraphrasing here) that “We do not help the poor by making them comfortable in their poverty, we help them most by driving them out of it”, and that is done by making them uncomfortable! Or to follow the advice of Patrick Moynihan, quoted recently in a George Will column, who said (again paraphrasing) “The creating of bureaucracies to serve the poor is like feeding the sparrows by feeding the horses” (I’ll let you follow the reasoning there).

In conclusion, we do have an obligation to help our fellow man. We must do what we can to help “the least of these” but we cannot do it by merely spending money (redistribution of wealth). We must address the causes of poverty. For example, we must educate our youth about the consequences of poor choices. The surest preventive to poverty is to stay in school, don’t have babies before you’re married, get a job and show up! Otherwise we will continue to see more casualties from our “friendly fire”.

Under Fire

2010-10-13T21:03:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, October 14, 2010

In his column, my brother Gordon speaks of “friendly fire” in the war on poverty. As I read his assessment, I found it hard to distinguish who Gordon believes are the casualties in this war. If one goes by common definitions, one would have to assume that he meant the poverty-stricken. However, it is clear that he sees the wealthy as the real victims and levels his own weapon directly at the poor themselves.

Gordon’s stereotypical view of African Americans as a plight of the welfare state is alarming but not surprising when it is compared to the sentiment of conservative pundits such as David Horowitz and Rush Limbaugh, who continually assert that low-income America in general and minorities in particular sponge off the welfare system and taxpayers. Judging from Gordon’s harsh criticism of the family values of an entire class of American citizens and of President Barack Obama, one must assume that he sees any policy from this administration that addresses poverty as an attempt by Obama to pamper his kinfolk by rewarding the stereotypical black welfare mama.

Most disturbing to me was my fellow columnist’s remedy for the wealth gap in the United States. Apparently, all we need to do is show the “least among us” just how much it sucks to be poor. Apparently, these misguided souls have made it their life’s goal to live in sub-par housing, endure the rigors and stigma of assistance programs, and document for official record their economic, personal and lifestyle choices (which are the confidential rights others enjoy unconditionally). Apparently, they only need to be made more uncomfortable than they already are. You’ve got to love compassionate conservatism.

Since Gordon made reference to Jesus’ words and since he is fond of applying biblical texts to his columns, I think it is worth examining the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) question in regard to social justice. In the story of Jesus feeding the multitude, He doesn’t offer family or career planning advice to the throngs of hungry gathered to hear His message. He and his disciples took the small portion donated and redistributed it. I find it interesting that the religious right tends to argue that a disdain for social justice is some sort of Christian value (Glenn Beck calls social justice a liberal conspiracy and an attack on Christianity). However, biblical texts present the teachings of Jesus as progressive values that promote equality, charity and tolerance – especially toward the less fortunate among us.

Gordon mentions an article about the growing wealth gap in the United States, which we both received from the BVW editor. He fails to mention the article’s focus on the disconnect between the wealthiest among us and the poorest. The plight of lower-income America is largely lost on the affluent. In fact, although the current recession has been extreme, the top income earners (especially those in the top ten percent) have weathered the downturn with less impact than in other milder downturns. They have also suffered far less damage financially than those of middle and lower incomes.

Part of the reason for the disconnect is that, during the Bush administration when tax policies disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans, unemployment rose steadily. In fact, while many conservatives criticize President Obama’s failure to create more jobs, jobless reporting shows that unemployment nearly doubled from 3.7 percent to 7.1 percent during Bush’s presidency. Meanwhile, income earners in the top ten percent experienced an income growth of 10.3 percent annually.

This brings up a disconnect I find even more troubling. Some in the working class favor extending the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthy at the expense of those of lower income. Judging from the Republicans’ reaction to the sunsetting of tax cuts for the wealthy, and legislation that would penalize corporations that ship American jobs overseas, there seems to be a willingness among conservatives to vote against their own financial interests. Perhaps this reflects the conservative rhetoric that praises feeding the income elite and promises that the crumbs will feed the common man.

At the core of this ideology is an unnatural glorification of the supply-side economic model that has plagued the nation for decades and led to the financial and industrial collapse that propelled the U.S. into one of the most severe recessions that we have encountered. Another part of the equation is the demonizing of the current administration with terms like “communist” and “socialist”. What results is a mistrust of the administration and a predisposition to oppose any action (however beneficial) that the administration takes. Dismissing these policies out of hand is not the way to address the economic problems we face.

Instead we need to examine the factors and policies that created the ever-widening wealth gap. Corporate America’s exorbitant rewarding of executives while it outsources jobs and production away from workers in the United States is one factor. The income imbalance that pays CEOs nearly 300 times the salaries of average workers is another. A devaluation of the middle and working class has left one in seven with income below the poverty level. Attacking the victims of poverty and calling them lazy and ignorant is not only ineffectual, it is demoralizing and insulting.

Smoke and Mirrors

2010-10-13T21:02:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, September 30, 2010

Election years are a crazy time in America and, by extension, a crazy time for the American public. Campaign posturing, rhetoric and attacks flood our media and infect our daily conversations. Politicians hit the road, glad-handing and clawing for position. Promises are made and mud is slung. The same types of things happen each time there is an election of consequence, and as we gear up for this coming November, the cycle is repeating.

However, this year has a new dynamic. An influencing element has been added to the mix. The Tea Party movement has reached critical mass and has been credited with wins in primary races and with a general shakeup of the political landscape. Former Alaska Governor and GOP cover girl Sarah Palin is basking in praise and adoration, and Radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck is riding a wave of self-proclaimed success.

It hasn’t been all smooth sailing for the Tea Partiers, though. Following the victory of movement favorite Christine O’Donnell in the Republican primary for Senate (Delaware), a few in the GOP leadership were critical of the influence of the Tea Party in the primaries because they felt the prospects endangered candidates who could win in the general election. Even Karl Rove spent much of his appearance on the conservative Sean Hannity show criticizing O’Donnell and bringing into question her qualifications and background.

Of course, the conservative punditry was quick to spank Rove and others who deviated from the radical right wing’s agenda. Radio host Rush Limbaugh spent what seemed like hours (of course, I often have that misperception of time whenever I force myself to tune into his show) spouting off about how Rove was a turncoat. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer received a similar bashing for calling into question Sarah Palin’s endorsement of O’Donnell.

Republicans have long realized that the Tea Party and those who wield power in the conservative realm are a force to be reckoned with. Therefore, it didn’t take long for a political ploy to take shape. The result was the recent announcement of the GOP’s “Pledge to America” document.

This 21-page piece was formulated as a way to reclaim favor among the extreme and radical right by spewing rhetoric and making claims they cannot back up. Not only are the promises to reduce the deficit, spending and taxation unattainable. The arguments they are making are misleading.

The focal points of the Pledge are a repeal of healthcare reform and making George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent. The former is an interesting approach since the public cannot even visualize the impact of repealing policy which has only begun to take effect, and which has yet to impact the public. The latter is a technique which has largely proven successful for the Republicans because voters can often to be trusted to get behind tax cuts in almost any form.

However, it is unclear how much support can really be garnered in the current economic climate. According to recent reports, nearly 1 in 7 Americans is now below the poverty level. Sparing the wealthiest in the top two percent may not be all that attractive to the remaining 98 percent who are feeling the real strain of the recession. The tired conservative claim that Bush tax cuts built jobs is hard to swallow when the policies of the Bush administration and the failure for wealth to trickle down from supply-side surpluses has landed us in the muck of economic decline.

In any event the document is unlikely to move policy very far. It isn’t really intended to. The Pledge to America is merely intended to shift some of the wind from behind the Tea Party to behind the Republic Party’s sails. If it can propel the Republicans to victory in November and gain them a majority in Congress, it will have done its work.

Perhaps this is a good thing, since the proposals laid out in the document are potentially threatening to our livelihoods. Health care protections that prevent denial of coverage for children would be removed under the plan. Social Security and Medicare reforms would potentially privatize the systems and put benefits at risk for those who most need them. Concessions made to the wealthy will do little to provide economic relief to any but the wealthiest themselves, and will serve only to further widen the wealth gap.

Thankfully, the Pledge to America is like the explosive pyrotechnics used by illusionists to hide the real “magic” being performed. An explosive puff of smoke and cleverly concealed mirrors hide the mechanism behind the works. Meanwhile Republicans are baiting the voters with promises of economic prosperity and preparing for the switch that would leave most of us underserved and unrepresented.

“Is There Not A Cause?”

2010-10-13T20:58:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, September 30, 2010

“Is there not a cause?” Those familiar with the Biblical story of David versus Goliath, recorded in 1 Samuel, chapter 17 will recognize this rhetorical question David asked of his brothers in verse 29. Just before he went to a nearby brook and picked five smooth stones to arm himself against the mighty giant, David had to remind the naysayers that there are things worth fighting for, despite the odds, and even when all others may run away from the battle, a true champion believes in his cause and goes forward.

Many, including my fellow columnist, are acting like David’s brothers. They cast a doubtful eye toward the recently released Pledge to America, in which the Republicans outlined their objectives for their next term as the majority party in Washington, and say the goals are – in Keith’s words – “unattainable”.

Well, the leaders of the GOP have chosen their own five smooth stones and they may indeed be less successful than our shepherd hero, but we should at least give them a fair hearing.

The pledge begins with a preamble outlining the cause and reminding us of the unique origin and mission of our great nation. They claim that America is more than just another nation on the world stage; it is an idea and an inspiration to the rest of the world, and as such it is worth our best efforts to keep it viable and secure.

Before I go on to describe the good points I believe are in this short document, I must take a few minutes to dispel a few myths in Keith’s article.

First of all, there is the well-worn myth that the “Bush tax cuts benefit only the wealthiest of Americans”, and they should rightfully be allowed to melt away in January 2011 like last winter’s snow and drip into the nearest storm drain.

The facts are, according to a report filed on taxfoundation.org with figures drawn from a Congressional Budget Office document published in 2007, that the richest 20% of all tax filers saw their tax burden rise from 81.2% of total tax revenues in 2000 to over 85.3% in the year 2007. During that same period, the lowest 20% saw their tax refunds almost doubled.

To repeal the Bush tax cuts would, according to another study published by The Tax Foundation (a non-partisan organization of tax experts), raise the tax burden of “the typical middle income family with a median income of $63,000 by about $1540.” The burden would also be borne by those who have enjoyed the child tax credit as well as those who will see the return of the marriage penalty should the Bush tax cuts be repealed.

That is why I am relieved to read that one of the five stones chosen by the Republicans will make these cuts permanent and prevent the increased tax burden should they be repealed as scheduled in January 2011.

Keith also repeats the myth that the Bush tax cuts did not produce jobs and that the economy suffered from a lack of tax revenue. The facts, again, prove otherwise. According to information found at www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm, CBO documents bear out the reality that the tax revenues increased and the economy did rebound from the devastating effects of 9/11, precisely because of Bush’s tax policies.

Another stone in the sling of the Republicans involves a repeal of the unpopular and unwieldy Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or Obamacare) passed by the slimmest majority and the most reprehensible political maneuvering in our history. This bill has, despite Keith’s assertion to the contrary, already “impact(ed) the public”.

For example, several large insurance companies have recently stopped offering child-only policies precisely because PPACA allows parents to wait until their child gets sick before paying the premiums for the coverage. Therefore, these companies dropped the policies on the exact day the new rules went into effect. It is no wonder the Democrats are not bragging about this accomplishment when they present their legislative resumes to their constituents, and it should be no wonder that a responsible and responsive Congress should repeal it before it does more damage to our nation’s health care and economy.
The Pledge outlines the need for this repeal and gives some valid and workable reforms in pages 14 – 16, should you decide to download and read the document for yourself. (It can be found at docstoc.com as well as other sites.)

I am also encouraged by the common sense approach to national security displayed in the Pledge. They rightly claim that Iran’s and North Korea’s leaders present a concrete threat to our safety and world peace and we cannot afford to leave our missile defense unfunded.

There are many more good proposals contained within this document and even if you discount it as mere political posturing, they have taken the bold step of putting it in writing that we can all see and remind them of should they fail to follow through. This is in sharp contrast to those who put their promises on ethereal teleprompters.

Solution to Campaign Finance Pollution

2010-10-13T20:55:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, September 16, 2010

As we head toward another election season we are once again reminded of the bittersweet essence of the uniquely American system of choosing our legislators. We see the political signs popping up in our neighbors’ yards and along our highways, and we hear the incessant commercials on our radios and televisions.

For me, it brings about a series of mixed emotions. I am proud to be a citizen of a country where we still have the right to vote and I enjoy the suspense and drama of watching the competition played out before our eyes and ears. However, I am also embarrassed by the patronizing and the petty sniping that has become a common element in almost all of the campaigning.
It seems that we reach new heights – or should I say new lows – each election cycle. Advertisements and billboards scream out negative messages and/or unattainable promises. The atmosphere seems to become clouded with an air of darkness and we soon long for the election to be over if only to have our airwaves and scenery cleansed of the political pollution.

It is obvious that this pollution does not come without a price. Advertising and transportation to speaking events does not come cheaply. Costs of running a successful campaign continue to mount as a recent Star-Gazette article noted the rising cost of our local Primary battles. For example, the Democratic (NYS) Senate primary race in the Buffalo district has seen over $400,000 spent in the past two months alone. It is a ridiculous amount but it pales next to the over $900,000 spent in a three-way Democratic primary in 2004 – this was for a NYS Assembly seat, not the Governor’s mansion!

We can see clearly that this is not a poor man’s game and the cost of running a campaign excludes many more qualified candidates while retaining the most corrupt and/or the most persuasive salesperson.

You may ask if there is any solution to this pollution. Well, many attempts have been made over the years. We erected a bureaucracy called the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to monitor and regulate the flow of money and the tone of the messages. We have designed legislation to restrict or stifle undue influence. Yet the problem continues. Loopholes are found and stretched to accommodate larger and larger amounts of money to be poured into the cesspool and the pollution spreads.

Recent attempts to regulate the amount of money available to politicians (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 – AKA McCain-Feingold) have done nothing more than applied pressure on one side of the balloon. It led to the swelling known as “the 527’s”. These are the unregulated groups who can spend freely to deliver messages that can greatly influence public opinion but remain outside the realm of the FEC’s regulatory arms. A brief search on Wikipedia.com or Opensecrets.org will reveal to you how much money has been spent by these organizations in recent campaigns. It will amaze you.

