December 28, 2012

Judged now by loyalty to a political leader? No disagreement accepted.

This is a partial rewrite from last year, last December in fact. It so perfectly describes the situation now.

I see the situation clearly because I was in such a place myself at one time. It was my first real political activism, and I stretched the loyalty past its appropriate time.

I am sure many remember my loyalty to Dean's campaign during the 2004 election. I was mocked for being devoted to a political personality. Many of us were.

Most of us realized eventually that he was moving on, going back to his centrist roots....and we went other directions as well. I still believe that in that year he could have been a power house against Bush.

It's ironic that so many who mocked me back then are even more devoted to a political personality. They judge me now not by my public education advocacy, not by the stances I take, but because I question some of the policies of this administration.

I believe that as the election year of 2012 progresses, there will be added pressure not to speak out on pertinent issues. Our country is in deep trouble, and we in 2008 gave our party a majority to fix it. They had two years in which they could have turned around so many things, but they did not.

And we lost in 2010 to a group of uninformed people who actually stood up and spoke out loudly for their beliefs, confused and wrongheaded though those beliefs might be. That old canard of Bill Clinton, that it is better to be "wrong and strong" than "weak and right" really took hold. And that was a shame. Being "wrong and strong" is dangerous indeed.

It's been almost impossible to get the word out about the privatization of public education. It has been a topic of mine and of many other bloggers, but the big media outlets have not and probably will never tell of it honestly.

It is a topic that is of necessity critical of the president....because it is his policy. Yet it is easy to be considered disloyal and ignored if we speak of it.

There has been an offer to change the way the cost of living is figured for seniors on Social Security, a change that will cover all other programs as well. It is in reality a cut, but it is not being called that. We are supposed to accept it.

It dates back to the 2010 fiscal commission which had a co-chair who said this of Social Security.

Social Security Is 'A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits'

"I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too...We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits!"

"Stop yapping your lips and listen good. This commission might be packed with millionaires, but we're looking out for little people who need Social Security."

Yes, that's the man chosen by the president to co-chair the commission to determine our financial future. The other is not that much better.

More from my rewrite:

The changes to the social safety nets for seniors, the sneaky ways to turn public schools over to management companies who get taxpayer money, the denigration of public school teachers....these things that the right wing and conservative Democrats have wanted for ages are finally coming to pass right now.

.."When there is only one basis for judging the character and worth of people, and that basis is devotion to one man....it will drive away those who are sincere and push them aside from the party.

I remember during the lead up to the Iraq invasion. It was a time our country invaded another country based on lies. I remember that the Republicans would not utter a single word against George Bush. Nor would the media. Nor would our leading Democrats. People like Phil Donahue with high ratings were taken off the air for being anti-war openly.

There's a harm in asking people not to express their views, and to ask them to walk in lockstep.

Crossposted at Twitter

December 28, 2012

CEO of non-profit that services FL Juvenile Justice System..over $1.2 million a year public money.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/27/v-fullstory/3158686/florida-department-of-juvenile.html

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice calls executive’s pay ‘excessive’

A nonprofit company that holds two dozen state contracts to care for troubled juveniles in Florida pays its chief executive more than $1.2 million a year in salary and benefits, most of it courtesy of taxpayers.

Outraged, the state Department of Juvenile Justice says the money paid to William Schossler is excessive and should be spent to help kids.

...“This is a hell of a way to do business, throwing me under the bus,” Schossler said of Walters’ criticism.

The foundation opposes the elimination of its funding under Walters’ reorganization proposal.

Floridians might be beginning to be aware of where their taxpayer money is going. In October we learned about a failed charter school in Orlando which paid their principal $824,000 while only allowing $366,000 on teacher salaries and instruction in the 2010-2011 school year.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/8490

The principal in question not only received a $519,000 severance check, but she took home her $305,000 annual salary for a grand total of $824,000 during the 2010-2011 school year. The Orlando Sentinel also reported last week the school only spent $366,000 on teacher salaries and instruction during that school year. Nothing can justify that imbalance, especially for the leader of a charter that failed.

Public school district superintendents don't even make that kind of unconscionable salary. School boards would face public rage for even proposing such pay.

.."Last week the Miami Herald reported that Charter Schools USA handed out in excess of $205,000 in contributions to political organizations and candidates for this election, three times the amount the Fort Lauderdale-based company spent two years ago.

That money must come from the profits the company earns at taxpayer expense; in effect, the public is paying that political price so charter schools can leverage even greater profits from the Legislature.

