Nonfeasant Politicians

With the government shut down, it is apparent that partisan gridlock is not working. Neither side can seem to agree on how to resolve the impasse that creates greater challenges for Minnesota each day. Republicans are opposed to any taxes to resolve the budget crisis. Dayton refuses to give in as Margaret Anderson-Kelliher and other DFLers did during Pawlenty's last term. 


The Republicans want Governor Dayton to "call them back to work." However, he will likely dismiss any bills they give him that do not include a tax increase. And what work did Republican achieve while "working?" It is laughable to say the Republicans were focused on the budget "like a laser" as House speaker Amy Koch claimed. They passed Constitutional amendments requiring photo identification to vote and an anti-gay marriage bill. Neither of these will save Minnesota any money long-term and could have been brought up next year when the budget is less an issue. Minnesotans wisely chose to focus on biennial budgets so that the first term could focus on budget issues. Republicans, primarily elected on fiscal issues, chose to push a social agenda Minnesotan voters have little taste for. 


What Minnesotans want is for government to work for them and not against them. Voters have a civic duty  to elect representatives who will represent them and theoretically hold them accountable for their actions. Yet Minnesota has a growing body of elected officials choosing to ignore their duties. These representatives and senators choose not to vote at all.


Voter anger over the government shut down is only beginning to stir. Some are asking what are neighbors in Wisconsin have and are beginning to do: How do we recall these good for nothing politicians?


 Minnesota was the first state in the country to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing for the recall of elected state officials. It essentially states, "State officers can be recalled for “malfeasance,” “nonfeasance,” and “serious crime.” So breaking the laws are clearly problematic but so is the issue of nonfeasance. Nonfeasance is defined as, "...intentionally and repeatedly not performing required duties of the office." Since elected officials are intended to represent their constituents, when they choose not to vote, are they not in derelection of their duty? I would certainly consider this a form of nonfeasance. 


Are state politicians really not voting when, in fact, they should be? People can miss all sorts of things. Democrat defenders of Bobbi Jo Champion claimed he had "family business back home" and could not vote on the gay marriage Constitutional amendment. We could ignore the fact that his district in predominately African American, a community that appears to support homosexual oppression.It's an astute political move enabling him to keep the label of a "progressive" within his party, while simultaneously prevent a primary threat in his own district. Senator Obama also chose to not vote on most controversial bills while running for President, so there appears to be legitimacy and precedence for not voting. 


Which elected officials "forget" to vote?


As you can see from the graphs below, most politicians miss out on voting. Next time you forget to vote, remember that even our politicians do not consistently. The average house DFLer missed 6.4 votes in this year's session(8.7 in the senate). The average house Republican missed 2.8 votes (3 in the senate). The clear outliers are who I would like to point out. 


There were a total of 164 bills (111 in the senate) that were voted on during their third reading. In the Minnesota House, On the Republican side you have Steve Smith (Mound) who missed 25 votes, Rod Hamilton (Mountain Lake) 21 votes, and Bob Gunther (Fairmont) 19 votes. On the DFL side, Carolyn Laine missed 45 votes, Bobby Jo Champion (Minneapolis) missed 37 votes, Kerry Gauthier (Duluth) 21 votes, and Karen Clark (Minneapolis - 61A) 19 votes.  The Minnesotan Senate was much more proficient in completing their duties.However, Republican Senator Geoff Michel (Edina) missed 12 votes, and DFLer Senator Roger Reinert (Duluth) missed 40 votes. 


During the government shut down, Governor Mark Dayton and some state senators and representatives are foregoing pay. Would you believe ALL of those mentioned above, except Carolyn Laine, are collecting paychecks during the government shutdown? This should be appalling to the constituents in these districts where your elected officials are refusing to fully represent you.    


In a perfect world, these politicians would be docked pay for not doing their job. For all the talk from Republicans about government being run like a business, it never applies to politicians. They are not the ones out of work right now and collecting unemployment. They are not worried about paying bills this month or next when the rental rebates are being held back. Politicians seem to be the last to feel the pain of the people, living in an immaculate bubble of delusions. 