What then, should we do? Should we add even more power to the FEC to control these groups as well? I, for one, do not agree with any attempt to regulate free expression in any form; even though I know that the majority of 527 money goes to speech I do not agree with. For example, of the over $400 MILLION spent in 2008 by 527’s, over 70% of it was spent by left-leaning organizations such as MoveOn.org (which dropped its 527 status after 2008) and others like the Soros-linked America Coming Together.

What solution is left to us if we follow the Supreme Court’s interpretation that political speech is protected by our Constitution as well as the money used to produce that speech?

It is a fact that the two most corrupting and corruptible influences in our society are money and power. They are like twin snakes that like to slither around our political process like verminous night creatures, enjoying the dark corners and the back rooms of society.

The solution, according to at least a few thinkers who are much more astute than your humble columnist, is simply to limit the corruption by limiting the power.

In other words, if we were to truly cut the size and reach of the government’s power to regulate and finance the many areas of our lives, we would cut the need to influence that government’s decision-making process.

Imagine a world in which politicians are limited in their power as well as in their length of “service” (i.e. term limits). They would no longer have the pull to bring the lobbyist to their door with bags of money. If they lose the “power of incumbency” they would not be as attractive to those who wish to tempt them.

Another solution to the pollution would be to allow the “sunlight” of public disclosure. I believe that every donation should be publicized and every action committed in response to that donation should be disclosed.

These are simple solutions but I do believe that they would be much more effective than further regulation and/or limitations on free speech.

After the Election Campaign

2010-10-13T20:52:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, September 16, 2010

My brother Gordon and I seldom agree on political matters. The nature of our personalities and beliefs often separates us so far from each other that any common ground seems almost unfathomable. However, occasionally we agree on a premise or two.

Gordon and I both recognize the corruption that is polluting the political process in the United States. Both of us see it as a negative influence. Still, we have differing views on the breadth of the problem and the course of a solution.

He sees the campaign financing as merely free political speech, but the reach of ambitious funding goes further. The talons of corporate influence are sharp and long, and they rip the liberties of the whole to shreds while they pierce the Constitutional protections provided by the nation’s founders.

While my brother focused on the influence of money on campaigns and elections, I see the aftermath of the elections as the bigger and more important issue. The financial favors that propel candidates into office come due as politicians begin to take their positions as legislators and leaders. Committees become pet projects of corporate investors and the interests of those companies soon overshadow those of the constituents they are sworn to serve.

Gordon sees the remedy for this corporate lobbying in a reduction of power in government. His perspective is that if legislators are relatively powerless they will cease to be prized by those who seek to influence their votes.

However, a neutering of government (while it may eliminate the desire to lobby Congress) will only leave corporate interests unchecked at the expense of the interests of the rest of us. This is a dangerous prospect.

A glaring example of weakened governmental power is featured prominently in the headlines nearly every day. As reports of contaminated water supplies, livestock death and disease, and deadly natural gas pipeline ruptures surface, the debate over the controversial hydro-fracturing extraction process continues in our own hometowns. Yet, the dialog is stymied because the industry is free to conceal vital information about the safety and health risks of the fracking. They are allowed to do this primarily because the natural gas exploration industry is exempt from mandatory disclosure of the chemicals and solutions they are injecting into our land. Local leaders can’t seem to do enough to cater to the industry and seem to be eager to approve exploration without allowing sufficient investigation into the potential risks. Weakening governmental controls further would leave fewer safeguards against contamination of our water and the endangering of our lives.

Reform is necessary in our government, but an impotent regulatory body isn’t the answer. Restricting committee membership would do a lot to curb corruption and the pollution of the legislative process by lopsided lobby interests. Congressmen and senators who are beholden to corporate donors should not be allowed to serve on committees upon which the interests of those corporations depend. Representatives of districts containing military installations or military contractors should not serve on committees charged with defense-related decisions or funding allocation. These conflicts of interest are glaring and seem obviously problematic, yet little is done to prevent this influence.

Gordon is also right that the McCain-Feingold act did little to address the ills of campaign financing. There is little political will to right the capsized boat of electoral politics. The machinery has too much momentum and there are too few politicians who are trying to wean themselves off the corporate teat. The fact is that unless there is a loud enough outcry at the grassroots level there will never be meaningful change in the bankrolling of politicians and the corruption that results.

Part of the problem plaguing the campaign environment is the strength and influence of the two-party system. Fundraising standards and pressure to meet quotas require candidates to whore themselves out to corporate interests. The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee are perverting the election process and destroying democracy in attempts to fulfill political agendas and control power at all costs. Candidates are often caught in the middle and constituents left unrepresented.

A three (or more) party system is not on the near horizon. Too much has been invested in maintaining the current broken power struggle to allow candidates much success outside of the two major parties. But hope of real reform and meaningful change rests in breaking out of the stranglehold the two-party system has over politics and policy.

As we get ready to plunge into the nasty heat of the 2010 election season, we would do well to remember that the real harvest of the fruits sown by campaign financiers will take place long after the ballots of November have faded into history’s memory.

Bumper Sticker Reactions

2010-10-13T20:50:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, August 26, 2010

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Republicans used the real fear and legitimate rage felt by many Americans to strengthen the executive branch, maintain power and build support for radical policies. As a nation, we were shaken by such an atrocity and allowed ourselves to be ruled by our emotions – and the strongest of these was a sense of vulnerability that many had never felt before with regard to the United States’ superpower status. Conservatives took advantage of that emotion and it became more than a policy wedge. It became a campaign platform.

In the nine years since 9/11 some healing has taken place. Rage over the attacks has lost its stinging relevance and people have begun to think about other issues that affect their daily lives. The economic strategies of the past have left us with a weakened financial system, a severe wealth imbalance, a deep recession and struggling industry. The political power has also shifted and Democrats occupy the White House and a narrow majority in Congress.

Fortunately, in a year of mid-term elections and a buildup to a presidential election in 2012, Republicans were recently handed a gift. A few weeks ago the Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously voted against protecting a building on Park Place, two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center. This will help pave the way for the construction of a 13-story Islamic community center.

Immediately, the public relations machine kicked into gear. The day after the August 3 decision, Rush Limbaugh began his radio program with a declaration that the terrorists have won. Republican political operative Newt Gingrich made statements calling the proposed mosque and community center an “assertion of Islamic triumphalism”. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani referred to it as a desecration. Sarah Palin called on her twitter followers to “refudiate” the planned mosque (later replacing her made-up word with “refute”). The already enraged Tea Party movement adopted the “Ground Zero mosque” as a banner and waved it to whip up fury at the grassroots level. Sobbing and enraged callers flooded talk radio’s phone lines with impassioned protest. Opposition to an Islamic center within walking distance of Ground Zero quickly became a climate of renewed anti-Islamic sentiment.

The Dove World Outreach Center (an organization with an agenda antithetical to its name) is planning a massive burning of Korans to commemorate the anniversary of 9/11. Republican congressional candidate Allen West (a Tea Party player in Florida’s 22nd District) describes Islam as “very vile and very vicious enemy that we have allowed to come in this country because we ride around with bumper stickers that say co-exist.”

The bumper sticker (featuring symbols like an Islamic crescent, peace sign, male/female sign, star of david, Wiccan pentacle, yin-yang sign, and Christian cros that replace the letters making up “C-O-E-X-I-S-T” ) “incenses” West because he believes anyone who would drive a car bearing it “represents something that would give away our country. Would give away who we are, our rights and freedoms and liberties because they are afraid to stand up and confront that which is the antithesis, anathema of who we are. The liberties that we want to enjoy.” Apparently, those liberties don’t include the freedom of religion that was part of the appeal for the nation’s founders, who were escaping the persecution they had suffered in the Old World.

Judging from recent polls showing that a majority of Americans oppose the mosque, West’s sentiment is shared by many. Fan pages and comments on Facebook and other social networking sites invite people to voice their opposition. The mosque has become a media hot button with newspaper, television, radio, and blogs alight with commentary.

I believe the core of the opposition is a blurring of lines. The words “Islam” and “terrorism” have become synonymous. Even my fellow columnist has contributed to this attitude. Gordon has described Islam as a creed that calls for the extermination of those who don’t share the Muslim belief. In reality, Islam is nothing more menacing than any other religion. It is undeniable that there are Islamic extremists who have perpetrated acts of violence in the name of Allah. However, a look at history reveals similar acts in the name of Christianity, with its crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts. Blanket condemnation of any religious persuasion based on the acts of extremists is wrong-headed.

In the specific example of the mosque, the rush to judgment ignores some important facts. The project’s founder, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has dedicated much of his career to interfaith activities and has sought to build bridges between Islam and the West. He has been an imam in the area for decades, and has been vociferous in condemning the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and terrorism in general. In fact, a memorial to victims of the attacks is included in the plans for the community center.

There is room for reasoned dialog on the location of this mosque and the significance of the building (not part of the World Trade Center) that currently stands there. However, the impulse is to react to bumper sticker sentiment. This sticker, though, reads “intolerance!” in boldface, and precludes peaceful coexistence. It defies the legacy of religious tolerance inspired by the nation’s founding fathers.

In the interest of Tolerance

2010-10-13T20:46:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, August 26, 2010

Imagine, if you will, that you are a descendant of a proud Iroquois tribe. You carry your ethnic heritage with justifiable pride and you regularly visit the ancient burial grounds to pay your respects and memorialize those who have walked this earth before you. Each year you lay a flower and say a prayer over their final resting place. This year, however, you arrive at that sacred place to find the noise and stench of diesel engines breaking the usual silence and sweet aroma of the forest site. You watch as bulldozer blades rip the topsoil from the whitened bones of your ancestors, exposing and scattering the ribs and vertebrae as if they were nothing more than dirt. Would you be willing to allow the construction to go on – in the interest of tolerance?

Now imagine, if you will, that you are the child of a woman who was one of those airplane passengers who perished that fateful September morning in 2001. You have heard the voices recorded from the cockpit on that awful day and you know that the last words your mother heard before the plane crashed through the walls and glass of the World Trade Center were: “Allah Akbar!” Now, you are walking to the place where your mother’s incinerated remains flew through the air and settled upon the sidewalks and gutters. Your intent is to pay your respects to her on her birthday. You are in the midst of a silent prayer, when through the window of a nearby building you hear those words again said in unison by hundreds of praying Muslims: “Allah Akbar!” – “All praise to Allah!” Would you be willing to accept the premise that the existence of that mosque at this place was an effort to “build bridges between Islam and the West”? Would you accept it being there – in the interest of tolerance?

I contend that there are certain areas and certain sites that retain more than just material significance; they should be, and are sanctified, by what took place there or by what they represent. Therefore they should be treated differently than other pieces of real estate. For example, we would not want to see a McDonald’s golden arch or a Wal-Mart parking lot near the gates of Arlington National Cemetery. We would not want to see a Japanese flag flying over the memorial dock in Pearl Harbor where the buried destroyer still cries tears of oil for those who perished in that brutal attack that forced us into World War II.

Those who are planning the erection of the mosque near Ground Zero deliberately chose the site because of its moral significance to us and its morale-boosting relevance to Anti-American Islamists in Saudi Arabia and other nations who call themselves the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is: “to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within.” Despite the spoken claim that they chose this spot to open dialogue between those who follow Islam and those who have other beliefs, a careful reading of their own scriptures proves that they accept no compromising position when it comes to their beliefs.

It is also a known fact that within the Muslim faith it is their practice to erect mosques at or near the point of important victories. Hence, there are mosques that overlook monumental sites like the place where the second Jewish temple was destroyed in Jerusalem in the eighth century and on the grounds of the destroyed Christian Church of St. Vincent in Cordoba, Spain.

My brother echoes the words of President Obama and others who say this is an issue of religious freedom and he makes the claim that we who make up the vast majority who oppose this mosque are intolerant. He fails to mention, however, the same poll showed that the majority of those who oppose this mosque at this site have no opposition to a mosque within two blocks of their home. The facts are that there are several mosques scattered all throughout NYC and none are facing opposition or protest.

Another thing Keith and others who share in the support of this building fail to mention is that another church, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was destroyed when the towers collapsed, has been denied permission to rebuild in its original footprint adjacent to Ground Zero by the same committee that has approved the construction of this mosque.

Furthermore, I find it very ironic that construction of a highway project or a hospital can be shelved for years while researchers and analysts study the populations of some irrelevant insect or endangered rodent to determine if the continuation of the project would “offend” the little critter or harm the habitat in any way, yet we Americans who value the sanctity of innocent life must be tolerant of any offense or any harm done to us or our memories.

Controlling the Message

2010-10-13T20:39:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, August 12, 2010

The term “Political Correctness” or “PC” is an emotionally charged and contentious one. Regardless of whether one falls to the left or the right of issues, one will often react harshly to being referred to as PC or as trying to be politically correct. Seldom is the phrase used without being intended as an insult or carrying a negative connotation. This is just as it was planned when the term was coined.

Labeling something or someone as politically correct effectively manages the debate, disarms those who disagree and marginalizes the issue itself.

My brother Gordon gives the definition of politically correct as changing society’s behaviors and language to minimize offense. I think this a worthwhile endeavor.

We had few hard and fast rules in our household as my wife and I raised our children. The one central commandment was simple: respect others. It was a variation on the Golden Rule and it served us well. Virtually every offense a child commits out of spite or carelessness is a violation of the respect that humans ought to have for each other. If we are good parents we teach our children to “minimize offense” (however we define that) and be good world citizens. When children begin their first social interactions in churches, preschool or in their kindergarten classrooms, respect for others is expected of them (and has been long, long before the advent of political correctness). There is absolutely nothing wrong with minimizing the offense we inflict on others, in our lives and in the world.

But Gordon’s definition of PC wasn’t the only one I found as I prepared for this week’s column. Answers.com offers one defining it as “relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.” Now, this seems pretty close to what Gordon mentioned when he spoke about driving with a focus on the rear view mirror. For many, it is more than painful to look at the transgressions of our past, it is an admission of guilt of which they would choose to absolve themselves. The difference between historical context and driving a car is that the open road seldom doubles back upon itself. However, those who refuse to listen to history are doomed to repeat it. The shift in attitudes toward ethnic groups in America, for instance, was necessary in order for us to move along the path toward honoring the promise of equality of which our forefathers spoke. Our treatment of certain immigrants during our history is shameful by today’s standards. Our legacy of slavery and discrimination against black Americans is worthy of our regret. However, our instinct is often to wave a hand of dismissal and expect those we have wronged to “get over it”.