December 25, 2012

More from David Plouffe's warning "left" of tough times. How I feel about such warnings.

I just posted Ed Schultz's segment on David Plouffe in the video forum.

It was about Plouffe's visit to the campus of the University of Delaware. There he told the group that Medicare and Medicaid were the chief drivers of the deficit. He warned that the "left" would have tough times. In fact he said Democrats would have to do tough things on spending entitlement and be criticized by "their left." He did not say "our left", he could have at least made it a little more personal.

There are constant jibes at the left, the liberals. We are always talked about in the 3rd person. Like we are in a separate place or location in time and space from the rest of the party. We are referred to as they or them, never in the 1st person plural like we or us.

As we have moved to the right things have changed in this country. The wars are growing longer, the rich are getting richer, and now the poor are growing poorer.

Each time we get in power now we move right so as not to offend the Republicans, while they have no hesitation about offending us greatly and often.

The most annoying thing of all is the attempt to portray liberals as not very bright, not very politically savvy, unable to see the big picture.

I remembered a post at Daily Kos in 2010 about a diarist talking with David Plouffe at the Tom Harkin steak fry in Iowa. Apparently he showed those colors about the left and the future stances of the party even then.

Social Security and David Plouffe: An Action Diary (Updated)

When David Plouffe held out his hand, I introduced myself as a precinct captain, and told him I'm concerned about the future. I said that I fear that the debt commission will recommend cutting Social Security by raising the retirement age and messing with cost of living adjustments, and that the President will sign the bill.

..."Instead of responding on Social Security, Plouffe started talking about the deficit and how it had to be addressed, implying that it would justify changes to Social Security. I said that according to Krugman and other economists, Social Security doesn't affect the deficit, and people want to cut it just to make the bond market happy. He said they don't always agree with Krugman, and made a little face that said he isn't their favorite. Then he started talking about China and the trade situation, and a mixed salad of other "big issues" facing the White House. I don't remember everything he brought up because I was thinking that he was filibustering to avoid talking about Social Security, and it was frustrating. I think his point was that they have big problems to address, but he did not explain why any of it was relevant to raising the Social Security retirement age.

..."In 2012, he wants Iowa precinct captains on his side, so it would have been in his interest to reassure me when I declined to be distracted by GOP privatization threats and the trade deficit. It would have been easy, but he didn't even try. His body language was closed. He seemed uncomfortable or slightly irritated.

December 24, 2012

Plouffe in Nov. said Medicare, Medicaid driving deficit. Says "left" must accept tough things.

David Plouffe is close with this administration. He said this in November after Obama's big win. He is warning the left. Seems to me when "the left" tries to stand for things Democrats traditionally have stood for, things like Social Security and public education, they are often "warned" they will harm the party.

Ed Schultz, liberals unhappy with David Plouffe for suggesting entitlement reform

We’re all familiar with the Obama administration’s “I won” approach to compromise, but White House senior advisor David Plouffe today earned the scorn of liberals when video of him naming Medicare and Medicaid as the chief drivers of the deficit made the rounds. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz was among those trying to reel Plouffe back from the edge of reality.

December 23, 2012

For politicians: "'How-to Manual' for Betraying Seniors and People with Disabilities"

From Huff Post by Nancy Altman of Social Security Works and Eric Kingson of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

This paints a pretty sad picture of the Democrats who are in a quandary right now over the cuts in Social Security which are being called something else.

Our 'How-to Manual' for Betraying Seniors and People with Disabilities

They want to be counted as among the "serious people in the room." You know, the folks who are willing to "compromise" the well-being of everyday Americans and vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities to claim credit for striking a "grand bargain."

But they're in a bind. Most, including President Obama and Speaker Boehner, have acknowledged that Social Security has not and cannot contribute a penny to the federal debt. Nearly all are on record as promising that they will never, ever cut the benefits of today's seniors and people with disabilities. They've seen those pesky polls showing that the American people, Republicans, Independents and Democrats, alike, strongly oppose benefit cuts. Constituents understand that playing around with the way COLAs are calculated is a benefit cut, pure and simple. They state their opposition in polls; some have expressed their opposition by calling or even paying visits to the offices of those elected to represent them.

Yes, pity those poor politicians. They don't want to be held accountable, they certainly don't want to lose the next election, but they don't want to take their constituents' side in opposition to Wall Street CEOs, elite media, and others pushing for bad policy. These politicians sorely need a "way out" and we are pleased to help by summarizing five lessons from our path-breaking new book, "Betraying Seniors and People with Disabilities: A How to Manual for your Garden Variety Politician."