Another solution that would still allow districts to be represented in each vote, would be to have alternate representatives. The candidate who received the second most votes could easily do this. If a Democrat or Republican chose not to vote for their district, one of their opponents could step in. This would be a boon for constituents who lack a voice in the legislature, to include major and minor parties. (Let me interrupt with a shout out: I'd love to have fellow Greens Farheen Hakeem and Dan Craigie at the state capitol to voice what is being ignored by the corporate parties!) 


There are currently no actions to take against these officials apart from a recall. Twenty-five voters in a district could sign a petition stating their purpose for recalling, submit it to the secretary of state and get things started to recall their malfeasant elected official. If approved, there would need to be an organized petition effort to attain 25% of those who voted in the district's election. This is not an impossible goal if constituents are angry enough. If the government shut down lasts for too long, what was once unthinkable will manifest. 

America's car-centric short-sightedness clunking along

Now that the US taxpayer's own a good portion of GM, the thought is we should subsidize the purchasing of cars. The justification for this is that handing car owners $4500 to trade in vehicles for those with better mileage is that fewer oil will be consumed. The problem with this is that it perpetuates the belief that "all Americans must own cars." The very notion of not owning a car is still regarded as suspect, and peraps even un-American. Yet more Americans will need to abandon their cars for our nation to transform to a lower energy society.

Oil is at half what it was a year ago ( $71 a barrel ) , but we are also in the worst recession since the 30s. Once the economy begins to pick up again, the price of oil will skyrocket again. Anyone that is car dependent will be whining for even more car-centric subsidies like the cash-for-clunkers program, but for oil.

Yet, the much touted "cash-for-clunkers" program is a measly $7 subsidy per taxpayer. At $4500 per clunker, that comes to one beneficiary per 643 taxpayers. Right now this is very cheap and has received a lot of hype. Unless Congress decides to throw more money at this car-centric program, it will run out again within weeks. And if the majority of taxpayers want a bite at this program, it would take a significant portion of the Federal budget. And how can a car

-subsidizing program end our addiction to oil when none are electric?

Naturally, Republicans are starting to oppose this program. Governor Tim Pawlenty also opposes the clunkers program because it takes many used vehicles out of the market. He believes this will hurt the poor who could have used the cars currently being recycled. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas also opposes because it will further burden future generations with pointless debt. And interestingly, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy voted against more clunker money because he did not see enough evidence the program was working.

One argument conservatives make against building more transit is that they could just spend the money buying cars for everyone. This argument is pointless for those who are too young/old to drive, cannot afford gas/repairs/insurance, and who care about our environment. Yet, altering their argument, one might say about the clunkers program: why not buy everyone bikes?

A "cash-for-rusters" program. Trade in any working vehicle or rusty bicycle for a shiny new bike. This would greatly reduce oil consumption and cost far less per beneficiary than the clunkers program. It would appease conservatives railing against wasteful spending because it is cheaper. Environmentally bikes clearly use less gasoline to produce than even the most energy efficient vehicle. America needs a pro-bicycle program, not more car-centric subsidies.

( Top image produced by Ken Avidor )

History made Sept. 30 as National Debt hits $10 Trillion

History was made on Tuesday Sept. 30, 2008, the last day of Fiscal Year 2008 for U.S. Government accounting purposes, as the National Debt crept up over $10 Trillion for the first time ever. There was no fanfare, no balloons, no real mention of it in the newspapers. This was an important milestone in American history and it went by as an average day.

On Sept. 30th, the total debt amounted to $10,024,724,896,912.49

Obama vs. Cynthia and Rosa

I know many out there think Obama is 100% perfect - but take a look at his history. He's not very democratic, in order to get elected in Chicago he kicked his opponent off the ballot on technicalities. More info here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/28/how_chicago_shaped_obama_a_look

Now if you compare Obama to Cynthia McKinney the differences are:

OBAMA....

• Opposes trade with Cuba

• Is against outlawing the Death Penalty

• Opposes friendly relations with Russia in building a missile defense shield in former Soviet states

• Is against Fair Trade ( He prefers "free" trade )

• Opposes campaign financing for his own campaign ( supports it in others )

• Adamantly supports a Mexican Border Wall

• Believes there should be more Presidential powers, such as the line item veto

• Is supportive of the USA PATRIOT Act ( especially wire tapping )

• Opposes Single Payer Universal Healthcare ( what they have in Europe and Costa Rica )

• Supports America's addiction to oil by allowing Off-shore oil drilling
  

Source: http://www.2008electionprocon.org/summarychart.htm










Cynthia McKinney is firmly on the opposite side of these issues from Obama. If you believe in a peaceful world, building walls and missiles is not the way to do it. Obama is just as much an enemy of peace as Bush, as scary as that may sound. If he is elected, which he probably will, the true Obama will become much more apparent.