A second definition of political correctness on Answers.com reads: “Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.” This is the overcorrecting to which my brother refers. Of course, terms that quantify are relative. Is it overreacting to be appalled and demand an apology when an elected official uses “the ‘N’ word” (or other derogatory ethnic term)? When Rush Limbaugh coins the term “feminazi” to describe a strong activist woman, should we just defend it as free speech and ignore the consequence of his language?

The problem is that political correctness isn’t simply about minimizing offense in the sense of preventing someone’s feelings from being hurt. We aren’t just overly sensitive to slurs and epithets. Actions and language have consequence. During the dark days of slavery, slurs were used to present blacks as something less than humans in order to allow slave owners to buy and sell people as if they were mere property. After the abolishment of slavery, the terminology remained as a barrier to equality. As long as we maintained the distinction between whites and “coloreds” it was easy for us to relegate them to the back of the bus or force them to use the bathroom down the hall. Referring to our enemy in Vietnam as “gooks” allowed us to sleep at night as we sent our troops to destroy their villages and slaughter them in huge numbers.

Today, in a nation that many decry as too PC, we still use language as a powerful weapon to subjugate others and control the debate. Our politicians and media personalities use the term “illegals” (as well as other derogatory terms) to denote primarily Mexican immigrants as a way to remove the human attribute from the discussion. It’s easier to talk about stripping rights and freedoms from people, if one sees the situation in generic terms. The pejorative labels we have attached to lesbians and gays have allowed us to easily deny basic human rights to an entire group of Americans. That language and attitude allowed ridiculous laws to be written and enforced for decades (many “sodomy” laws are still on the books). Sadly, the fact that a moral judgment is attached to this terminology makes it even more dangerous.

The PC label is highly effective at controlling messages. Many will use it to drive a wedge of division between “us” and “others.” Many others will shy away from the label and spurn it to the point of accepting language or behavior contrary to their sensibilities. We must recognize that the matter at hand isn’t simply minimizing offense. We need to have the foresight to look down the road at the real consequence of our language and actions.

In Defense of Public Education

2010-10-13T20:37:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 29, 2010

In the last edition of this column, my brother Gordon and I discussed New York State’s budget and taxation and ended up talking about (among other things) public education. Because column space (and the tolerance of readers) is limited, so broad a topic as the budget itself (even without exploring taxes and their implications) is nearly impossible to cover well in this forum. There are simply too many issues to consider and too much to examine. Therefore we felt a narrowed focus on one aspect – education spending – was worthy of a follow up.

Gordon’s previous essay was in part an indictment of public education and an encouragement to the governor and state legislature to cut spending in that area. As one who has home-schooled his children and currently teaches at a private school, Gordon’s perspective on education is different than my own. I can appreciate that. Unfortunately, among some, that perspective amounts to a desire to weaken the current public system.

There are activist groups out there claiming to be committed to educational reform. One such group, the conservative Center for Education Reform, seems more intent on dismantling the current system. According to its Mandate for Change document, “If we fail to fix our failing schools, however, if we fail to replace our public education system, which as a whole is itself monumentally broken, we, the people, may soon find that we are fundamentally unequipped to govern ourselves let alone to provide governance to others we thought in greater need.”

I firmly believe that a well-informed, well-educated electorate is the key to a healthy democratic republic. However, I doubt the motivation behind the Mandate and disagree with the methods the group wishes to apply. Interestingly, this group seemingly rejects the conservative trend toward smaller government by asking Congress and the Obama administration to promote its agenda by asserting federal influence into states’ educational policies. Their five-fold strategy focuses on two components designed to restructure the current system: charter schools and school choice.

Charter schools are institutions that receive local, state and federal funding but lack the oversight of local school boards and districts. Advocates insist that charter schools improve educational quality, but a 2009 review by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that charter schools underperformed traditional public schools in many areas. Recently an Elmira group’s charter application was denied by the State University of New York Charter Schools Institute on the grounds that its instructional program, plans for assessing student achievement, professional development program, and trustee competency failed to meet standards. Still these schools siphon needed funds away from public districts and the SUNY Institute has announced plans to expand the program to more than double the current number of charter schools in the state. Federal incentives and a growing trend toward Wall Street investment in charter schools promise to exacerbate the problem.

“School choice” has often been code terminology to refer to an attack on the public education system. The premise is that public schools are too broken to provide adequate education so parents must be given the choice to seek other alternatives. This is a right every parent now enjoys. However, advocates of “choice” (many who see themselves as proponents of the free market) want to divert public moneys toward private schools in the form of vouchers or direct funding of private institutions. Again these programs cut into the resources of public schools.

I happen to believe in the public school system. A product of the system, I saw the dedication of teachers whose effort and inspiration were invaluable assets to my intellectual growth. As a parent, I shared the frustration of staff and faculty who were overworked and underpaid and struggling to provide a quality learning environment under sometimes overwhelming restraints. The system isn’t perfect, but it has value, and many of the professionals who choose public education as a vocation over higher salaries and greater opportunity are committed to making a difference.

Should we concern ourselves with the cost of public education? Absolutely. We should demand that taxpayer dollars are well spent. We should strive to ensure that money allocated toward providing safe facilities, supplies, equipment, books and instruction is spent wisely. We should require that efficiency be a prerequisite in the stewardship of public funds. We should hold districts and boards accountable for the level of education our children receive. We should look at the role of teachers’ unions in budget negotiations. We should reward teachers who perform well, while trying to eliminate poor teachers. These are all reasonable considerations.

What we should not do is react emotionally without taking into account the big picture that is public education. For millions of children, public education will continue to be the only choice for education; the only hope for a better life. Enacting policies that undermine and bankrupt the system is a disservice to these children.

Keeping the Goal in Sight

2010-10-13T20:33:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 29, 2010

Within the great scheme of nature’s design, one aspect has proven to be the driving force that compels organisms and organizations to greater achievements and superior performance. That aspect is Competition.

Competition for limited resources forces individuals and industries to sharpen their skills or suffer the consequences. For those of us who are enjoying the luxuries of newer, faster, better, and less expensive products like cell phones, computers, TV’s, cars, MP3 players, etc. we can thank competition within the marketplace. For those of us who follow or participate in sports and marvel at the achievements we see in others or experience within ourselves, we can thank competition.

Competition tends to bring us increased quality and lower prices, lack of competition and monopolies tend to stifle innovation and hinder progress. This should go without saying, but I feel it must be said in light of my fellow columnist’s defense of the status quo when it comes to public education and its funding.

First of all, I must clarify a few things in Keith’s column. I did not express, nor do I have, a desire for a “weakening of the current public system.” On the contrary, I want to see an improvement of the system, because, while I do and did choose to educate my children at home (well, my wife did most of the educating – I merely assisted) and I have spent some very beneficial years teaching in a private school, I still have a stake in improving the quality of public education. The health of our society depends upon an educated citizenry and I do believe public education is within the charge of our constitution’s mandate to “promote the general welfare” of our nation.

Furthermore, I did not “indict” the public school as a failure. For I am also a product of the public school system and I believe there are many dedicated teachers who make daily sacrifices for the sake of their students.

I do agree with Keith’s conclusions in his final paragraphs where he states that we should hold boards and districts accountable and we should demand that taxpayers’ dollars be well spent. It is in that agreement that I want to make the following suggestions.

Keith mentions that charter schools and voucher programs – otherwise known as school choice – would diminish the quality of public schools. However, as stated above, competition tends to improve quality and this is true in the area of education as well.
A study published by National Bureau of Economic Research bears this out. Following the introduction of charter schools in North Carolina, a survey of test scores for grades three through eight was done, and to their surprise the researchers found that “charter school competition raised the composite test scores in district schools…the gain was roughly two to five times greater than the gain from decreasing the student/faculty ratio by one.”

Not only has the quality of public education been raised by charter schools, another study done by the New York Charter School Association has found that per student spending within school districts actually increased after the introduction of charter schools. In Albany’s district, per student spending increased by 31% while enrollment decreased by 5%. Buffalo’s school district increased its per student funding by 8% while enrollment fell by 13%. The conclusion of the report was that without charter schools the districts would have suffered a drop in per student spending.

As far as the performance of students from charter schools, Keith refers to one study from Stanford that shows an underperformance in many areas. However, what Keith did not say is that in 44 studies that have been reviewed, 18 reports were found to be nothing more than “snapshots” of performance at one or more points in time. The remaining 26 studies followed trends over long periods of time and found overall gains were larger than non-charter schools.
So, if the goal is to have an educated citizen for the least amount of money, then it would make sense that we should welcome a little competition in the field.

Keith also suggests that we should look at the role of teachers’ unions in budget negotiations. I couldn’t agree more. According to a published report by the Center for Responsive Politics, the National Education Association is listed as one of the top ten “Heavy Hitters” in lobbying and political contributions. The report states they have given over $30,000,000 to politicians (93% to Democrats) in the past two decades in the effort to limit school choice and retain the status quo –despite rising costs and failing performance.

In conclusion, let me say that competition for resources is not the only driving force that nature’s designer has endowed us with. He has also shown us that when a common goal is desired competition and cooperation can work together to improve the chances of achieving that goal. We should encourage both in the area of public education. I propose we eliminate the hindrances to school choice and promote cooperation and competition between public, charter, private and even home-centered schools.

Seeing Red

2010-10-13T20:30:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 15, 2010

These days we are seeing a lot more red. We are seeing more red-tinted mercury in our thermometers as we experience the effects of a midsummer heat wave. We are seeing more red ink in our budgets as we experience the effects of a lingering recession; the decreasing income cannot stretch to cover the increasing outgo.

When an institution finds itself in such dire straits, whether it is a family unit or a corporation or a governmental body, the only solutions available to getting out of the red and into the black are to either increase the incoming funds or decrease the outgoing.

When it comes to the governmental bodies, the first impulse is usually to increase the incoming funds, otherwise known as taxes, because it is usually much more difficult to decrease the outgo as more and more people become dependent upon the services or products supplied by their favorite government program.

The practice of increasing taxes within a state can be counterproductive, however, when we live in an era in which migration to another state is not as difficult as staying and paying. As mayor Bloomberg pointed out recently and as statistics bear out, increased taxes benefit other states as people move out.

“I think it’s the best thing that ever happened to Connecticut,” Bloomberg said in an interview. “I can’t imagine why every hedge fund wouldn’t pick up and move…they could go anyplace. We’ve lost a lot of business to Connecticut and this would send more of them.”

This fact is borne out in a recent Research Bulletin published by the Empire Center for New York State Policy. They cite statistics which show an exodus of New Yorkers to other states. Between 2000 and 2008, we have suffered a net loss of 8% of our population, or 1.5 million taxpayers. While we have had some people moving into our state (in search of our social programs, obviously, because we have very little to offer them in manufacturing jobs), the sad fact is that the new residents tend to have average incomes that are much less than those moving out. The same report details that the average difference in income is greater than 13%, meaning that we have lost over $4.3 billion in taxpayer income.

If increased taxes will lead to even more taxpayer migration, we must turn toward cutting the outgo.
One area that Governor Patterson has rightly perceived as bloated and top heavy is in the area of school aid. To justify his proposed 5% reduction in school aid (from $21.6 billion in 2009-2010 to $20.5 billion in 2010-2011), the governor listed some interesting facts and figures.

For example, we are spending over $17,000/student/year in New York State. To put that into perspective, the national average cost/student is slightly over $10,000 – a difference of 70%. Now, I, for one, do not believe our students are 70% more difficult or challenging to educate than the average student in the rest of our nation. Why the disparity? Well, I believe a great hint as to why it costs more here can be found in investigating the salaries and fringe benefits of our district employees. According to the governor, the cost/student for salaries and benefits of district employees in NYS alone (over $7,300 for salaries and another $2,900 for benefits) exceeds the total cost/student in most states.

But wait, there’s more!

If you really want to see red, take a look at the generous pension package some of our “servants” are enjoying at our expense. A common practice among some of our district supervisors and others has been to stack up their sick and vacation days and cash them in during the last three years of their employment, allowing them to retire on a pension that reflects the increased salary for those final years.

An example of this technique of stealing from the taxpayers was reported by Buffalo News in late June. It seems Niagara Falls Superintendent, Carmen Granto, was able to retire with a net increase in his income from $129,000/year as an employee to $147,109 as a retiree! And he isn’t even the biggest carp feeding in the bottom of our education stream. School superintendent James Hunderford retired from one district on Long Island with a pension of over $316,000/year and then went to work for another district with a salary of $225,000 to make sure his golden years were truly golden with a combined income of over $540,000!

Seeing red yet?

We have to realize that increased taxes will not get the red out as long as we have public employees taking such advantages. Now, I admit that this is one small portion of our budget, but with total education costs representing over 36% of state spending it is a significant place to start.

And we don’t have to wait for our not-so-speedy lawmakers to do something about this. We can act on the local level by attending school budget meetings and voting.

Let’s all work together to get the red out!

Misplaced Anger

2010-10-13T20:26:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 15, 2010

In my brother Gordon’s column, he simplifies the issue facing New York State, its governor and legislature with regard to its budgetary problems. He argues that there are simply two choices to be made. One can increase income to state coffers by raising taxes or cut spending by slashing program funding. The fact is that most likely a combination of higher taxes and reduced spending will be necessary to make up for current shortfalls and deficits.

I can see Gordon’s point, as can many who are frustrated with the state’s high rate of taxation (especially in comparison with other states). I do, however, call into question some of the conclusions he draws and the presumptions he asserts.

Gordon argues that a mass exodus of tax payers and businesses (most notably of high-incomes) is being replaced with a few freeloading new New Yorkers migrating here to sponge off our generous social programs.