Be sure to read all five of the "lessons", and you will see just how it is all playing out right now.

Number 4 of the five lessons they quote is the one that really caught my attention.

Lesson Number 4: Explain that it could have been worse. Float even worse policy ideas like increasing the nation's health care costs by throwing those aged 65 and 66 off of Medicare. Draw as much attention as you can toward those numbskull ideas, hoping that Americans will be relieved that you didn't do worse.

You can follow Nancy Altman's campaign FOR Social Security at Twitter:

NoSocSecCuts

Crossposted at Madfloridian's Twitter page

December 23, 2012

I am not ready to eat crow and assume the cuts to Social Security are off the table.

I am eagerly awaiting word that the new COLA using Chained CPI is no longer up for discussion.

So far I have not seen anything definitive. I have seen pictures of crows and read call outs for those of us who are speaking up about Democrats putting such cuts up for discussion with a bunch of extremist Republicans.

Let me quote Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. Then I will quote the words of a union leader.

Chained CPI Not A Deal Breaker For Many Democrats

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), however, said this week that she did not consider chained CPI a benefit cut and that she could get enough Democrats to support it.

More from Pelosi:

Pelosi and Hoyer keeping an open mind to cuts to entitlement programs

The Democrats will stick with the president,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday when asked about the Social Security provisions on MSNBC.

Pelosi emphasized that the details of the plan “are not all ironed out,” and acknowledged that “maybe not every single Democrat” would support it. But she expressed confidence that an agreement backed by Obama — if it protected the oldest and the poorest — would win significant support from her troops.

Steny Hoyer, from that same article:

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) delivered a similar message Tuesday.

“Everybody needs to understand that nobody is going to be happy with every provision of a deal,” Hoyer warned. “Some members will have problems with some parts, but … if we get an agreement that the president can support, hopefully we can get a majority in the House — Republicans and Democrats — and Speaker John Boehner [R-Ohio] and the leader Pelosi and I will convince members that we ought to move forward.”

Hoyer added, “Affecting entitlements would not be our first choice, but then again, I don’t think you get there from here without dealing, in some respects, with entitlements.”

And the vague indefinite words from Richard Trumka on the chained CPI:

Richard Trumka On Fiscal Cliff: Not Ready To Blow Up Deal Over Obama's Social Security Concession

In other words it sounds like he does not want to be the first to blink. If everyone acts that way, no telling what we will end up with in the final agreement.

WASHINGTON -- The head of the most powerful union federation in the country is holding off judgment on President Obama's most recent debt reduction proposal, despite its inclusion of cuts to Social Security beneficiaries.

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka called the chained-CPI proposal offered by Obama as part of his recent effort to resolve the so-called fiscal cliff standoff, "bad policy" that he and his group were strongly against. But in an interview with The Huffington Post on Thursday morning, Trumka stopped notably short of urging Democrats to walk away from the table because of it.

"I want to see more of the details. But we oppose the cuts," Trumka said. "We'll oppose the cuts. We will be talking to them about a number of things. Obviously I want to look at the whole deal before we make any decision."

Trumka, like others in the labor community, has been placed in a political pickle following the president's most recent offer. Having spent months demanding that Democrats remove Social Security from the negotiating table, he's now confronted with the choice of supporting a deal with those very cuts, or demanding their removal and risking no deal at all. The latter would mean no chained-CPI, which would result in less generous cost of living adjustments for those on Social Security. But it also would mean the loss of two other labor priorities: unemployment benefits and infrastructure money, both of which are also in Obama's latest proposal.

And what about all our calls and emails?

So what do you do when the president puts Social Security cuts on the table for discussion? You can say they are not cuts, they are making it stronger. We have heard that so many times before.

Sounds to me like all three leaders above are not paying attention to what the people are saying very loudly..."no cuts to Social Security." They seem to be determined to stay on talking points and not make waves about it.

When people are ridiculed and asked to eat crow before all the facts are in, there is a dark cloud put over honest and clear discussions of party policy.

It should not be us vs them in an atmosphere of gotcha.

December 22, 2012

Chalkface blog kudos. Tired warriors in the education fight.

From one of my favorite education blogs and twitterers:

Tired warriors in the fight for public education

Weary is the best word to describe it. Many are tired.

There are those who’ve had backs against walls. Others who’ve been marginalized. “Naysayers, crazies, lunatics, loose cannons,” they are told. Or, in some cases, worse.