The French Model....

In Washington, there always seems to be a lot of comparison to France. When we went to war with Iraq, France become the butt of jokes because they opposed it. Conservatives even declared war on everything French - until they elected a conservative. Now they like things French - especially their nuclear program!

Cynthia also supports a French model - cutting our bloated and wasteful military budget. France is cutting their military budget by 15%. If we did that and half started paying for the National Debt, the other half could be used for free college and health-care. We could be using more of our money at home instead of guarding such wonders of the world like Iceland ( no offense Björk ) and Kazakhstan.

Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are part of a Global movement for peace, known worldwide as the Green Party. Obama and McCain both support a global arms race. They believe in the "peace through strength" mantra with a clear destiny towards failure. It is time to truly heal the wounds the 20th Century has left us with. Building walls and bombs do not create Global Security. With 35% of the world living on less than $1 a day, Global Security will come through ending poverty - not bombing the poor. It is time for America to envision and implement the path to a more compassionate world, for both ourselves and all those on Earth.

Check Cynthia and Rosa out at www.runcynthiarun.org


Peace,

-Kevin

Jesse Ventura ( Or None-of-the-above ) for U.S. Senate!

Did I get to meet Jesse Ventura at the Mall of America tonight? You betcha! And of course, got a nifty autograph of his in his new book. I even got to the mall using light-rail that would not exist yet but for Jesse.

He was able to state much of his beliefs on the current state of our political system: it isn't working. The politicians and media are owned by the interests of making money. They are focused on short-term gain rather than long-term sustainment. And if there is one person who can create a truly multipartisan campaign of supporters, it's Jesse Ventura.

He discussed how NOTA (None of the Above) should be on the ballot, and would give voters the right to show their disapproval of those running for office. He discussed how the two-party system supported by an entertainment-based news media feed a corrupt system. Few wish to question how sad a state our nation is in, but a leader is one who asks the hard questions and demands better results from our government.

If he were to run for U.S. Senate, he has one issue that neither major party can dispute: the National Debt. How can they claim they didn't support this? It is holding America back, and the interest alone is just under 20% of our annual taxes! Democrats want to continue spending unchecked without new taxes, and Republicans want to cut the governments income without cutting budgets! Pathetic! Both Norm Coleman and Al Franken are highly supportive of maintaining the status-quo.

What we need in Washington is a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget - and no exceptions. If there is a war or economic depression - tough, raise taxes or cut spending. Our national budget has been living in fantasy land and reality will hit us hard when this illusion can no longer be maintained.

One of Jesse's ideas that I disagree with is that we should stop giving aid to poorer nations. I think that it is imperative that the wealthy nations improve the lives of those that are not. It would reduce human populations growth, eradicate malaria, and reduce the future likelihood of terrorism. I also believe it is the right thing to do, and will continue to support a Global Marshall Plan. We can easily do this by ending our imperialism and bringing ALL of our troops home - even Germany and South Korea. The United Nations should be the global peace-keepers - not the USA or China.

One of Jesse's media opponents decided to try to ask a question. But Jesse made clear that he would speak to no Minnesotan media. He was especially angry at one Star Trib columnist known as CJ. It is odd, I read the Star Tribune a few times a week and never really read her columns. I notice those by the awful Katherine Kersten and the decent Doug Grow among others. Who is this CJ? Anyways, she is someone who decided to make up a story about Jesse's son having parties in the Governor's Mansion. It was bogus, but she ran on this sensational story anyways. The rest of the media used her column as a source, and Jesse has hated the Minnesotan media for this very personal attack on his family ever since. Can't say I blame him, but the media don't always get their facts correct. It's amazing how they choose to only show so much of a story, or cut out illuminating context. But sensation sells right?