First of all, I find it difficult to believe one can look at the report he references and conclusively determine that the high taxes have been the impetus that has resulted in the flight from New York. Just in the past few weeks there has been news of the closing of one of Southern Tier’s most prominent industrial employers, the Schweizer East facility plant in Horseheads. I have not heard high taxes in the state cited as the cause for the shutdown. In fact, the official line is that the facility fails to meet internal standards and will be torn down to pave the way for a future site and expansion that promises to bring more jobs to the area.

Part of the disparity in population of wealthy and average or below average income residents of the state can be traced to the trend of widening wealth gap throughout the country. Increasingly, the percentage of the population with the highest income and wealth holding is shrinking and the percentage of the population with the lowest incomes (below middle class and below poverty levels) is growing. In past columns I have mentioned the growing wealth gap in the United States and the vast disparity between CEO and executive salaries and the wages of the working class. I won’t rehash that material but it is important to bear this factor in mind.

As manufacturing and skilled labor jobs are moving not just out of the state but out of the country, the void left is being filled with low-paying retail and unskilled labor jobs. What we are finding more and more then, is a majority of the population without resources to adequately provide revenue to the state through taxes. This shifts the burden of necessity to the balance of the state’s residents. Unless we look at the real causes for the wealth-to-poverty ratio and the dynamic of the population – unless we stop focusing merely on high tax rate as the reason for population shifts – we will continue to see the tax burden rise and no amount of spending cuts will sufficiently address budget shortfalls.

Gordon also focuses on the cost of education as a major contributing factor to the bloated state budget. This is not a surprising approach to the issue. There has been a concerted effort within the conservative arena to essentially cripple the public education system. This is not to say that the movement wishes for the public system to be completely dismantled and supplanted with private enterprise solutions. Indeed there are private institutions, charter schools and voucher programs that are siphoning vital funding away from public school districts and bankrupting the system, but the agenda appears to be to hinder public education so the consumers of that system will receive an education of poor quality.

Households with higher incomes will always enjoy greater choice and higher quality when it comes to education (especially at the K-12 level). The No Child Left Behind program that was the banner education policy of the Bush administration was an attempt to further debilitate low income schools by requiring ineffective standardized testing to prove their viability and then withholding funding from the neediest. The result is that public schools are dumbed down by teaching to the test, and forced to cut academic curriculum as well as extra-curricular programs by strapped budgets.

Another tactic among neo-conservatives is to attack public schools as evil institutions seeking to indoctrinate children with liberal propaganda and undermine religious ideals (primarily Christian ideals). Rush Limbaugh (the conservative’s favorite spokesman) constantly refers to public education institutions as “screwels”. Other conservatives like Bill Bennett advocate home-schooling and alternative school solutions, and expend huge amounts of energy and time deriding the public system as inadequate and fatally flawed. The message is that public schools are tools liberals are using to dismantle “American” values.

Gordon’s indictment of schoolteachers and district employees also fails to mention the disparity between the salaries of teachers and the average worker. Teachers are professionals with high academic degrees who are paid less than the average worker’s wage. For example, the Corning-Painted Post district pays its average teacher a meager $39,000 – below that of the average worker. Anyone who has ever known a public school teacher or other district employee would have a hard time believing that his or her salary and benefits represent high-finance corruption that is inflating the state budget to the point Gordon implies. Certainly, some waste exists in our public schools, but slashing education costs (while popular among some, including our governor) will only serve to leave children behind and further tilt the wealth imbalance.

A measured and realistic look at the state budget and the requisite taxation of New Yorkers is necessary before knee-jerk spending cuts are presented as the only solution.

Horatio Alger and the American Dream

2010-06-26T14:58:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 24, 2010

In a recent edition of this column, my brother Gordon and I discussed the BP oil disaster. Judging from some of the response I received, I think that some readers believed I was soft on BP and did not fully acknowledge the company’s responsibility. While I do believe that assigning blame alone is counterproductive I think this tragedy is a prime example of the impact of corporate misconduct.

Some may have thought my assertions were similar to those of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said recently “The guy that runs BP didn't exactly go down there and blow up the well… …And what's more, if you want them to fix it, and they're the only ones with the expertise, I think I might wait to assign blame until we get it fixed.”

The fact is that indications are that profit-driven decisions to cut corners resulted in the explosion and well leak. So it seems that “the guy that runs BP” technically did blow up the well.

I became frustrated hearing the words of BP CEO Tony Hayward who spent much of the last week denying any personal responsibility. It is infuriating that BP will largely escape penalty for 11 deaths and grave damage to the ecosystem and the U.S. economy. This is because corporations enjoy the privileges of personhood while escaping much of the accountability to which individuals are held. This protection of corporations to the detriment of the individual (and of the greater good) demonstrates the worsening imbalance between corporate America and Main Street America.

Most troubling to me is that many in the working class of the country are the staunchest defenders of BP and other corporations. As I listen to talk radio, I am not surprised to hear a fat cat like Rush Limbaugh excuse corporate wrong-doing and extol capitalism as the purest American value. I find it interesting that so many of his listeners call in and echo sentiments that are counter to their own interests.

When President Barack Obama first suggested capping executive salaries of companies receiving federal T.A.R.P. money, my brother Gordon (a hard-working owner of a small business whose success has not exactly lifted him to wealth) complained that the United States was headed down a slippery slope toward limiting all incomes. I heard like comments from many who were gainfully employed, yet were struggling to even meet monthly bills and provide daily needs.

One wonders why there is such a disconnect between the perception of corporate capitalism and the realities of common folk (not a term meant to insult or condescend). Once, I laid it to a Horatio Alger syndrome. Alger wrote many stories in the late 19th century that featured characters born into lowly station who achieve positions of wealth, success, and power. A conception was born of the fictions that if one pulled oneself up by one’s bootstraps and worked hard, success would ultimately follow. This was an effective premise because it inspired the American dream that success is always within reach and wealth is the right of every man. The spirit of this dream has been an engine of American industry and economy for years. To be fair, there have been “rags to riches” success stories, but these few exceptions prove the rule that the Horatio Alger theme is a myth.

More common (especially in recent years) are stories of hard-earned savings and retirement accounts swallowed by greed and corruption, or of family homes lost to mortgage foreclosures, or of workers tossed out of jobs after years of dedicated service. Still, people stand up and cry out about government regulation of businesses and defend corporate avarice. Why? Because the conservative movement, in all its forms, has convinced us of the undeniable self-correcting powers of the marketplace. The myth is that the law of supply and demand can be applied to all economic ills and the consumer will democratically right wrongs. The principle applied to the corporate model is that corporations will be compelled by consumers to do the right thing. This too is a myth.

Recently, radio host Glenn Beck criticized President Obama’s celebration of increased employment by asking why more manufacturing jobs weren’t created. I assume he was implying that if government just backed off, manufacturing jobs would return to the U.S. and sustainable job growth would be restored.

The sad fact is that manufacturing will never resurge to its past strength. The cost of doing business and of labor will always be far cheaper in China and Taiwan than it is domestically. And under the current structure, corporations are bound to shareholder interests and not to ethics. So supply-side economics has failed us. Corporate success does not trickle down to benefit the working class. The power of the marketplace has failed to regulate business practices.

There are things Obama and the government can do to encourage industry to grow employment, but Glenn Beck would not be fond of them. If tax cuts were eliminated and penalties assessed for corporations that outsource labor overseas, some jobs would return. Unfortunately, corporate lobbying and collusion have prevented the political will to regulate industry in this way.

During administration after administration and congressional session after congressional session, corporate influence has whittled away safeguards that would encourage businesses to behave responsibly. By allowing corporations to act unethically we have encouraged a disregard for ethical standards. By moving toward a laissez-faire attitude toward business we have bred an “anything goes” climate that promotes greed and corruption. By catering to the supply side of the equation we have done an injustice to the consumer and the individual. We have fostered a culture of business addicted to corporate welfare. Over decades we have planted the seeds for the destruction we are now reaping.

There is good news. Cracks in the corporate façade are being exposed. People are waking up. Real outrage was expressed when executives of companies receiving taxpayer bailouts took huge bonuses. When extravagant trips were planned and company jets were purchased the outcry continued. Workers who have lost their jobs no longer the notion (advocated by former presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan) that global outsourcing is a good thing.

The current corporate model is unsustainable. Without real reform, the American dream is dead. Hopefully, the desire for change will persist.

The Demon We Know

2010-06-26T14:52:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 24, 2010

When we see the heartbreaking images of oil-drenched beaches, suffering wildlife and lost jobs from the tragic oil well explosion and subsequent oil leak, we tend to react emotionally, as well we should. We are emotional creatures and carry an empathetic feature within our complex and wonderful design as human beings. We also carry an innate desire for justice – a sense that somewhere, somehow, justice must be meted out and equity should be established. That is why our governments were instituted and our laws were written. It is essential, therefore, that we determine root causes and establish who or what was to blame and eventually attempt to make corrections within the system and measure out sufficient punishment for those at fault. This is the proper and mandated response.

Another response, as illustrated by my fellow columnist, is to go from the particular to the general. In other words, when encountering specific acts of avarice, fraud, deception, reckless disregard for human life, profit-at-all-costs, short-cutting and shoddy business practices, we categorize the entire system as faulty and in need of radical transformation.

To argue from the specific to the general is to disregard the laws of logic and to demonize the capitalistic system because it has failed to fulfill the dreams of every American is to open the door for even more destructive demons.

Just as in Jesus’ story of the unclean spirit which, after being driven from a man, returns to find a clean, swept house, “Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other demons more wicked than himself; and they enter in and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first.” (Luke 11:26 KJV) If we were to drive out the “demon” of free market capitalism, we would only be cleaning up the house for a more repressive, unresponsive, unaccountable and cruel tribe of demons called socialism, statism, collectivism and eventually to the most cruel demon of all – atheistic Marxism.

My brother makes the argument that the rags to riches story is an exception and the majority of Americans live lives of unfulfilled dreams and he ends his essay with the conclusion that “Without real reform, the American dream is dead.” It is claims such as these that strike fear in my heart and questions in my mind.

Some questions I would ask of Keith and any others who share his beliefs are:

1. If Capitalism and the Free Market Economy is to be replaced, with which system would you replace it? Would you institute collectivism, such as that attempted by the collective agriculture system of the former U.S.S.R.? If so, please tell me how you would prevent the utter failures experienced by those under that system.

2. If corporations, taken as a whole, (which you have done in your essay) are inherently evil entities driven by profit above ethics and greed above safety, how would you replace the incentive that has brought us such remarkable innovations, luxuries and medical and military advances? Can you point to a state-controlled industry that has produced similar products and services as produced by the private sector for a lower price and at a higher quality? I am not about to become a disciple of Michael Douglas’ character, Gordon Gecko in Wall Street who smugly claimed that “Greed is good”, but I do believe that the drive for self-interest and the survival instinct we have been endowed with by our Creator can be powerful forces that compel us to produce a better product at a cheaper price. That force is in short supply within the governmental bureaucracy. We all know the stories of dealing with governmental agencies in which the employees have no compulsion to produce or competition from the marketplace.

3. If the increased number of government jobs – applauded by Obama as proof of the Stimulus’ effectiveness – is such a boon to the economy, why did the stock market react negatively to the news? Could it be because one average government job requires at least three to four full-time private sector jobs to pay for that person’s wages and benefits? The corporation is the best tool to pull us out of a recession – not governmental spending.

4. If “Obama and the government” were to eliminate tax cuts and assess penalties to corporations who outsource labor overseas, what would prevent those corporations from pulling out of the U.S. altogether? The present global economy makes it possible and profitable to choose the most business-friendly location for corporate headquarters, and if that location is out of reach of the IRS, no corporate taxes would be available, so I believe some is better than none.

In conclusion, I am not defending BP or any other corporation that was criminally negligent or knowingly put workers or the environment at risk by unsafe practices or profit-driven ideals. I am not saying Capitalism is the perfect system. I am not saying the market is always right and should be free of all governmental controls. I am saying that all human systems are destined to be imperfect and inequitable because humans are imperfect and inequitably created. I am saying that we need to be careful of removing one demon in favor of seven worse demons.

Was it Humanitarian Aid or just another Public Relations Campaign?

2010-06-11T07:21:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 10, 2010

When the majority of the “civilized” world joins arms and sings a common tune, we should all stand up and join in, right? I mean, after all, we all strive for unity above discord and cooperation above competition, right? Well, my friends, it seems that almost every nation is singing the same song these days and the chorus goes something like this: Israel massacred innocent people on the high seas; the ship boarded by the Israelis was part of a “Peace Flotilla” and its only mission was to deliver much needed humanitarian aid to starving Palestinians in Gaza.

Well, before I join my voice in singing along, I have to ask a few rhetorical and a few not-so-rhetorical questions. To explain, rhetorical questions, according to my dictionary, are meant to elicit an effect, but not necessarily a response from the hearers/readers. However, some of the following questions are open for response and I welcome any reader who believes she/he has the proper answer to please respond.

1. It is always a good practice to “follow the money” when faced with alternative accounts of a story, for to determine who has gained or lost in the exchange usually determines who is at fault and who is the victim in the event. Therefore, to alter the above policy slightly, I would ask us to “follow the best interest”. My question then is this: In who’s best interest was the outcome of the attempted effort to break the Israeli blockade? i.e. Who would gain or lose in the Public Relations battle?

2. If the sole intent of the organizers of the flotilla was to deliver humanitarian aid, why did they not follow commands to dock at the southern Israeli port and have their cargo inspected and loaded onto Israeli trucks and delivered into Gaza – just as over 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid is delivered each week?

3. A corollary to the above question, if it was concern for the suffering Palestinians in Gaza and not a resurging flood of anti-Semitism that drove these organizers to action, why would they not compel the Hamas leadership to “cease and desist” from launching missiles (over 10,000 since Hamas took over Gaza in 2005) into Israel and commit to peaceful coexistence, as Egypt has?

4. If Israel really wanted to commit massacre and mass homicide on the high seas as Turkish leaders claim, why did they do such a lousy job of it? i.e. Why kill “only” nine people when they could have easily, and without risk to their soldiers, blasted every ship out of the water?

5. If they really wanted the residents of Gaza to suffer and die a slow, painful death by starvation, as UN inspectors seem to claim, why would Israel continue to truck aid to Gaza on a daily basis? During the first three months of this year, for example, 95,000 tons of supplies have found their way via Israeli trucks into Gaza, including 48,000 tons of food products, 40,000 tons of wheat, 2,760 tons of rice, 1,987 tons of clothing, and 553 tons of powdered milk and baby food.