We must remain true to some very basic principles:

1. Those who’ve never taught should not dictate education policy, at any level. I’ve stood before classes of young children, even as recently as four months ago.

2. We must understand that the various connections between for-profit companies and public education mandates are no coincidence. Someone, somewhere wants a piece of the roughly $600 billion education marketplace.

And one of my favorite posts at the blog:

What did you do in school today...what they don't tell you (written by a teacher)

“What did you do in school today?” “Nothing.” Ah….the generic response of children when confronted upon their parents arrival home from work. No need to press the issue. As a 15-year veteran public school teacher, I’ll share the 411 from an insider’s perspective — with a well-deserved angle of candidness and transparency for parents and tax payers.

Your child is becoming highly proficient with filling in little circles on bubble sheets and is acquiring a wealth of knowledge on the questioning and structure of standardized tests.

Today’s students are test-taking gurus, a direct result of being instructed via a curriculum driven by high-stakes standardized testing. A 4th grader in New York, for instance, will spend around five weeks in which they’ll be subjected to some form of standardized assessments. This figure does not account for far more time which is allocated towards test preparation — aka “teaching for the test”. Live in NY and thinking about moving? Don’t. Analogous situations exist in the other states. Your child is being shortchanged of basic academic skills, life skills, crucial thinking, social interaction, and creativity as more time, effort, resources, and money are spent on standardized testing.

As a matter of fact one large charter school chain in NY brags about their little test-taking machines.

Charter school director: When "test day came, they were like little test-taking machines.


"We have a gap to close," says Paul Fucaloro, director of instruction. "I want the kids on edge, constantly."
(Photo: Yolo Monakhov for New York Magazine)

The day before the scheduled math test, the city got socked with eight inches of snow. Of 1,499 schools in the city, 1,498 were closed. But at Harlem Success Academy 1, 50-odd third-graders trudged through 35-mile-per-hour gusts for a four-hour session over Subway sandwiches. As Moskowitz told the Times, "I was ready to come in this morning and crank the heating boilers myself if I had to."

"We have a gap to close, so I want the kids on edge, constantly," Fucaloro adds. "By the time test day came, they were like little test-taking machines."

Crossposted at Twitter

December 21, 2012

Read some Dem comments about Chained CPI. Let's not pretend it won't pass. It might.

It does represent a cut to Social Security. That is not a stance I expect from Democrats. Many of these statements from Democrats in Congress lack a real stance against this new way of figuring the COLA.

The most disturbing one to me is by Nancy Pelosi.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), however, said this week that she did not consider chained CPI a benefit cut and that she could get enough Democrats to support it.

More:

Chained CPI Not A Deal Breaker For Many Democrats

When asked during the conference by The Huffington Post if they would vote against such a deal, they did not say they would.

"It is conceivable that you could have a package that is attractive in so many other ways that you might swallow it," Frank said, "but here's the problem ... there are going to have to be compromises in other areas, and what we are saying is this one for many of us is a deal breaker, or close to a deal breaker by itself, and so it might could well be part of a broader package, but that broader package ain't gonna be no Christmas present."

Close to a dealbreaker? Not good enough.

"What we're saying here today is a deal is not done yet," Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) said at the presser. "And so there is still time in the negotiations, because we want to make it clear both to the president and to our leadership that the chained CPI is an inaccurate reflection of what real living costs are for our seniors, and would result in a real benefit cut for them."

There should be no deal on the table. Rep. Edwards, I am quite sure the president and leadership are well-versed on the Chained CPI. It should not be on the table.

I heard Chris Van Hollen on MSNBC last night. He did not sound very convincing at all about being opposed to this deal.

This post in the comments caught my eye. I agree.

Social Security does not belong in this discussion. It does not and has not contributed to our debt. This is simply an excuse to cut a program that is unrelated to the problem.

Cutting Social Security to fix the deficit is like invading Iraq to get Bin Laden. It's simply an excuse to pursue a hidden agenda.

The Democratic think tanks have considered this method for quite a while. These think tanks usually get their policies enacted because they have the money, and money is power.

The Third Way openly and proudly included this last year when they openly and proudly presented their plans for Social Security reform.

It was put on the table by Democrats.

December 20, 2012

Rescuing Social Security again...and again...and again. Same song, many verses.

It's amazing how much alike the verses have become. We only have to look back a few years to see that what we are hearing today about Social Security's risky future sounds just about the same.

We should have caught on by now.

From 1997 Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR):

[link:http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/here-we-go-again/|Here We Go Again.
Can Social Security Survive Another "Rescue"?]