One issue Jesse doesn't really go into detail in his book or in any public appearance is Peak Oil. This is something that is important, especially if we are at the point. Okay, call it an undulating plateau - but it is still Peak Oil. But fortunately Jesse is paying attention to Global Warming and believes we must act - and he actually means that he would. Does he unplug his "vampire energy" sources? You betcha, and he noticed his energy usage drop immediately. I think it imperative that we elect a leaders who actually would enact a carbon tax and end our hydrocarbon addiction.

I highly recommend anyone interested in populist politics or simply the state of America read Jesse's book - Don't Start the Revolution Without Me! But read it one chapter at a time and stop to reflect a while before beginning a new chapter. I do not think it is meant to be read all at once. As a Minnesotan, I am still proud that he was our Governor. Would Norm Coleman or Skip Humphrey really have helped the future of Minnesota as Jesse did? No, they would not. And reading this new book gives one an even better appreciation of his time in office .

GOP YouTube Debate

The night after the YouTube debate, I decided to log onto YouTube and check it out myself. I was surprised at how lively this debate was, considering how much Republican's were initially reluctant to try the new format out. GOPers do not like to be asked questions by fictitious characters such as snowmen.

The worst candidate was easily Mitt Romney, who waffled more questions than I thought possible. His lack of answers makes me believe he supports torture, will enforce marriages through various schemes, and a police state. This after he states he is "more liberal than Ted Kennedy." Anyone who adamantly supports Romney after this debate, is fooling themselves and supporting an opportunist.

The candidate who held is own was probably Guiliani, though he is despicable on the issues, but actually answers questions the majority of the time. McCain seemed like an angry white male the entire time. Huckabee made a humorous statement: that Jesus would never foolish enough to run for public office. ( which is why Ajahn Brahm has stated numerous times that any President of the United States probably does not have good karma )

Ron Paul was clearly the most divisive of candidates in the GOP currently. He states the obvious and the crowd is shocked. Would America be okay if the Chinese were occupying the United States to free us from a dictator? Even after this dictator were deposed, would we be happy with such an occupation - especially if they were then importing massive amounts of our coal? The crowd remained rather mute, apart from those who agreed with him. The question has yet to be answered by GOP supporters, that is if they didn't ignore it completely.

The fact that the military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul is not enough for those who control the GOP. They can make the claim that he is hated by the military instead, and because Americans are so disconnected from those in the service, many will believe it. Yet this veteran supports him enthusiastically if he is able to do what he says. And if you pay attention to how the media attacks Paul, it becomes obvious that as one put it "an increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened." As it should, because not all Americans are going to continue being complacent in our current environment.

National Debt Clock

The Republican Party is clearly not going to end its debt spending crusade. The only things they plan to cut are "non-defense related." If you are going to cut government spending, you cut ALL of it. If we are overspending by 10%, then cut all budgets by that amount. If you need more for the military, then negotiate cuts from other places in the budget. The only solution to this is a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget, with no provisions for war and no excuses. If America goes to war, then the extra money should come through taxes or other such fund-raising - not through debt. Excessive military spending comprises the entirety of our national debt, and the GOP refuses to acknowledge this fact. Their solutions to our National Debt is currently non-existent.

A Republican president cannot make abortion illegal, make guns available freely, or deport immigrants. The President can easily shape the size of our military overseas. If we bring home the troops from Iraq, Korea, Japan, and even Iceland we can begin to reduce the strain on our troops and Federal budget. Our National Debt could be paid off and Social Security made solvent. By the time the Baby Boomers all retire, we can say we solved the crisis and didn't have to raise taxes. We may even be able to reduce taxes! But our imperialistic empire cannot sustain itself on the backs of the working class, and must be reigned in now or we will all pay the price.

Many take issue with Paul's stance on immigration. He would like America to remain sovereign, and send those outside of our system back. There needs to be a way for temporary workers to come to America. Yet our immigration problem reflects a lack of discipline on the part of other nations to improve the conditions of their people.

A simple issue that reflects a lack of government planning is population growth. Estados Unidos has 14.16 births/1,000 population while in Mexico it is 20.36 ( 2007 CIA estimates). Mexico needs to promote family planning. Only when birthrates drop can jobs growth catch up with population growth - or surpass it as it has in the US. So is enforcing immigration laws and implementing comprehensive solutions can make nations more accountable for such inaction. Liberals tend to forget this frequently, but also believe we should not force other nations to do what we want them to.