6. If Israel abandons the use of blockade (which, by the way, we Americans have used repeatedly against our former enemies in Japan, Germany and Cuba) to protect themselves from Hamas’ rocket attacks, what defense is left to them? They have been criticized in the international community when they took an active defense (the use of military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the enemy, by the way, if those words sound familiar, they are the tactics approved by Obama against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) approach in attacking hostile forces in the Lebanon War of 2006 and in Gaza in 2008 – 2009. They have followed recommendations from U.S. presidents and Secretaries of State in the past and surrendered land for peace, and received no peace; instead, hostilities have only increased.

7. Why do we even have a nation of Israel? And why are they so hated? Of all the ethnic groups that have the ability to trace their origin and retain their ethnicity, why are the Jews still around when multiple times in their history they have been specifically targeted for extinction by great military minds such Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Hitler and others? Why have they returned to the land of their ancestors?

8. If I could show you a book that would answer that last question for you, would you be interested in reading it?

The book was written by a man who saw the scattering of the Jewish nation among all the other nations of the earth and he foresaw the persecution and attempted annihilation of the Jews as well, but he also foresaw the re-gathering of the Jews upon their soil of Jerusalem. The author was a man named Ezekiel, the book was written in 600 B.C. and it can be found anthologized within a book that has many other answers for your life. I highly recommend it to you.

A Special Relationship

2010-06-11T07:19:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 10, 2010

Much attention has been paid in the last couple of months to President Obama’s failure to publicly recognize the “special relationship” of the U.S. and U.K. As much as conservative pundits would like to assert that Obama’s foreign policy represents a departure from previous policy, it is undeniable that the unique bond shared by the two superpowers is alive and well in the current administration. Other than the brutal Revolutionary War at the birth of our nation, the United States and Great Britain have historically stood side by side as allies.

Similarly, a special relationship exists between the U.S. and Israel. This one, however, has its dysfunction and implicit pitfalls. In past editions of this column (March 2008; January 2009), I called attention to this relationship and mentioned concerns that I saw in the fact that our nations’ fates are so closely entwined. The pro-Israel lobby in Washington and security interests in the Middle East are a part of that equation. Another component is evidenced in my brother Gordon’s piece.

For many religious conservatives the prophetic importance of the nation of Israel is a key to their perspectives. Unfortunately, the modern world and dynamics between the Israel and the Arab world are much more complex and perilous than can be addressed with biblical references. The situation becomes more problematic still when one suggests that we model policy and agendas around millennia-old prophesy.

What results often is a perspective that throws broad support behind Israel and excuses any wrongdoing committed by her. One can note this attitude in the demonizing of the activists seeking to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Gordon suggests that organizers may have instigated the aggression (and willfully caused the deaths of the victims) in order to gain leverage in the arena of public relations. This characterization is unfair to the organizers of the flotilla (who also have been instrumental in supplying aid to Bosnia, Haiti and New Orleans). Certainly, it serves the organization’s interests to shine a spotlight on the human rights violations perpetrated by Israel. Certainly, they wish to generate international support for the cause. Certainly, they seek to end the blockade that continues to choke the citizenry of Gaza. But sacrificing the lives of activists as a PR stunt makes little sense.

What I have found interesting over the last week is that there has been coverage of the flotilla raid that has been highly critical of Israel. Furthermore, the international community, as Gordon recognizes in his column, has largely condemned the actions taken by Israel and the loss of life as a result.

One can look first to the party who enjoys the special relationship that I mentioned earlier. Former British foreign secretary David Milliband has urged Israel to lift the three-year blockade that has denied humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip and has ultimately resulted in the deaths of the flotilla activists and the suffering of Palestinians in the region. In a recent interview he argued that the blockade was counterproductive to the peace process in the Middle East, stood in the way of a Palestinian statehood and was detrimental to the security of Israel itself. He also maintained that the blockade was in violation of United Nations Resolution 1860, which also called for a stop to arms trafficking to Gaza.

The United Nations called for emergency talks almost immediately after the incident to discuss Israel’s actions. Some nations called for in depth investigations into the matter and the evidence provided by Israel to support its version of the story. The deaths of Turks among those killed in the raid, and strains in the aftermath have led to tense relations between Israel and Turkey (an important ally in the Muslim world).

Even internally, support for the Israeli operation was far from unanimous. Parliament member Einat Wilf had warned against military action in reference to the aid flotilla, citing public relations issues. She also said the action was misdirected because the ships didn’t represent an arms threat. “This had nothing to do with security… … The armaments for Hamas were not coming from this flotilla,” she said in an interview with the New York Times. Some Israeli journalists were also critical of the navy.

The incident presents a problem to the current U.S. administration. President Obama has been measured in his response to the attack, but has gone as far as calling the incident tragic. While he hasn’t been vocal in reaction to the issue, it seems clear that the Obama policy regarding support of Israel largely echoes that of the previous administration. This may create complications in the Middle East as the United States attempts to bridge tensions and as the humanitarian situation in Gaza worsens. There has been talk among State Department officials that the current blockade is not sustainable and actually creates security issues for both the U.S. and Israel.

Again the special relationship between the United States and Israel has troubling consequences. A broad view of the big picture is more valuable than unconditional support of, or than mere condemnation of Israel. Often biases stand in the way of lessons that may be learned from incidents like last week’s raid.

The Blame Game

2010-06-05T06:10:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, May 27, 2010

Over a month ago a tragic explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig off the coast of Louisiana claimed the lives of eleven workers and caused a horrific oil leak that is pouring thousands of barrels per day into the Gulf of Mexico. Certainly, there are unanswered questions about what could have been done to prevent this catastrophe; who is responsible for its occurrence, and even the scope of the problem it presents. However, it is troubling that opposing factions have exploited those questions with certain implications and clear motives. The fact that a story of undeniable consequence would prominently grace the editorial sections of media outlets (including the Broader View Weekly’s) is a testament to the politicization of this tragedy.

To be fair, this is not the first event of its kind to be treated as a political weapon or tool. For example, I was disappointed in the way that Katrina was treated during George W. Bush’s presidency. The way the natural disaster was kicked around like a football between both sides marginalized the real suffering and diminished the value of those who lost lives or livelihoods as a result of the hurricane. Likewise, the lives of the eleven lost souls in the recent oil rig explosion are obscured in the fog of debate.

Finger pointing has trumped meaningful problem solving. The blame being thrown about while the problem worsens is counterproductive and is exacerbating the situation. Still, scapegoating will not cease, but only grow more prevalent, if history is any indication.

Investigations into the cause of the explosion are ongoing and will continue for some time, but emerging information indicates that the Deepwater Horizon incident may be a symptom of a greater ill within the oil exploration industry. Responsibility for the failures that brought about disaster rests on many shoulders. More important than assigning blame is solving issues and moving forward in the right direction.

Oil giant British Petroleum (BP) owns majority stake in the oil field in which the Deepwater Horizon was drilling. The rig was owned and operated by Swiss drilling contractor Transocean. Oil services corporation Halliburton contracted the cement and “mud” used in the drilling operation. Mineral Management Service (MMS) is the government agency charged with (among other things) inspection and oversight of the industry. Each of these entities shares some of the blame for this mishap, but assigning blame alone serves only to placate one interested party or another. We need to determine what went wrong and work to prevent future problems.

According to testimony and accounts in MMS and congressional hearings, faulty drilling plans and elimination of safety steps are believed to be the causes of the explosion. Plans for the cement called for an inadequate amount of materials to contain natural gas surges and used chemicals that actually heightened the risk. Natural gas “kicks” occurred frequently in the weeks before the explosion, but the bursts were labeled by BP as a “negligible” risk. Instead of following standard procedures while attempting to cap the well, the decision was made by either BP or Transocean to save time by displacing drilling mud with lighter seawater before cement caps were allowed to be set to prevent surges in the piping.

It can be assumed that profit was the motivating force behind the blunders. According to sources, BP paid approximately $500,000 per day for the use of the rig and its crew. Chemicals used by Halliburton were designed to speed the curing time for cement, another cost-saving technique. Economics should not be the determining factor where safety is concerned, especially when the consequences go far beyond the personal safety of those directly involved.

Corporations cannot be relied upon to put ethics above profitability. Corporate structure is designed to declare capital king. Greed takes over from there and the results can be deadly.

The trade-off of ethics, environmental concerns, and safety considerations for cash is something we all would do well to ponder. We can apply lessons learned to our own communities. As we weigh natural gas exploration of the Marcellus shale against the potential impacts on environment and safety of our drinking water, we need to look beyond the financial benefits that might come.

Perhaps the most troubling factor in the Deepwater Horizon story is the inability or unwillingness of MMS to adequately police the industry. An impartial agency free of conflicting interests is necessary to regulate the oil exploration and other industries. Instead, an ineffectual entity corrupt with industry collusion dropped the ball in overseeing the drilling there, and is currently charged with regulating similar operations elsewhere. One can only assume that other violations of procedure and design standards are committed in other operations and are going unchecked by the bodies responsible for oversight.

Why did MMS fall down on the job? Again, economics is a clue to its inaction. The mission statement found on the agency’s website prominently declares that it “collects, accounts for and disburses an average of $13.7 billion per year in revenues from Federal offshore mineral leases and from onshore mineral leases…” Though responsible for inspecting and investigating the industry, that section makes no mention of that capacity.

The loss of life on April 20 was appalling and tragic. Sadder still, is that we have only begun to feel the sting of the oil rig incident. One estimate says that nearly 95,000 barrels a day are pumping into the gulf (19 times the BP estimate of 5,000 barrels). Oil has already reached Louisiana’s wetlands, threatening vegetation and wildlife species. The spill is reaching the Gulf’s Loop Current which promises to carry it to Florida and up the Eastern coast of the U.S. The impact on fishing and other industries in the region will be extreme, with as-yet untold losses and a protracted recovery, which may take decades to achieve.

“Drill baby drill” is a dangerous policy. Without regulation and reform in the industry, oil exploration is bound to produce problems similar to the ones we are currently facing. We need to witness more from our government than a blame game or lip service toward oversight. We need to protect more than the bottom line. There is too much at stake.

Lessons from the Gulf

2010-06-05T06:08:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, May 27, 2010

For those of you who may be taking score at home in the ongoing battle between the “Brothers Cooper”, you may score this particular column as a tie. I have to agree with several points in my fellow columnist’s essay. For example, I agree with him that the 11 human lives that were tragically cut short by this event have been forgotten as the “not my fault” charade is played out before the cameras.
I also agree with Keith when he said that “corporations cannot be relied upon to put ethics above profitability.” It is further proof of the validity of the scriptural admonition: “… the love of money is the root of all evil.” (1 Timothy 6:10 KJV)
I will concur again with Keith in the idea that assigning blame, while necessary at some point, is not as important as limiting the destruction to our environment and correcting the policies and procedures that led to this catastrophe.
If I could construct a perfect world, I would design an environment where vital natural resources such as coal and oil could be obtained as easily and as safely as picking cherries from low-lying branches. However, our Creator saw fit to bury those precious commodities beneath our soil and beneath our oceans. Hence, we are left with no choice but to put our fellow humans and our environment at risk to obtain these necessities. Now, before you take up pen and paper or fire up your word processor to tell me that we do indeed have a choice – and that choice is alternative forms of energy – let me say that I am one who believes in the Hippocratic Oath approach toward obtaining and exploiting our natural resources – i.e. “First, Do No Harm.” We can and we must find ways to deliver these products from the depths of the earth to the consumer at the pump with a minimal amount of damage to our landscape, water or air.
We must accept the fact that our economy and our lifestyle are, at this point in our civilization, inseparably linked to the use of fossil fuels. You and I may wish for a day when wind, solar and other renewable sources would be able to be harnessed in a way that would make oil and coal a minor commodity, but that day is not on the horizon just yet.
As we accept this fact, we must also be aware that the law of supply and demand is as undeniable as the law of gravity and as long as we demand a product, someone will make a profit as they assume the risk to supply that need.
In my opinion, if we over-react to this tragedy by initiating new regulations that would serve to stifle new oil field discoveries or burden the domestic oil industry with heavy fines and fees, we would be opening the door for foreign competitors who would be exempt from and indifferent to those same regulations. The end result would be a greater risk to the environment and to the safety of the workers.
I am not defending the careless attitude that led to shoddy work practices, nor am I approving of the “Let’s do whatever it takes to give the shareholders a good return on their investment” mindset that seems to justify cost-cutting at the expense of safety.
I am saying that we need to get our priorities in order. First of all, we should stop the leaking (obviously), secondly we should develop a strategy for removing the oil from the ocean in a responsible way. Thirdly, we should not make long-term, over-reaching reforms without first of all, trying some common sense mid-range tweaks of a system that – for the most part – has been trouble-free.
I know it is within our nature to respond to the stimuli of tragedies with knee-jerks. While that may be advisable in some situations, it is costly in others. The energy industry is a vital cog in the security of our nation and the competitive nature of the global economy is such that we need to make sure our domestic companies are not over-taxed or over regulated to the point where foreigners have the advantage.

welcome to 1984

2010-06-05T06:05:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, May 13, 2010

In his epic novel published in 1949, George Orwell painted a picture of a dystopian world that awaited his readers in the year 1984. Among the many fearful aspects of that world there was the introduction of a policy called Newspeak and within that policy was a practice known as “doublethink” in which the word blackwhite was used to alter the perception of the adherent of Newspeak in such a way as to think that black is white and to eventually force them to forget that black and white were ever, well, black and white.

Today we see that fearful scenario played out in the debate over Arizona’s SB1070 and HB2162 legislations, which, in essence, do little more than allow law enforcement officials to arrest anyone who, after being interrogated in the course of a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” or during the apprehension of someone committing a civil crime, is reasonably suspected of being in our nation illegally. In other words, anyone who cannot produce a valid form of legal identification like a driver’s license or a tribal enrollment card would be subject to being charged with a state misdemeanor, which carries a maximum fine of $100 or a maximum sentence of 20 days.

A few weeks back, my fellow columnist waxed philosophic about the difference between responsible and irresponsible speech. I find it very ironic that that word – responsible – has become the very word manipulated by our president in the aforementioned Orwellian use of Newspeak.