The rescue of Social Security has been a staple of American journalism for 20 years now—a story all the more remarkable in that Social Security has never been in peril except from its rescuers.

The rescues have all been based on faulty arithmetic. First, in 1977, the rescuers humbly confessed that they had made a mistake in adjusting benefits to inflation, as a result of which Social Security was threatening to go broke. (They never say the Army is threatening to "go broke," only that it needs more money to do the job that it's asked to do.) Not to worry. Amid the Yuletide hosannas of our massed punditry, our leaders found the courage to enact a correction that would, they swore, assure solvency into the 21st Century.

Later they turned Alan Greenspan loose on it, and that part reminded me of the recent Fiscal Commission, fondly called the Catfood Commission.

A bipartisan commission under Alan Greenspan went to work on the numbers, while the media developed an unprecedented campaign of vilification of the elderly. On magazine covers, in cartoons and columns and on broadcast commentaries innumerable, they were depicted as hogs, vampires, sharks, gorillas and card sharps scooping up the sustenance of the young. While the investment banker Peter G. Peterson led the media legions, Greenspan fabricated a hurricane warning. Multiplying one false assumption by another (for example, he assumed that the C.P.I. would rise nearly three times as fast as it actually did rise, while his private firm was forecasting an even smaller increase), he predicted that Social Security would go bankrupt in 1983.

The scare headlines permitted Congress in early 1983 to enact a bill acclaimed in headlines as a great rescue. In addition to the previously scheduled cut of 20 percent in benefits for new retirees, it clipped six months of cost-of-living adjustment from all then and future beneficiaries, raised payroll taxes further and postponed the retirement age from 65 to 67 in phases to begin in 2002.

The solvency of Social Security was thus assured for 75 more years.

The same author, John Hess, had written another article for FAIR in 1991, called Geezer Bashing, about media attacks on the elderly.

[link:http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/Geezer-Bashing/|Geezer-Bashing
Media Attacks on the Elderly]

In their drive to punish gray hair, big media give no quarter. There is no trial, no defense.

"Elderly, Affluent -- and Selfish", snarls a typical op-ed in the New York Times (10/10/89). "The 800-Pound Gorilla Vs. the Hungry Baby", growls a Washington Post column (10/22/90), referring to the invisible geezer lobby as an ape. Time magazine (11/26/90) says the country could work its way out of the hole it's in "by spending less on the elderly and more on preschoolers," but alas, "the elderly vote and preschoolers don't." Columnist Lars-Erik Nelson of the New York Daily News (10/22/90) proposes a cure for that: a Constitutional amendment denying the vote to everybody who gets a government check, like Social Security.

Over the last decade, while taxes on the rich were being cut by more than half, old age benefits have taken repeated hits. Early '80s bankruptcy scares allowed for sharp cuts in pensions and heavy increases in payroll taxes, touted to assure the solvency of Social Security into the 21st century.

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the perpetrators of these cuts, has since acknowledged that the insolvency of Social Security was a hoax, but it enabled the media to present the cuts and hikes as a "Social Security rescue." (See Extra! , 1-2/88.)

So the powers that be are trying to rescue Social Security again. It is showing the priorities of our nation, I fear, when they keep revisiting this issue....again, and again, and again.

December 19, 2012

From the White House transcript: Obama DID include Chained CPI in negotiations.

These are the words of Jay Carney, White House spokesperson.

Jay Carney's press briefing Dec. 18

Q Yes, Jay, a lot of top Democrats on the Hill, and I think President Obama, spent the campaign season saying, let’s not touch Social Security -- it doesn’t add to the deficit; we can resolve this issue without going to that entitlement program. What is the President’s message to those lawmakers who promised constituents that Social Security would not be touched after the President now has put chain CPI on the table for Republicans?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let’s be clear about one thing: The President didn’t put it on the table. This is something that Republicans want. And it is --

Q But the Republicans --

MR. CARNEY: -- part of his -- if I could please answer Sam’s question, I’d appreciate it. And the President did include it in his counterproposal, his counteroffer, as part of this process, as part of the negotiation process. I would note that this is a technical change -- would be if instated -- to the way that economists calculate inflation, and it would affect every program that has -- that uses the CPI in its calculations. And so it’s not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI. There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.

But let’s be clear, this is something that the Republicans have asked for, and as part of an effort to find common ground with the Republicans, the President has agreed to put this in his proposal -- agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package that includes asking the wealthiest to pay more so that we can achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary for a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

If you think I am posting misinformation, feel free to correct me. I don't want a reputation like that.