Following the signing of SB1070 by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, President Obama made the following statement:
“Indeed our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.” He further added another incendiary remark in an Iowa town hall meeting, when he said: “You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona…suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”

Despite the fact that Obama has, time and again, acted below the level previously described as Presidential, these words are much worse than just being inaccurate or exaggerated campaign speech. These words were intended to alter the very meaning of words and to inspire fear and anger among the intended audience, which could only be the future voters from the Hispanic community.

First of all, his altered use of the word “responsible” is problematic because it was partly true in that the feds have been less than responsible in enforcing their own immigration laws. It was not true, however, in claiming that Arizona’s new law is “irresponsible” nor is it even remotely true that a legal citizen, regardless of her/his race, will be “harassed” as a result of this law.

The catch phrase used by Obama and his fellow Newspeak adherents in their criticism of all things Arizonan, is the “show your papers” line. As if Arizona just became the epicenter of neo-Nazism or a revived stronghold of apartheid. From Desmond Tutu to Cardinal Mahony and from Dana Milbank in the Washington Post to the editorial board of the New York Times, many examples of intentional doublethink can be cited. Those quotes can be found in Byron York’s article, titled “The 10 dumbest things said about the immigration law”, in washigntonexaminer.com, dated 5/01.

The sad and scary fact is that most readers or listeners of the above voices will never take the time to actually read the law in question, but will be led, lemming-like, to the cliff of ignorant activism with cries for boycotts and/or even worse, may be inspired to act out in violent protest like the instances in Phoenix and Santa Cruz in which windows were smashed and vandals destroyed public property.

The reality behind both the necessity for and the wording of the Arizona law has been shaded by the hyperbolic, hate-filled and race-baiting rhetoric of the vocal critics. The reality is that Arizona is the epicenter of the illegal immigration plague that has diminished the wages of legal citizens, burdened our schools and health care facilities, increased the crime rate, introduced gang violence to border states, and has weakened our national security by allowing terrorists an easy access to our once sovereign soil.

With almost 500,000 illegal immigrants in this relatively small state, Arizona was forced to take responsibility (there’s that word again) when the feds failed to act responsibly. The state budget was being stretched to the point where legal immigrants were suffering, which is why over 70% of Arizonans support the law, many of those supporters being of Hispanic descent and here legally, if I may be redundant for the sake of emphasis.

My concern is, first of all, for the protection of our borders, our rule of law and our national sovereignty, and secondly, for the protection of our vocabulary, meaning that I want words to have meaning and speakers to have responsibility for how they use those words

What’s Behind Arizona’s New Laws?

2010-06-04T18:07:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, May 13, 2010

There has been much discussion over the last couple of weeks, of the implications of Arizona’s new tough legislation regarding undocumented immigrants. A full picture of the legislation, and the buzz around it, is only possible when one looks at the motivation and politics behind the legislative changes and other actions by the state’s governor and legislature.

Before I get to the important background story, I feel compelled to call attention to a provision in the Arizona House bill to which my brother Gordon refers in his column. He asserts that “anyone who cannot produce a valid form of legal identification like a driver’s license or a tribal enrollment card would be subject to being charged with a state misdemeanor….” While technically accurate, the wording of both House and Senate bills is problematic. In one section of the House bill, a driver’s license is indeed listed as a potential proof of citizenship. However, in another section and in the Senate bill (which is vague on requirements for proof), it states that officers are obligated to verify alien status “pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code” (which would mean consulting the federal Immigration and Naturalization Services). In most states of the country, while driver’s permits constitute appropriate proofs of identification and age, they are not sufficient evidence of legal citizenship. It shouldn’t be assumed that a driver’s license will be accepted as acceptable proof of citizenship.

This is important to note because defenders of the Arizona policy have attempted to minimize the effect of the law by claiming that its enforcement represents nothing more ominous than the obligatory expectations most of us face when we purchase alcohol, cigarettes, or spray paint. The fact of the matter is that the change in expectations has an impact on several American citizens and a diminishing of liberty toward standards adhered to in many European countries, which currently require documentation of citizens and travelers. I find it interesting that the same voices that decried the European influence they saw in the administration’s approach to health care, would applaud such a similarity in Arizonan law.

This brings us to the “why” of the legislative change and why the voices I mentioned above have spoken in its defense. The stated purpose is that Arizona had to do something because crime was rampant and the federal authorities were ineffective in solving the situation.

The problem with this argument is that the crime rate in Arizona has actually declined over the last decade. The current violent or property crime rates of Arizona are below the national average. A comparison between the crime rate of Phoenix, near the Mexican border, and that of Cleveland, Ohio (far from the border) shows a greater occurrence of violent crimes and property crimes in Cleveland. And even if crime were on the rise, there is little evidence of a correlation between undocumented immigrants and crimes not related to immigration laws. In fact, despite bogus claims by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News that over 2,000 people are killed each year by undocumented immigrants, studies show that such immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes.

Also noteworthy is the fact that some law enforcement officials have called the law change unnecessary. Phoenix police chief Jack Harris has argued that he has all the tools he needs to address issues of human smuggling, kidnapping, robbery, etc., that are cited as immigration-related issues. In fact he believes it would “divert our officers from investigating property crimes and violent crimes and divert… …our personnel to enforcing civil portions of federal immigration law…” and that it “takes officers away from doing what our main core mission of local law enforcement is, and that's to make our communities safe and enforce our criminal codes in that effort.” Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik agreed that the law was “unnecessary and that he would not be enforcing it.

So, why did Arizona Governor Janice Brewer and the legislature feel the need to change immigration laws at this point? Certainly, many point to the recent violent death of a rancher as a catalyst. While the killing of rancher Robert Krentz is tragic, it has less to do with the new law than does the political climate in Arizona (and, indeed, the country as a whole).

Governor Brewer faces a tough campaign against Democratic challenger and Arizona State Attorney General Terry Goddard this fall. Brewer and the conservative legislature see the passage of legislation like the toughening of immigration laws and the relaxing of gun laws as a way to mobilize an important base of support. Also, after six years under her Democratic predecessor, Janet Napolitano, who vetoed similar legislation on both immigration and guns, conservatives are seizing the opportunity to strike while the iron is hot.

One should also look at why the actions of one state’s legislature should resonate throughout the country. Certainly Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs have been hard at work “informing” those who would likely ignore the issue in favor of the statuses of American Idol contestants. Whether or not they would choose to take credit for the tempo of rage and fear inspired among a certain sect of conservative Americans, I don’t wish to assign them that much influence.

Instead, I would prefer to ask why the issue of immigration (legal or otherwise) does enrage so many. Perhaps it makes sense to examine our collective psyche. What elements lie at the core of our propensity to scapegoat and discriminate against the “other”? Without investigating this nature within us, it is difficult to explain why we express so loudly our outrage at the immigration dilemma while so vehemently denying any racial or ethnic motivation.

Understanding the Tea Party Movement

2010-05-01T06:56:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 29, 2010

On April 15, the Tea Party movement held Tax Day demonstrations across the country. Tax day was the culmination of a nationwide tour over the past several weeks and an opportunity for this loosely organized but narrowly focused group of conservatives to protest taxation. Modest crowds gathered in cities like Boston and Philadelphia, and around 10,000 gathered on the national Mall in Washington, D.C. There is much emphasis, among the faithful supporters of the movement, on patriotism and historical context. Make no mistake, however, this ain’t your founders’ Tea Party.

Timed to coincide with the April 15 events was the release of several surveys, including one by the New York Times and CBS News. These polls were designed to offer some insight into the demographics and the motivation of Tea Partiers. Since those who consider themselves supporters of the movement comprise about 18 percent of the nation’s population, it seems worthwhile to study the group’s concerns and intentions in order to gauge the impact the group might have on politics and policy.

Let me just say first that I don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea to take a relatively small sample of people, conduct a survey and publish the results as a definitive identity of the group. Less effective still is to take that definition and apply it to every single participant at the level of the individual. Just as the polling data compiled and the conclusions imposed on the anti-war protesters in the United States during George W. Bush’s reign did not define me as a member (and facilitator) of a group called Peaceful Gatherings, I don’t believe that every Tea Partier is a cookie cutter impression that matches the Times/CBS News poll’s determinations. I wouldn’t want to flatly apply a stereotype to any group and expect any given member of that group to live up (or stoop) to that stereotype. Instead, I would prefer to look at the actions and words of individuals and perhaps make judgments about why they might seek to associate themselves with that particular group. There is a value to that when it comes to understanding the popularity and impact of the Tea Parties.

The findings of the Times/CBS News poll were not exactly surprising to those either on the right or on the left. A conservative group, they primarily vote Republican. The vast majority disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance (84% of the movement compared with 33% nationwide). The majority have an unfavorable view of the government as a whole, with 96% disapproving of Congress’s performance. They are also largely better off financially than the general population, which may explain why the majority don’t approve of health care reform or want the government to spend money on job creation. Half of those polled criticize the administration for its focus on helping the poor.

While over 80 percent are optimistic about their own economic situation the vast majority are pessimistic about the economy as a whole. This is an interesting disparity and may be difficult to understand. It certainly makes the intensity of the anger expressed about the way government is handling the problems of the financial industry and the economy harder to comprehend.

It is also interesting to see the apparent disregard for the plight of the poor. Much has been made lately of the fact that nearly half of Americans pay no taxes. Lost in this debate is the reason for that fact. The growing wealth gap has accounted for the increasing number of poor who do not earn enough to pay income taxes. Those who talk of turning back the nation to the 1950s (an era for which many claim nostalgia) should bear in mind that the salary of the average corporate CEO in the 50s represented a 20:1 ratio with the average laborer. The current ratio of compensation is nearly 1,000:1. This out-of-control wealth gap is the cause for the situation of which many Tea Partiers complain. Organizer Jeff McQueen told an interviewer, he is part of the “50 percent stuck paying for the other 50 percent.” He expressed his dissatisfaction with the way that the country had changed since the 50s and 60s. It is interesting that his rage seemed to be leveled at the current administration since the state of the economy has been evolving through a disproportionate favoring of corporate America over the common citizen for decades.

While I don’t think the fact that nine in 10 Tea Partiers are white means that they are racists, I think the fact that many (over a quarter) believe that the administration favors blacks over whites implies a racial element is at play. That 25 percent of respondents would vocalize a concern that there is a racial imbalance in a time when political correctness makes most wary of declaring racial bias is telling. I firmly believe that there is a component of racism in the “Birther” movement. And Birthers have aligned themselves with the movement, with 30 percent of Tea Partiers convinced that Obama was not born in this country.

I think that the rage that is evident among the movement is based not on the fact that a black man has been elected president but on the fact that there is a liberal in the White House. However, nearly every time I acknowledge that Tea Partiers are angry about the 2008 election I get accused of calling someone a racist. In reality, my comment is based on the individuals I know who have voiced their support of the movement because they see the country shifting to the left and are angry about that.

A friend of mine has become very active in the Tea Parties and has even achieved a leadership position in the region. He has always expressed his conservative views. However, since the election in 2008 he has become incensed about liberalism and how he sees it as a negative impact on the direction of the country. While I hesitate to paint people with a broad brush, the views expressed by my friend echo many of the views of those who speak out at Tea Party events or express their views through chants or signs. I see the commonality of attitudes as a result of conservative media personalities and punditry. While many organizations that help to mobilize the Tea Partiers publicly discourage followers from expressing partisan politics, the talking points disseminated from their websites tend to echo the Republican base.

The growing popularity of the Tea Party movement and its impact on the political landscape may be exaggerated but that it will be felt in November is undeniable. That its motivation and instigation appears to be driven by anger and rage is troubling.

If You Can’t Beat It, Paint It

2010-05-01T06:36:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 29, 2010

There is an old saying in the military that goes something like: “If it doesn’t move, paint it.” Unfortunately, there is a version of that same philosophy being demonstrated within the liberal portion of the mainstream media and the leadership of the Democratic party. It goes something like this: “If you can’t beat the message, paint the messenger.”

For a good example of this policy, you need look no further than my fellow columnist’s paint job he just applied to the Tea Party movement. It seems ironic to me that the people who, at first, tried to ignore the movement as irrelevant now seem to think this coalition of engaged citizens has some irresistible power over the political machinery of this nation.

In fact, the reaction from the left toward the Tea Partiers has been a classic example of the method used when dealing with any group that disagrees with the liberal agenda. They followed the same process against the Moral Majority in the early 80’s. The first step of the process is to ignore the followers and hope they just go away, if that doesn’t work and they start to grow in numbers the next step is to laugh at them, similar to the way a playground bully will poke fun at anyone who makes her or him feel uncomfortable. If the movement grows past the joke stage, the only thing left to do is to paint it with a broad brush, disregarding the fact that any movement, like any church, civic group, organization and even any family, consists of many individuals with many different motives and passions.

My brother spends many words in his column telling us about a survey done by that beacon of “objective and accurate” journalism, The New York Times. Within the bowels of that survey, he discovered many so-called facts about the respondents. I will say here that I applaud Keith for his disclaimer that he is reluctant to draw stereotypes from a survey, however, I believe he devoted the remainder of his diatribe to doing just that.

I believe that Keith – and the New York Times – would have been better served by logging onto the many websites of the various Tea Party organizations in our state and/or the Tea Party Nation website to get the information about the issues that have driven them to action.

Apparently it is easier to just paint the movement as rich, privileged, uncompassionate, lily-white, anti-government, Obama-birther malcontents rather than give it the due diligence of covering it as an issue. If these NYT “reporters” and Keith had taken the time to investigate the websites or – perish the thought – actually attend a Tea Party meeting, they would have likely discovered the following facts – rather than just delivering a jaundiced “straw man” argument.

First of all, they would have discovered that most of the anger is directed equally among the trio of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, which should have put to rest the notion that it is all “race-driven”. Speaking of the race card, now that Keith has subtly played it one paragraph while denying it the next, I will state here that, as far as I am concerned, Obama is bi-racial and his policies are detrimental to Americans of every color and race as he spends us deeper and deeper into a deficit that all American children will have to pay.

They would also have discovered that, while the majority of Tea Party members may have come from the Republican Party member base, it does not follow that they approve of all Republican politicians. In fact, a quick study of most Tea Party sites will show more anger at the RINO’s (Republican-In-Name-Only) that have sat back and done nothing to thwart the liberal agenda of the aforementioned trio, and/or have even added their names to harmful legislation.

In conclusion, let me say here that I do not get too excited by published surveys and polling numbers. I find it to be sloppy journalism and, for the most part, irrelevant to the issue under discussion. Even though it seems that every news hour contains at least one reference to the “latest poll numbers” and daily tracking data, I tend to ignore that part of the report for some of the reasons stated above. In other words, surveys are only as good as the questions they ask and the number of respondents interviewed.

I challenge my fellow columnist and any industrious, objective reporter from the Times (if such a species exists) to do more than just publish survey results. I challenge them to put down the paintbrush, close the joke book, and truly investigate the issues under discussion.

What is Definition of “Responsible Speech”?

2010-05-01T06:30:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 15, 2010

When our founding fathers met during those late summer days of 1787 to construct the document that would guide the growth and maturity of our infant nation, they were very careful to follow some stringent guidelines. They admitted the task before them would be difficult and heretofore unaccomplished by any other group of human engineers. They realized they were drawing a map of uncharted territory. The idea that a government could exist with its powers granted not by its military subjugation of a people or by its monarchical lineage, but solely by the consent of its governed populace was truly a unique and foreign idea.

The beauty of the preamble to that document, and the efficient use of powerful verbiage in the Amendments that were added two years later in December of 1791, show us that the men who met in those days were divinely guided and assisted in that endeavor. I think all of us will agree that our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are unequaled among any other civilization’s charters of organization.

It is therefore troubling to me when I hear our chief executive say that the free speech of two of our citizens is “troublesome” to him. I speak, of course of the response by President Obama to a question put to him during a recent interview on CBS. When asked about the current climate of discontent that seems (to the mainstream press, anyway) to be unprecedented and without cause, Obama replied with the proper nouns of two of the most vocal and well-paid critics he has. He mentioned Rush Limbaugh, a very successful and well-compensated radio talk show host who is enjoying the revenues generated by several willing advertisers, and a cable TV personality by the name of Glenn Beck, who also shares in the comfortable lifestyle due to the advertisers who willingly add their signature to the checks that go to keep his show on the air.

Now, we all know that Mr. Obama is not the first president who has had his critics. In fact, our first president, who, by the way, happened to be the first white president, had his critics also. He had several people who published unsavory things about him and some who stood on the street corners of Philadelphia and mocked his capabilities and questioned his decisions, yet he added his name to the very document that guaranteed those people would not have that free speech denied.

Today, we see and hear many people who agree with Obama that people like Limbaugh and Beck are “troublesome”. They like to cite the difference between free speech and responsible speech. As we were all taught in civics class, we have the right to talk about anything we want but we have certain responsibilities that we must adhere to. For example, I can speak about the dangers of fire and tell you how to be careful with woodstoves and fireplaces and in doing so, I would use the word “fire” in several ways and in several contexts, but if I shouted the word “fire!” in a crowded theater in which only one door was available for exit and no fire existed, obviously I would be held liable for the injuries and/or deaths that occurred. That would definitely be “troublesome” speech and would be beyond the realms of responsible speech.

However, if I spoke about political subjects and if my political views caused people to become stimulated to the point of action, would I be crossing the line between responsible and irresponsible speech? In other words, if political speech is coupled with emotional catch words and phrases that spark a response in the listeners, much like the shouted “fire!”, am I still being responsible?

Some critics of Limbaugh and Beck think that they have overstepped that boundary and therefore their speech must be somehow regulated or at least stifled. My contention with that argument is that any regulation of their speech would be a regulation of all manners of speech and any stifling of Limbaugh would be a stifling of us all.

In other words, I am no fan of Keith Olbermann and I find many of his rants and diatribes to be “troublesome” to me. For example, when he paints the entire Tea Party movement as a racist enterprise he is casting aspersions upon me and many people I respect, yet I have no desire to see him stifled, his dismal ratings should work to stifle him soon enough.

To those who think that the rhetoric of Limbaugh is “troublesome” I would encourage them to take the few minutes to search out the speeches of men like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere and others who spoke with great passion and emotion, and yes even some derisive and insulting comments, about the former King of England. They are the men who knew that all liberties were granted by a beneficent Creator and if one is squelched then none are safe.

I would also say, find an audience and speak out. Put your rhetoric up against theirs in the free market and see to whom the listeners turn and to whom the advertisers pay. Oh yeah, I forgot, you already tried that, it was called Air America.

Free Speech vs. Responsibility

2010-05-01T06:27:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 15, 2010

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Those are powerful words and words for which I am always grateful. I owe every word I ever submitted to the editors of the Broader View Weekly to a single paragraph that provides for a broad range of liberty. It is because of the foresight of the crafters of the Bill of Rights that my brother Gordon and I are able to raise our distinct voices in protest – not just in hushed tones or personal e-mails but loudly and for public distribution.

So I cherish the freedom of speech and would never seek to inhibit or regulate it. I don’t believe that President Barack Obama would either, any more than I believe President George W. Bush sought to limit free speech when he said, of the Dixie Chicks, “…They shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out…” (or when his former press secretary Ari Fleischer said, of the press after 9/11, that they should “watch what they say”).

However, there are certain personalities who see every criticism of their opinions, influence or tactics as either a return to the Fairness Doctrine (which sought to balance the broadcast of opposing views) or a desire to limit the free speech of a chosen few through some sort of targeted attack. Even before Obama took office, Limbaugh used his radio talk show to ramp up fury over his speculation that the administration would bring back the Fairness Doctrine; in fact, that it was at the top of Obama’s agenda. As recently as last week, Glenn Beck claimed, in his own radio show, that the administration had targeted him in a coordinated attack as an enemy of the president. Beck claims that people close to the White House have called for a boycott of his television show and that the president himself is trying to silence him.

Of course, this is all part of the personae of these two personalities: one moment they claim to be inconsequential to public, the next they are so self important that they can barely contain themselves. They claim to be the only purveyors of the truth and feign paranoia that the “liberal” media and the government are trying to shut them up. This contradictory self-image may be part of the ego necessary to spend three hours each day on talk radio, but it also serves a certain tactical role. Faithful listeners begin to think they are privy to a rare source of information (which they perceive to be factual and accurate). They also begin to relate to the hosts in a way that is endearing. The fate of the radio personality becomes entwined with the fates of the listeners, and not just implicitly. Last week, Beck told his listeners that the administration had come for him and, in no uncertain terms, that they were coming “for you”.

Fear and rage are a big part of the package for Beck, Limbaugh, and their ilk (such as Sean Hannity and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly). Every perceived threat is exaggerated. On, March 22, after the House of Representatives passed the health care bill, Rush opened his show with the words “Today America is hanging by a thread. Today, freedom is under attack.” Glenn Beck’s constant assertions that he has never seen such abuses or overreaching has built a following that parallels the Tea Party movement. Beck uses his show to whip his “9/12” minions into a frenzy and draw them to his website and events.

None of the major players in talk radio are subtle about where rage and fear should be focused. Limbaugh talks about the evil liberals and continually claims they are liars bent on the destruction of America and her way of life. Beck demonizes progressives and attaches a religious component that amounts to righteous indignation. They each provide specific targets of collective anger. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are blamed for many of the nation’s troubles, but the prime enemy of conservatism is President Obama. Sean Hannity refers to him as the “Anointed One” implying that he was illegitimately elected (apparently because the press couldn’t stop fawning over him). Rush Limbaugh affects a sneering, whining, and mocking tone every time he mentions the president. Glenn Beck describes him as pure evil.

The First Amendment guarantees these men the right to voice their opinions, however critical, of the president. In his column, Gordon implies that Obama sees those voices as so “troublesome” that their rights should be suspended. I think the implication is wrong, but I find the intensity and nature of the discourse “troubling”.

The arena of public opinion is currently a tinderbox of anger. The hurting economy, jobless rates and other hardships leave Americans searching for answers and leave many looking for scapegoats. If talk radio is effective at anything it is providing scapegoats. Hosts like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are providing fuel to the growing flames of discontent.

It is difficult to deny the influence and power that these men wield. But with great power comes great responsibility, and that these radio personalities attempt to deny that responsibility is troubling as well. In light of recent vandalism and threats of violence by the Tea Party crowd, many conservatives are trying to distance themselves. It is interesting to hear these folks try to maintain a level of fear and rage that keeps the faithful tuned in, while trying to appear conscientious.

Not all conservatives have taken the same tack. Bill Bennett, whose views I don’t share, responded to an audience member who criticized him for not hating Obama enough by quoting former President Richard Nixon (also no hero of mine). In his farewell speech, Nixon said “Others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” Instead of exacerbating the turmoil, Bennett turned a lens of reason on the situation and encouraged his audience to do the same.

We should treasure the freedoms we share and respect the rights of others. But when it comes to our freedom of speech we should bear in mind the power of words and use them responsibly.

State Budget Issues

2010-05-01T06:25:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 1, 2010

States all across the nation are struggling with budget shortfalls. New York is far from unique in experiencing its own budget gaps as the governor and legislature approach their deadline. Most people are familiar with the problems facing states such as California, and the drastic steps being taken to resolve their own deficits. Therefore, it is little surprise that Governor David Paterson, the State Assembly and State Senate find themselves in similar waters.

While both legislative houses have passed emergency bills to keep the state government operating, as of this writing, differences of opinion and strategy are likely to prevent legislators from presenting a budget by the April 1 deadline.

One would hope that our representatives in the state legislature would put aside politics and focus on doing their best to serve the people of New York. Unfortunately, the work of the people is being impeded by the personal interests of those in Albany.

The obvious requirement of balancing a budget plagued by deficit is to increase revenue while reducing expenditure. The governor’s office and the houses of legislature have presented various plans to address budget issues.

Paterson has infamously proposed increasing revenue by raising taxes on cigarettes and imposing taxes on soft drinks. These measures, which lopsidedly affect lower income New Yorkers, unfairly target a group of people by their lifestyle. They also fall short of closing the gaps in the budget.

Cuts proposed by the governor’s office and the legislature to state programs and aid also threaten New York’s neediest by limiting or denying funding to school districts and other vital programs. Regardless of the outcome of negotiation, billions of dollars will be eliminated from programs and New Yorkers will suffer. Meanwhile, those who can least afford it will be further squeezed to make up the difference between revenue and expenditure.

And while we the people of New York are sacrificing, those in government in Albany are sharing in that sacrifice as well, right? Well, as it turns out, not so much.

Reports in the last couple of weeks have shown that even though the economy is depressed, and even though a pay freeze has been instituted in Albany, staffs in the legislature have been increased and raises have been awarded. Popular convention among fiscal conservatives would insist that the bulk of the increases would be at the hands of the tax-and-spend Democratic party. However, the majority of the $7.4 million these increases will cost New Yorkers, is being claimed by Republicans in the State Senate. Of course Democrats have had their hands out for these payoffs as well.

That this opportunism is a bi-partisan effort is small comfort. That it represents a lack of responsibility among those making decisions that affect us all is troubling.

Balancing the state budget, or at least presenting a realistic budget that meets needs while limiting its negative impact on the public, is a monumental task. This process and the negotiations that are part of it, require difficult choices and compromise. These things are certain.

I am concerned, not by the failure to meet deadlines in a timely manner, but by the things I see in the proposals coming from the governor’s office, the senate and the assembly. I am not fully qualified to offer solutions to state budget shortfalls. However, I believe that any such decisions should be made with the needs of and circumstances of the citizens of the state. Unfortunately, I see a governor acting with little regard to public opinion and of the real-world consequences of his decisions. I see a legislature too self-absorbed to look beyond personal gain to the business of helping those they represent.

As the formation of proposals and the budgeting process go forward I invite New Yorkers to keep an eye on the process and the provisions that are still evolving. There is still time to get involved. Our representatives in Albany are still working on the deals that will impact our lives. We should communicate to them our will. That remains our responsibility as the key component of a democratic system.

Signs of Spring

2010-05-01T06:18:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 1, 2010

When you see the familiar glint of a red-bellied Robin flying low over a green lawn, or the south end of a northbound V of Canada Geese honking high in the sky, or the whitish-yellow blossom of a Daffodil blooming along a sidewalk, you know that Spring has finally arrived in upstate New York. These sights invariably bring a sudden feeling of warmth and joy to the winter-weary heart of New Yorkers. However, there is another annual sight we witness each April that does not bring such feelings of warmth and joy.

I speak, of course, of the annual New York State Budget showdown. It starts brewing in mid-January and it percolates slowly through the chilly days of February before it starts to really boil over in late March; and by April 1 (otherwise known as April Fool’s Day – for good reason) we can be assured that our governor and our legislators will be still be miles apart from a settlement and emergency appropriations will be called for and approved in the nick of time to avoid closing schools and government offices.

Each year we are told that certain services will be jeopardized if taxes are not raised and each year we mutely accept new fees, fines and revenue enhancers imposed upon us and our businesses. Then we wonder why we see the “For Sale” signs appear in the lawns and in the shop windows of homes and businesses as more people pack their belongings and head for other states where a more favorable environment exists for families and corporations.

The current situation in Albany is not that much different from previous years; it seems that the problem persists from administration to administration with only the names changing. This year, however, there is a proposal on the table from our Lieutenant Governor, Richard Ravitch. In his simple five-step plan, modeled after a similar program that was used in the 1970’s to bring New York City back from the brink of bankruptcy, Ravitch proposes several ideas that, on the face, seem practical and efficacious.

Ravitch’s proposal includes a five-year plan in which the state commits to paying down its structural gap and gives the governor the power to make across-the-board reductions should those gaps continue to exist. It also calls for an adoption of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, in which revenues are accounted when they are “earned” rather than when the money actually arrives in Albany. The plan calls for borrowing within limits determined by an independent financial review board.

I sense many problems may result by this “fix”. One of which is the idea that we can borrow our way out of this dilemma. If we try that in our home budgets we soon come to realize that, unless we change our spending and/or increase our income, the problem will just pop up again when the credit card bills come to our mailbox.

I believe the same principles used to restore financial solvency to our personal budgets can be applied to our state. In other words, we need to change our spending habits.

I know that the principle known as NIMBY – or Not In MY Back Yard – is a very real challenge for those who know that certain industrial or governmental facilities are necessary for the public good, yet they are just as sure they do not want the construction in their backyards. The companion principle in regards to the budget could be called NMSI – Not My Special Interest – in which the electorate recognizes that the budget needs to be cut, but the cuts should not come from the area that serves my special interest. These special interests have their lobbyists strolling the halls of Albany making as much noise as they can to prove that their special interests are, indeed, special and more special than the others that are making just as much noise.

I propose that we look more closely at what we expect from our government and what we could expect from private enterprise. For example, the proposed idea to close state parks and recreation centers has been met with outcry from those who take advantage of these facilities. Perhaps we need to evaluate the idea that the state should be involved in the ownership of these parks to begin with. I contend that private enterprise can and does serve the public as well as state-run departments. Accountability from the market place is usually much more efficient than accountability from the election process.

In conclusion, we can expect to see this same sign of Spring next year and the year after, unless and until we are willing to make radical changes in the process.

Are You Feeling “Tickled” by Massa?

2010-05-01T06:15:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 18, 2010

As the smoking contrail of Eric Massa’s political career slowly and mercifully fades from the national skyline, the residents of New York’s 29th District can ask themselves some key questions. I will not recount the details of the accusations against him or the rambling of his varied responses to those accusations other than to say that I do not think I have ever witnessed a “tickle fight” between a grown man and a group of subordinates.

The first question that needs to be answered is, of course, a serious inquiry about how we are going to replace our former representative. Obviously, a special election must be held as soon as possible and, as Steuben County officials have already stated, the expenses for this election will be carried by local municipalities. As of this writing, the Democrats, taken by surprise, have yet to name a candidate. As if we needed any further proof of Massa’s self-centered way of thinking, this is another example of someone acting with total disregard for the consequences of his actions upon others.

Another question for the voters, and not just for those in this district, is whether there are any men or women out there who are immune to the pathogens that seem to infect anyone exposed to political power.

I understand that a certain personality type is necessary for anyone who chooses to venture into the political arena. First of all, one must possess an above average opinion of her or his own abilities and capabilities. This confidence may not be a detriment in itself, as a tolerable level of self-confidence is a positive attribute in a healthy self-image. However, as with most wild beasts, self confidence – if overfed by fawning press coverage, generous donors and the ever-present clingers that seem to follow and attach themselves to those in authority – will turn fat and sassy.

What we saw as we watched Massa’s embarrassing performances on Glen Beck and Larry King was the picture of a man who embodied the narcissism and megalomania that is the final stage of poisoned self-confidence. I cringed when I saw him pull the well-traveled and pre-arranged prop of his x-ray film to bolster his claim that he was indeed suffering from a lingering cancer. I cringed again when I heard Beck reference the fact that Massa’s wife was observing this whole debacle from a nearby seat.

I realize there may be some truth to Massa’s claim that Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer had an interest in seeing Massa’s beady-eyed visage removed from the picture of the Democrat side of the House of Representatives. I do not doubt the validity of the story that intimidation and pressure exists within the halls and …um…shower stalls of our Capitol. However, I also believe Massa’s repeated and boisterous tales of the bawdy elements of that part of the story were designed to take our mental vision apparatus from focusing on the image of a randy, hypersexual (and possibly bisexual), older man preying upon the bodies of younger subordinates.

Another question that comes to mind is whether we should have seen something within Massa that could have alerted us to this possibility. We all know of his utterly arrogant statement that he will gladly and quickly vote against the wishes of at least 80% of his constituents if he believed it was better for us. We all heard his obsessive references to his service in the U.S. Navy, as if we needed (or perhaps he needed) assurance that he was all man. Now, I am certainly not qualified to do a long-distance (or even an intimate) psychological evaluation of our former representative, but I am qualified to say that certain personality traits do present themselves as ready hosts for the parasitic elements that eat away at the soul.

So, what do we do now as Massa slinks away to some distant cave? Well, first of all, we should say a solemn and sincere prayer for him and his wife. For him to find the courage to seek her forgiveness and for her to gain the courage to go on in this new and uncomfortable world he has constructed for her and his children.

Obviously, we should also be more diligent in vetting the next candidate before we entrust her or him with our vote. But beyond that, we should also realize the old adage that: “Power always corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is still holding true, and we can expect to see corruption as long as we have money and politics so tightly entwined.

In conclusion, we can and should feel a little unease when we realize that Massa has “tickled” (in more than one way) all of his constituents with his actions. But, even with that realization, we need to see the person behind the man and allow some much needed privacy for him and his family as they try to deal with the failures of their father and husband.

Forum or Spectacle?

2010-05-01T06:09:00.000-07:00

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 4, 2010

On Thursday, February 25, President Obama hosted a bi-partisan Health Care Summit at Blair House with Congressional representatives of both parties. To be honest, it was partly a political spectacle, televised as a forum for both sides to showcase their arguments about the current proposal to reform the health care system.

It might have been an opportunity for candid discussion of real issues, with solutions being offered and considered. It might have been a fruitful exchange of ideas and innovative answers to the dilemma everyone agrees the current system presents. However, politics, as usual, got in the way.

I’m not excusing the president from his contribution to the game playing. The public nature of the summit represented an attempt to control the message and not just a gesture of transparency that (contrary to the opinion of many on the right) has been a focus of this administration. Bringing cameras into the arena of discussion, while risky in a bi-partisan setting, provides a megaphone to the administration at a time when the opposition is striving effectively to drown out Obama’s message.

The White House and the Democrats weren’t the only ones playing to the camera. Republicans came prepared with talking points, theatrics and visual aids (like stacks of alligator-clipped paper to represent the lengthy health care legislation). For instance, Senator John McCain found opportunity to continue the jabs he tossed out during the 2008 Presidential campaign and call attention to an unpopular potential use of the reconciliation process by Democrats to pass reform. While McCain may have opposed the use of the Nuclear Option during the Bush administration when the GOP held power, it seems interesting to hear many of his colleagues, who threatened its use to ram through Supreme Court nominees, criticize the same tactics now.

McCain also saw fit to portray the lead-up to the current iteration of House and Senate bills as “unsavory deal-making,” even though both bills were crafted in bi-partisan committees and contain hundreds of GOP-authored amendments.

Democrats may have sounded silly insisting there was common ground and agreement across party lines while Republicans spent much of the time arguing that none existed. This despite the fact that all in attendance seemed to agree that reform was required; that costs needed to be controlled, that larger pools of coverage would reduce premiums (among other commonalities), and that many differences amounted to semantics.

Talking points were in generous supply during the six-hour-plus sessions. House Republican leader John Boehner called the proposed reforms a “dangerous experiment.” Some Republicans spun Congressional Budget Office figures to argue against reforms, while others marginalized the same reports to support their own cases. Both parties stuck to the same lines as before the summit, which left little room for useful compromise.

There were highlights and glimpses of hope. When Senator John Barrasso made the statement that those with catastrophic insurance coverage (in which those covered pay out-of-pocket expense for most services) make better consumers of health care services, Obama asked if he thought Congress should have only catastrophic coverage. When Barrasso replied he did, the president asked if he would feel the same if he made $40,000 instead of $176,000 a year.

There were other times during the day that Democrats refocused the discussion on the health care problems faced by those in greatest need. Senator Tom Harkin told of an Iowa farmer struggling with sky-rocketing insurance premiums. Several other members of Congress described situations where coverage was dropped and where treatment was denied. These are issues that are often buried in the political rhetoric that characterizes the health care debate.

Unfortunately, the proposed legislation – with its concessions to corporate demands and those of insurers and the pharmaceutical industry – falls short of addressing many of the issues of those in greatest need. If the GOP’s requests to start the process over and go back to the drawing board would yield solutions to real health care problems, I would support it. However, I am convinced this ploy would merely be a stall tactic to prevent any real change from happening while the Democrats are in power (although ten years of Republican dominance failed to bring any needed reform).

Perhaps, some day, politics will take a back seat to policy and the American people can truthfully boast about our health care system (instead of making baseless claims about its quality). However, it will require us to stop cheerleading our chosen party members and instead hold our representatives’ feet to the fire.

The Beat Goes On…

2010-05-01T06:03:00.000-07:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 4, 2010

The Health Care Summit was intended to be an opportunity for the sunlight of sincere discussion to break through the partisan fog that has enveloped our nation’s capital for the past year. Sadly, we did not see any rays of sunshine breaking through. One encouraging aspect of the event was that it enabled Obama to finally fulfill one of his campaign promises. He had repeatedly promised us that his administration would be marked by transparency and his actions at the summit finally revealed some of the inner workings of his mindset.

It became crystal clear to anyone who has a small knowledge of the subtle syllables of body language that Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the other Democrat leaders really had no intention of incorporating any of the ideas of the Republicans into their partisan bill, nor did they intend to eliminate any of the objectionable items.

Before I address the utter disdain and elitist condescension exhibited by the Democrats toward the Republicans in attendance, and the American people who overwhelmingly disapprove of this bill and the process being used to push it through, I feel I must address some misstatements by my fellow columnist.

Keith mentions McCain’s indictment of the Democrat’s “unsavory deal-making” as bogus because “both bills were crafted in bipartisan committees and contain hundreds of Republican amendments.” I am sure that even Keith knows that is not true. The final draft contains less than twenty Republican amendments and the last three weeks of the construction were done completely by Democrats behind closed and locked doors. The deals to which McCain referred, and Scott Brown campaigned against, were all thrown together during that Christmas Eve corruption of American politics.

Further on Keith swallows the bait thrown down by the Democrats for the hungry lapdogs in the media when he states that the “many differences amounted to semantics”. I understand that is an attempt to paint the opposition as petty and just… well, oppositional. The truth is that both parties agreed that there is a need for reform and sad stories exist out there; costs are increasing and the burden of covering millions of uninsured should be lifted. The difference of opinion in how this should be done is one of philosophy not of linguistics.

The need for reform was never denied by the Republicans, no matter how often the media and the Democrats try to repeat the mantra that they are “the party of NO!” The sad fact is that the Democrats came to the process with majority rule in both houses and in the executive office, and they assumed the role of oligarchs rather than the role of public servants. This became obvious through the summer as they shut up those at town hall meetings and slithered together in back room deal-making.
The philosophical differences between the parties became very clear when the Republicans offered market-driven solutions and the Democrats responded with a call for increased regulation and legislation. Therein lies the source for all the partisan fog.

It seems to me that not only are the Democrats determined to go forward without a look to the constructive ideas of the minority party, they are also determined to turn a blind eye to the wishes of the majority of the American people. A CNN poll released the morning of the summit paralleled a similar poll by Fox News in which over 65% of the people polled agreed with the Republicans that this 2,700 page bill should be shredded and a new, truly bipartisan legislation should be crafted.

Obama senses the changing wind, and realizing that if the process were to start over, that a bill would not be finalized before the November elections; and if that were the case, he would most likely be dealing with a red majority in both houses. Therefore, he and the Democrats are going forward, despite the will of the people, the rules of congress, and the decent guidelines of political discourse.

Intelligence on Trial

2010-02-18T18:56:00.000-08:00

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, February 18, 2010

As if we needed another illustration of how inept and not-ready-for-prime-time this administration and Justice Department is, the recent reversal of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision is a glaring example.

The decision to try in our civilian courts, five surviving conspirators behind the terrorist attack upon our citizens and our Pentagon, on September 11, 2001, has apparently become another victim of the Tea Party movement that carried Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate and Obama to the door of the Republican Party. Eric Holder, as Attorney General of the People of The United States of America, sought to demonstrate his superior intelligence over the combined intelligences of our Constitutional architects, our Supreme Court and most definitely over the previous administration, by stating that these men deserve the same privileges and rights reserved for American citizens.

It seems that the decision was safe and secure until the Massachusetts “miracle” shook the political world. Mayor Bloomberg sniffed the breeze and detected the scent of torch fuel and heard the clattering of pitchfork handles in the neighboring state. He relayed the alarm to Senator Schumer and the administration blinked – or at least it seemed to blink – until the perky CBS anchorette, Katie Couric, asked Obama about the reversal on Super Bowl Sunday.

Obama replied that NYC may still be subjected to the fiasco and the financial burden of a needless civilian trial, which will lead to a security nightmare complete with traffic tie-ups, protesters from both sides needing protection from each other, terrorists spewing venom across our media outlets and perhaps worst of all, the invasion of NYC boroughs by thousands of international news media personalities.

The trial itself is needless for the simple reason that the conspirators have all signed confessions to the act and have requested execution, according to a letter written to and read by military judge Colonel Stephen Henley during a hearing in Guantanamo Bay on December 8, 2008.

In that letter, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, (KSM), admitted that he was responsible for the planning that, when carried out, resulted in the destruction of over 3,000 civilian souls and the devastation of our economy and our sense of security. He further sought to remove the legal counsel appointed to him because he said he made no differentiation between the soldiers fighting in Iraq and the judge who sat on the bench.

“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z… I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl…there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head…I was responsible for the assassination attempt against President Clinton in the Philippines in 1994 or 1995…I was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia…” KSM said in his rambling testimony during a hearing in Guantanamo in 2007. He affirmed that his confession was made without pressure, threat, intimidation or promise.

So, why does Holder think the civilian trial should go on? He has already claimed that there is no doubt that the men will be convicted and brought to justice, a statement which will, no doubt, be used by even the most junior of attorneys appointed for their defense to call for a mistrial, therefore he does not believe the evidence disclosed in a civilian trial will be greater than that discovered in a military tribunal.

There can be only one reason to bring these vermin to an American city and to give them the type of exposure they could only dream of in their fondest and wildest dreams. The reason is not to determine their guilt or innocence; that has already been determined. The reason is not to demonstrate the fact that the U.S. is a civil nation which bestows mercy upon our enemies; that has been established by countless examples of our eagerness to send aid to those who seek our destruction.

The only reason for this trial would be to keep the Bush administration, the CIA and the whole military intelligence structure on trial. It would serve no other purpose. It would result in a weakening of our CIA’s effectiveness as they see their operations and operators under scrutiny. It would demoralize our military as they watch the rights they have fought to protect for their fellow citizens granted to the enemy they are fighting.

I believe this whole debacle illustrates another failed trial – the corporate intelligence of this administration and its cabinet members has been tried and they have been found wanting.